The real reason American public transportation is such a disaster - Page 3

SkahHigh · #41 Posted **Aug 15, 2015, 2:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brickell

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

Not many, Montreal doesn't have that many "bad neighbourhoods" to start with... Maybe just one Saint-Michel, a few in Hochelaga, one in Park-Extension... Our worst areas are nothing compared to the worst areas in most American cities, and that's the case for pretty much every major Canadian city.

For example: Montreal (1.8M) recorded 28 murders in 2013. By comparison, a similar-sized city like Philly (1.5M) recorded 247 murders that same year. That makes a big difference I believe.

Speaking about the L, I remember riding the Blue Line from O'Hare to Clark/Lake last november and noticing not only that the train was half-empty, but that the riders mainly seemed like poor people or students. The Kennedy Expressway however (running parallel to the line for a while) was completely jammed.

NorthernDancer · #42 Posted **Aug 15, 2015, 4:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would think Montreal has a higher core employment share than Chicago

What are you basing this on? I thought you'd never even been to Montreal. At least that's what you implied in another thread.

NorthernDancer · #43 Posted **Aug 15, 2015, 4:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brickell

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

Shouldn't bad neighbourhoods be even more of an incentive to take transit over driving? Who wants to park their car in a bad neighbourhood where it might get stolen? Hell, just driving through a bad area, you could be carjacked while stopped at a red light.

Wooster · #44 Posted **Aug 15, 2015, 5:43 AM**

It's both cultural and urban form and transportation policy that are the difference I think.

I think in the US, compared to Canada, there's a stigma around transit as "being for poor people". If you take transit, it's because you just can't afford a car. In Canada, our transit ridership in cities is decidedly while collar. Much less class defined.

Canada was also I think a bit more progressive mid to late century with Transportation and Land Use policy. We built fewer freeways into our downtowns, we're a bit less sprawled on average. Even more spread out cities like Calgary in Canada have purposely made driving downtown (which itself is very concentrated in terms of metro employment) very difficult and expensive dating back to the 60s.

Let's just consider this for a second, Calgary a metro of ~1.4 million has Light Rail ridership of 333,800 weekday trips, while Portland, a metro of ~2.3 million (and certainly one of the better mid-sized transit cities in the US) has LRT ridership of 116,200 weekday trips.

brickell · #45 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

Shouldn't bad neighbourhoods be even more of an incentive to take transit over driving? Who wants to park their car in a bad neighbourhood where it might get stolen? Hell, just driving through a bad area, you could be carjacked while stopped at a red light.

No. You have a backwards. People don't drive through the bad neighborhoods. They float above them on highways and interstates, securely encased in their aluminum box. People purposely avoid these neighborhoods, because they can. They park there cars in secure garages and lots where they work. And downtowns/cbds per se aren't the bad neighborhoods we're talking about.

In transit, you're actively mingling with people. So the"gangbangers", homeless, drug addicts and "others" have no choice but to ride in the same car with you, sit next to you, even try to talk to you. Many Americans simply won't put up with that.

NorthernDancer · #46 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 6:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brickell

No. You have a backwards. People don't drive through the bad neighborhoods. They float above them on highways and interstates, securely encased in their aluminum box. People purposely avoid these neighborhoods, because they can.

No, not every bad neighbourhood has highways/interstates floating above them so they can be avoided. Some do, some don't.

Quote:

They park there cars in secure garages and lots where they work. And downtowns/cbds per se aren't the bad neighborhoods we're talking about.

No. I never said the downtowns/cbds were the bad neighbourhoods.

Crawford · #47 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 6:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

What are you basing this on? I thought you'd never even been to Montreal. At least that's what you implied in another thread.

I haven't been to Montreal.

What does visiting a city have to do with ascertaining employment share?

Crawford · #48 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by niwell

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.

I think this is a good example of what drives transit usage. It's really about making driving difficult, not really making transit usage easier.

Comparing Toronto and Chicago, if anything, Chicago has a "better" transit network. At the least, one could say they're roughly comparable (and I think this a quite generous comparison; Chicago has significantly more extensive transit infrastructure, particularly rail infrastructure). Yet Chicago is far more car oriented, largely because it's possible to use a car in Chicago, and in Toronto it isn't.

Toronto doesn't have many freeways, it doesn't have many through-streets (most streets outside of major arterials are dead-end streets), parking is limited and expensive, driving is expensive. There would be no practical way to commute by car from the suburbs to downtown during regular work hours. In Chicago, this would be possible.

My sister, who used to live in Chicago, both lived and worked downtown, yet she drove most days, as her employment offered parking. This isn't the norm for downtown workers, but it's common enough to cut down on transit usage. Apartment towers almost always have parking, office buildings usually have parking. It can be done.

Nouvellecosse · #49 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 7:32 PM**

^ Yes that is so true. When I visited Toronto a couple months ago it was during a road trip so I used a car downtown and getting there and back combined with the parking nearly gave me an aneurysm. And it wasn't rush hour or even rush hour "shoulder". And the parking cost me $12 for only about 1/2 day which seemed to be the cheapest I could find. I'm sure it would be less per day if it was a monthly pass but still costly.

I thought it was really wonderful.

Beedok · #50 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think this is a good example of what drives transit usage. It's really about making driving difficult, not really making transit usage easier.

Comparing Toronto and Chicago, if anything, Chicago has a "better" transit network. At the least, one could say they're roughly comparable (and I think this a quite generous comparison; Chicago has significantly more extensive transit infrastructure, particularly rail infrastructure).

I'm not sure if it's about Canada making driving hard so much as the US making driving easier by bulldozing neighbourhoods for free ways.

Also I'm not sure rail is all that important. Ottawa manages some of the highest transit usage in Canada with only one not overly useful rial line. Toronto's buses and streetcar system are pretty heavily used (I suppose the streetcars are technically rail though).

NorthernDancer · #51 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 8:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I haven't been to Montreal.

What does visiting a city have to do with ascertaining employment share?

So what are you basing the statement that Montreal has a larger share of employment downtown than Chicago does? I'm pretty sure you just made that up, because you haven't backed it up with anything.

According to Colliers, downtown Chicago has 157 million square feet of office space, while downtown Montreal has 49 million square feet of office space. So Montreal has way more than 1/3rd Chicago's population, but less than 1/3rd Chicago's downtown office space.

So like I said. It looks like you just made that "fact" up.

mhays · #52 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 3:33 PM**

Data like Colliers' isn't comparable from one city to another. Their definition of "downtown" can be a 20-1 land ratio. They can count 90% of the inventory or 70%. "Office" definitions vary.

But the numbers sound plausible in this case. Chicago has a massive downtown by any measure.

Crawford · #53 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

So what are you basing the statement that Montreal has a larger share of employment downtown than Chicago does? I'm pretty sure you just made that up, because you haven't backed it up with anything.

According to Colliers, downtown Chicago has 157 million square feet of office space, while downtown Montreal has 49 million square feet of office space. So Montreal has way more than 1/3rd Chicago's population, but less than 1/3rd Chicago's downtown office space.

So like I said. It looks like you just made that "fact" up.

I gave you my opinion, nothing more.

You responded with some random office space stats, that have nothing to do with the question of which city has a higher share of employment within a regional core.

If you can figure out a way to create such a definition, then we're all ears. I suspect no one on SSP has the data to do so.

Crawford · #54 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 5:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'm not sure if it's about Canada making driving hard so much as the US making driving easier by bulldozing neighbourhoods for free ways.

Well, yeah, same difference. It isn't relative transit quality, it's relative driving difficulty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

Also I'm not sure rail is all that important. Ottawa manages some of the highest transit usage in Canada with only one not overly useful rial line. Toronto's buses and streetcar system are pretty heavily used (I suppose the streetcars are technically rail though).

I agree that rail (really transit overall) isn't key. It's how difficult you make it to drive.

Nouvellecosse · #55 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I gave you my opinion, nothing more.

You responded with some random office space stats, that have nothing to do with the question of which city has a higher share of employment within a regional core.

If you can figure out a way to create such a definition, then we're all ears. I suspect no one on SSP has the data to do so.

I think it's reasonable to ask what you're basing such an opinion on though. If it isn't official stats (and I agree comparable stats to show full employment may not exist) and you haven't visited one of the cities so there's no personal experience there, then what? Is there other literature that you've read about the subject?

Beedok · #56 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Well, yeah, same difference. It isn't relative transit quality, it's relative driving difficulty.

I just think it's better to call it the US making it very easy to drive. I mean Canada's still pretty drivable by global standards.

NorthernDancer · #57 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I gave you my opinion, nothing more.

No, employment share is based on facts, not "opinion".

Quote:

You responded with some random office space stats, that have nothing to do with the question of which city has a higher share of employment within a regional core.

I'm using office space as a proxy for employment. I'm backing up my opinion with something, even if it doesn't necessarily prove which has the higher employment share. You're backing up your opinion with nothing, as you've proven to have zero knowledge of Montreal.

So I ask again, what are you basing your statements on? Other than your "opinion". If it's nothing, just be honest and state that you made it up.

NorthernDancer · #58 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think it's reasonable to ask what you're basing such an opinion on though.

Nothing. As he does 90% of the time, he just made it up. He offered no stats or links to back up what he said. And he's displayed zero knowledge of Montreal.

In all likelihood he's wrong, and Chicago has a much higher percentage of its regional population working downtown than Montreal.

SkahHigh · #59 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 8:07 PM**

Chicago's CBD is much more important, it's not difficult to see... Just look at how the Chicago L system is made, every single line ends at the Loop, same with Metra. Chicago's rail transit network is extremely Downtown-centered. The Montreal Metro and Toronto Subway networks are much more about getting people around the city than getting them Downtown.

To demonstrate my point:

Someone in Chicago living near Irving Park Station (Brown Line) would need to go all the way Downtown and take the Green Line to get to work at Cicero Station, or take the bus.

http://www.subwaynut.com/chicago/map.gif

Someone in Montreal living near Monk Station (Green Line) would only need to transfer at Lionel-Groulx to get to work at Snowdon (Orange Line).

http://www.stm.info/sites/all/module...nteractive.gif

Nouvellecosse · #60 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 8:46 PM**

How is that any different than Chicago? Someone living at Indiana (Green) would only need to transfer at Roosevelt to get to Ashland (Orange).

The only real difference in Montreal is the Blue line, which is the only cross town line in the two cities.