The real reason American public transportation is such a disaster

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by seaJ

I'd like to see the numbers in comparison to other large countries with huge populations, huge land mass and multiple big cities that isn't a communist country. Brazil and Russia are the closest. It's great that such and such European country the size of Vermont with one big city and 6 million inhabitants has amazing public transit. Or if you're Canada you are most likely within 100 miles of the US border and living within one of 3 metros (sorry Calgary) most of the rest is too cold or not arable for agriculture and therefore Canada is highly urbanized along the border.

Sometimes I wonder if the US had a population of 40 million, had only 4 big cities in the north (let's pretend the entire southern half of the US was uninhabitable desert) if those cities would have great public transit?

How is the overall population of the nation an issue? How is a city of 2 million in Germany able to have better transit because of being a nation of 80 million? Surely the US with it's massive resources could better afford infrastructure? Why do fewer metros help either? Wouldn't more examples of how to do it right be better?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Beedok

How is the overall population of the nation an issue? How is a city of 2 million in Germany able to have better transit because of being a nation of 80 million? Surely the US with it's massive resources could better afford infrastructure? Why do fewer metros help either? Wouldn't more examples of how to do it right be better?

The U.S. has excellent infrastructure for mobility, that isn't the issue. It's that we don't have good public transportation. Germany just has a different modal share.

And the real issue in the U.S. isn't that we have poor public transit (though we do), it's that we don't have a reason to take transit. You don't build transit share by improving transit, you build it by making it harder to drive. There are tons of studies on the topic, and academics find that it's much more effective to reduce the incentive to drive than to increase the level of transit (in other words, if you want a transit oriented city, stop building subway lines and start taxing the hell out of auto usage).

People in the NYC region have twice the rate of transit usage as anywhere else in the U.S. for basically one reason- cars are impractical for the lifestyles of millions. It's not that they love taking the bus/train moreso than people in Dallas or wherever. Other major metros have pretty good transit too, but they don't have similar transit share, because driving is a reasonable option for most. In NYC, driving is impractical for millions.

To take Dallas, they have added (or are adding) hundreds of miles of rail, yet transit share has actually declined. It's because there's little reason to not drive, unless you're poor or a urbanist geek. Then there are parts of NYC with no rail, yet higher transit share than anywhere outside of NYC, because driving would be a pain for most.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jd3189

All there is to do is find a way to convince people to give their cars a rest once in a while.

Double (or triple) the price of gas, eliminate street parking, tax parking lots, and add congestion zones. Transit usage will soar and reach European levels in a relatively short time, even if transit continues to suck.

[seaJ]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You could do that type of rhetorical gymnastics with practically any argument though. Yes, the US is somewhat unique in that no other fully developed country has as large a population. The question is, what's the relevance? I mean, what exactly does the overall land area of the country have to do with the public transit in individual urban areas?

I don't know, like I said, I'd be interested in finding out. Maybe when a huge percentage of your respective country lives in one big city, public transit is not a concept to you but a reality that you see everyday and therefore you are more apt to use it and/or vote for its expansion.?

My point is exactly what you mentioned. The US is unique in it's size, demographics, development yet people always are comparing small countries in Europe with fairly homogenous populations or countries like Canada or Australia that are highly urbanized to the US. There is no other western country as big, as diverse, whose population is spread fairly evenly over a huge area to compare it to but i sure with there was. So we settle for US vs. Belgium, France, Sweden etc.

I don't imagine if Canada was populated head to toe with big cities that all of those big cities would have great public transit.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ But the assertion is pure conjecture as long as you haven't established what the relation between the size of the country and the transportation functionings of cities within it. If there was some clear mechanism we could point to that caused nation size to affect public transit then that would be different. In other words, if you make a comparison to Canada, what would change with the addition of new cities that would prevent them from functioning in a similar way to the existing ones?

When you say you're "interested in finding out" what the connection is, you're making the mistake of assuming there is one.

[seaJ]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ But the assertion is pure conjecture as long as you haven't established what the relation between the size of the country and the transportation functionings of cities within it. If there was some clear mechanism we could point to that caused nation size to affect public transit then that would be different. In other words, if you make a comparison to Canada, what would change with the addition of new cities that would prevent them from functioning in a similar way to the existing ones?

When you say you're "interested in finding out" what the connection is, you're making the mistake of assuming there is one.

No. I'm interested in finding out IF there's a connection. You don't have to agree with my assertion.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

First, there is the undeniable issue of race. In the vast majority of US cities, transit is seen as a poor man's option which invariable means black.
Second, US cities sprawl a huge amount making transit more difficult to deliver.

Mostly the first. Partly the 2nd. Everything else is just chicken scratch.
sad but true.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by seaJ

The US is unique in it's size, demographics, development yet people always are comparing small countries in Europe with fairly homogenous populations or countries like Canada or Australia that are highly urbanized to the US.

Wrong. The United States is 81% urban. Canada is only 80% urban.

http://kff.org/global-indicator/urban-population/

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by seaJ

Or if you're Canada you are most likely within 100 miles of the US border and living within one of 3 metros (sorry Calgary

Wrong. Nowhere near 50% of Canada lives in its three largest metros. So in Canada you are not "most likely" living within one of 3 metros.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

Wrong. Nowhere near 50% of Canada lives in its three largest metros. So in Canada you are not "most likely" living within one of 3 metros.

It takes the top 9 to get that 50% doesn't it?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by seaJ

No. I'm interested in finding out IF there's a connection. You don't have to agree with my assertion.

Now I'm lost. If you're just trying explore if there's a connection but haven't drawn any conclusions yet, then what are you asserting?

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

For the U.S, it seems more like a matter of car-loving culture. Public transit is seen as a negative thing (when it shouldn't) and for these reasons you actually see people opposing to some projects (for example: the Milwaukee Streetcar). In Canada (and most other places in the world), people actually push for more transit, especially in the main cities.

It's not normal that a system like the Chicago L has a daily ridership lower than 800K with nearly 150 stations. For comparison, the Montreal Metro system has a daily ridership of 1.2 million with 68 stations. I believe this demonstrates the struggle of mass transit in America given that Chicago has huge ridership potential.

Luckily, New York, San Francisco, DC and Seattle are proof that mass transit can succeed in a car-loving culture. It'll just take time for some cities to adapt and mentalities to change.

centralization of employment helps. plenty of chicago's jobs are outside of the core, not the case for Montreal where everything is downtown.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

There are several issues that face American transit systems.

First, there is the undeniable issue of race. In the vast majority of US cities, transit is seen as a poor man's option which invariable means black.
Second, US cities sprawl a huge amount making transit more difficult to deliver.
Third, Americans more than anyone like their freedom and their love affair with cars exemplifies this.
Fourth, gas is very cheap in the US especially when compared to incomes so the monetary savings of taking transit are not as great.
Fifth, US cities are very decentralized and non-downtown employment usually means free parking.
Sixth, US cities have huge freeway systems and particularly downtown which is lacking in most other world cities. US cities uniquely have freeways that go right thru the heart of their cities which is rare in other countries.
Seventh, not meaning to sound offensive, but few American cities are worth going to except for work. Most US cities are completely dead after 5pm and even on weekends.
Eighth, American cities are dangerous and due to lack of pedestrian traffic in most US cities. people feel vulnerable waiting for transit.

Except for cities that already have decent transit systems and OK ridership {and they are few and far between} you could triple frequency levels and still have little impact on ridership due to the reasons above.

All valid points.

[dc_denizen]

except this:

Seventh, not meaning to sound offensive, but few American cities are worth going to except for work. Most US cities are completely dead after 5pm and even on weekends.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

centralization of employment helps. plenty of chicago's jobs are outside of the core, not the case for Montreal where everything is downtown.

Hmmm I wouldn't say that, Chicago is after all the second financial center in the U.S. I think the Loop is a lot more important in Chicagoland than Downtown Montreal in the GMA. One difference might be that three of Montreal's four universities are located Downtown. I couldn't find any commute statistics though.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

centralization of employment helps. plenty of chicago's jobs are outside of the core, not the case for Montreal where everything is downtown.

Setting aside the dubious nature of this claim (perhaps confusing Montreal with Calgary?) we're talking about downtowns and metro areas with an enormous size difference. Your suggestion would be valid on a percapita basis, or if a person was trying to explain why one city's downtown was a larger employment centre than another (like comparing LA to Chicago), but considering the huge size of the Chicago CBD compared to Montreal CBD, that doesn't make sense.

If we were discussing Chicago only having 50% higher ridership when the city is 100% larger then ok. But not actually having lower ridership when the Chicago CBD is a much larger employment centre in a much larger city.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

centralization of employment helps. plenty of chicago's jobs are outside of the core, not the case for Montreal where everything is downtown.

I doubt the percentage of metro-area employment that is downtown is any higher in Montreal than it is in Chicago. I know for certain that Chicago has a much higher percentage of it's metro-area office space downtown than Toronto.

And no, not "everything is downtown" in Montreal. Not even close. The suburbs are vast and have significant employment.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

I doubt the percentage of metro-area employment that is downtown is any higher in Montreal than it is in Chicago. I know for certain that Chicago has a much higher percentage of it's metro-area office space downtown than Toronto.

I would think Montreal has a higher core employment share than Chicago, and that does play some role in transit figures.

But the main reason is that Montreal is in Canada, and Chicago is in the U.S., and the U.S. has cheap gas, cheap cars, and lots of freeways, and Canada comparatively doesn't, so the U.S. is just more auto oriented overall.

[brickell]

How many "bad neighborhoods" does montreal's transit go through before it gets to downtown? How many in Chicago?

[niwell]

I could be wrong, but I believe that Chicagoland has a greater concentration of employment in the core than both Montreal and Toronto. Montreal certainly has a large amount of employment outside the core in massive industrial parks and the port. At the end of the day they probably aren't too different. The only Canadian city where it's appreciably higher would (I'm guessing) be Calgary.

Regardless, a lot of it comes down to the fact that the U.S. just is more auto-oriented. I've ridden the El several times at rush hour and while it's packed, the demographics are much different than the Toronto subway at peak periods. Plenty of downtown workers, but not nearly as many suits. There's also clearly more parking in downtown Chicago, albeit in parking structures.

Not a single one of my coworkers drives to work (including senior management) and while a bit more than half live downtown there are several that have daunting GO+TTC commutes of over an hour. Granted, they drive to the GO station instead of taking local suburban transit.