Public Transport in the U.S

[Vouthon]

The U.S. appears to lack public transport in general compared with Europe. Why?

More than 3 million Londoners use public transport in the capital every day, in the absence of which the City would grind to a halt.

In the U.S. hardly anybody seems to use it nor do they have much of a choice, the services being so meagre. Why?

I’m guessing it has something to do with rampant individualism and preferring to travel alone

 

[TomFromMD]

In the dense cities (NY, Boston, etc), tons of people use public transit. A lot has to do with whether a city grew before or after the automobile.

 

[marbleartist]

In my experience, it depends on the city. In New York City the public transportation is excellent, the parking scarce and few of my friends (perhaps none?! Can’t think of any) even own a car! In San Francisco I relied totally on Muni (the public transportation system) with no difficulty at all- but again, the city is very compact. In Houston, a spread out city, there is public transportation but because of the vast area it is more convenient to drive. New Orleans is expanding the street cars and has a fairly reliable bus but not much going to the outer areas. In Austin, there are separate bus lanes and biking is a wonderful option. Again, it just depends on the area of the country and the size of the city- many will use it if it’s available.

 

[Usige]

It really depends on where one is. In general it has to do with when cities were built. The north east US has much more public transit then most of the west. Something like 70% of residents in New York City don’t have a driver’s license. Compare that to say San Francisco where I’d guess 95% of the adult population have a license.

Okay so what’s the difference between east and west? When the cities hit their boom growth. Most western US cities only started growing in the last 60 years… after cars became affordable for the average family. They are also built in wide open spaces where it is cheaper to build horizontally vs vertically. If you look at the skylines on NYC vs Denver, Austin, or LA you would see that there are far fewer 20+ floor sky scrapers the further west you go. That sprawl can make public transit impractical because of lack of population density. Figure that London has about 5100 people/sq km vs Denver at 1500.

Until you hit a specific population density it is not practical.

 

[GEddie]

Generally, the more urbanized an area becomes, the more mass transit will be desirable.

In NYC, the skyscraper and the subways appeared around the same time.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Padres1969]

It really depends on where one is. In general it has to do with when cities were built. The north east US has much more public transit then most of the west. Something like 70% of residents in New York City don’t have a driver’s license. Compare that to say San Francisco where I’d guess 95% of the adult population have a license.

Okay so what’s the difference between east and west? When the cities hit their boom growth. Most western US cities only started growing in the last 60 years… after cars became affordable for the average family. They are also built in wide open spaces where it is cheaper to build horizontally vs vertically. If you look at the skylines on NYC vs Denver, Austin, or LA you would see that there are far fewer 20+ floor sky scrapers the further west you go. That sprawl can make public transit impractical because of lack of population density. Figure that London has about 5100 people/sq km vs Denver at 1500.

Until you hit a specific population density it is not practical.

Don’t know about that. San Francisco has the 5th lowest number of households with cars (31% of SF households have no car). Only NY, Boston, Philly, and DC have higher percentages of non-driving households. What it really comes down to is density. Cities that are denser tend to have better public transit. San Francisco is the only city in California with a really extensive public transit system that goes to most parts of the city in some form or another with more than just regular buses. And that’s in large part to it being a compact east coast style city on the west coast. Contrast that with San Jose 45 miles away or Los Angeles which have comparatively small downtown cores with miles and miles of light urban and suburban sprawl around them. There’s no real obvious places to build any kind of advanced mass transit to or from. People are spread all over. Most big cities in the US are like that because our cities have had more room to grow out rather than up as the cities in Europe do.

As for public transit outside cities, a large part of the issue there is simply the size of the US. Remember, the US is twice the size of the European Union. And the bulk of the US population is gathered on the two coasts and the Great Lakes region. There are thousands of miles separating these regions and hundreds of miles in many cases separating the population concentrations even in the more regional areas. Linking them all is cost prohibitive. Just look at the effort to build high speed rail in California. And that’s only one rail line between California’s two largest population centers.

 

[stinkcat_14]

For public transportation to be desirable there are two things that are needed. A dense population in order to at least cover the operating expenses, second the public transportation has to be either faster or more convenient than driving. Our population is much more dispersed for a lot of public transportation.

 

[Usige]

Don’t know about that. San Francisco has the 5th lowest number of households with cars (31% of SF households have no car). Only NY, Boston, Philly, and DC have higher percentages of non-driving households. What it really comes down to is density. Cities that are denser tend to have better public transit. San Francisco is the only city in California with a really extensive public transit system that goes to most parts of the city in some form or another with more than just regular buses. And that’s in large part to it being a compact east coast style city on the west coast.

I assume that is those that live in SF not necessarily those who commute into the Bay Area?

SF itself has good public transportation, but it seemed nothing really covered the North Bay and the South bay had less that went where I needed to go, but i’m likely wrong. I was making that estimate based on the times I’ve had to work in Foster City or San Jose and the parking lot that is the 101 and San Mateo bridge.

 

[JimG]

When I lived briefly in New York City on the west side of Manhattan, I had no need of a car and would not have wanted one. The subway was sufficient to get wherever I needed to go. Whenever I was in Washington DC, the Metro was usually sufficient. But in Kansas City, in Los Angeles, in Santa Maria Ca., and thousands of other places, you could not get around without a car.

 

[stinkcat_14]

When I lived briefly in New York City on the west side of Manhattan, I had no need of a car and would not have wanted one. The subway was sufficient to get wherever I needed to go. Whenever I was in Washington DC, the Metro was usually sufficient. But in Kansas City, in Los Angeles, in Santa Maria Ca., and thousands of other places, you could not get around without a car.

It was the same when I lived in Chicago. If I wanted to go someplace in the city, a car was more hassle than it was a worth. I also lived in a moderately rural area and people who didn’t have a car were really stuck.

 

[Padres1969]

I assume that is those that live in SF not necessarily those who commute into the Bay Area?

SF itself has good public transportation, but it seemed nothing really covered the North Bay and the South bay had less that went where I needed to go, but i’m likely wrong. I was making that estimate based on the times I’ve had to work in Foster City or San Jose and the parking lot that is the 101 and San Mateo bridge.

That was SF proper. Obviously the Bay Area itself and the other major cities that make up the greater region (San Jose and its suburbs along with Oakland and its suburbs) are a different beast. Both Oakland and San Jose have very rudimentary public transit (and no real mass transit other than BART in the east bay and Caltrain linking the South Bay and SF), and what mass transit there is, is a vestige from earlier in the last century when San Francisco was the primary economic hub of the region which is no longer the case. Only exception being San Jose’s Light Rail which was designed far too late and with far too many compromises to be of much use. But again it’s a density issue Oakland is far less dense than San Francisco, and San Jose is essentially just one continuous light urban/suburban sprawl not unlike LA just a bit smaller.

Actually if anything the Bay Area is the perfect example of where and how public transit works, and where and why it doesn’t between the two biggest cities San Jose and San Francisco. San Jose is the larger, newer, but far more spread out and less constrained city and as such public transit really doesn’t work terribly well there. Instead Freeways, even with traffic, are the far more predominate way to get around (San Jose and it’s immediate suburbs have no less than 8 Freeways and 7 Expressways cris crossing them). San Francisco on the other hand is the smaller, older and far more dense city limited by the end of the penninsula it’s on that has grown out as far as it can. And coupled with the “freeway revolt” in the 60’s it has only 3 Freeways and no expressways (and the ones it has are limited to the south east corner of the city). Public transit ends up being not only a viable way to get around, but in many cases, the preferable way to do so.

 

[GEddie]

That was SF proper. Obviously the Bay Area itself and the other major cities that make up the greater region (San Jose and its suburbs along with Oakland and its suburbs) are a different beast. Both Oakland and San Jose have very rudimentary public transit (and no real mass transit other than BART in the east bay and Caltrain linking the South Bay and SF), and what mass transit there is, is a vestige from earlier in the last century when San Francisco was the primary economic hub of the region which is no longer the case. Only exception being San Jose’s Light Rail which was designed far too late and with far too many compromises to be of much use. But again it’s a density issue Oakland is far less dense than San Francisco, and San Jose is essentially just one continuous light urban/suburban sprawl not unlike LA just a bit smaller.

Actually if anything the Bay Area is the perfect example of where and how public transit works, and where and why it doesn’t between the two biggest cities San Jose and San Francisco. San Jose is the larger, newer, but far more spread out and less constrained city and as such public transit really doesn’t work terribly well there. Instead Freeways, even with traffic, are the far more predominate way to get around (San Jose and it’s immediate suburbs have no less than 8 Freeways and 5 Expressways cris crossing them). San Francisco on the other hand is the smaller, older and far more dense city limited by the end of the penninsula it’s on that has grown out as far as it can. And coupled with the “freeway revolt” in the 60’s it has only 3 Freeways and no expressways (and the ones it has are limited to the south east corner of the city). Public transit ends up being not only a viable way to get around, but in many cases, the preferable way to do so.

What is the difference between a Freeway and Expressway in CA?

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Do you guys think expanding mass transit could be a significant answer to poverty reduction and increasing social mobility and opportunity since many of the inner-city and urban poor and working class are limited to areas on concentrated poverty and crime (which limits investment and job creation? Do you think public transit could be a significant social justice issue?

 

[Sarcelle]

It was the same when I lived in Chicago. If I wanted to go someplace in the city, a car was more hassle than it was a worth. I also lived in a moderately rural area and people who didn’t have a car were really stuck.

Big cities like Philadelphia, DC, New York City and San Francisco have good public transportation. Smaller cities have some but are not as widely used.

Also in other countries, cars are more expensive and gas is more expensive, so it is more economically feasible to use public transportation.

 

[Sarcelle]

Do you guys think expanding mass transit could be a significant answer to poverty reduction and increasing social mobility and opportunity since many of the inner-city and urban poor and working class are limited to areas on concentrated poverty and crime (which limits investment and job creation? Do you think public transit could be a significant social justice issue?

Maybe. How do the blind, elderly or the handicapped get around?

There seems to be a mindset that public transportation is UnAmerican.

 

[powerofk]

Right. A lot of it does depend on when a given population center grew. With the exception of Detroit (which depended on the automotive industry for their economy), most large cities that had become large by the late 1800’s/early 1900’s were given grants to build public transportation systems by the federal government. By the second half of the 1900’s, grant money had been used up, and the feds were working on building the Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate highway system (which were developed to be an “American Autobahn”). But cities that grew later (such as Albuquerque, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Denver, etc. - primarily Western cities) had no money to build mass transit systems other than city buses. Even today, the cost of building such mass transit systems is cost-prohibitive, so late-blooming cities are primarily turning to light rail and/or Bus-Rapid-Transit (what I like to call “train-buses” - because they’re buses that run like light rail).

 

[Padres1969]

What is the difference between a Freeway and Expressway in CA?

Freeways are what you’d expect, large high speed (typically 65 mph) limited access roads with usually 2+ lanes in each direction, with exits, no at grade crossings, etc… that are owned, funded and operated by the state (or by the state with Fed assistance on Interstates and US Highways). And they are patrolled by the CHP. Examples in the South Bay being Interstates 280, 680, 880, US 101, CA 85, 87, 17, 237

Expressways (at least those in Santa Clara County where San Jose resides) are also large restricted access higher speed roads (typically 50 mph) with 2+ lanes in each direction. However they have mostly at grade crossings with a few grade separated crossings) which means they have traffic lights on them. They are typically owned, funded by and operated by the county. They are however still patrolled by the CHP like freeways and unlike normal city streets. Examples would be G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G8, G21.

 

[Usige]

Do you guys think expanding mass transit could be a significant answer to poverty reduction and increasing social mobility and opportunity since many of the inner-city and urban poor and working class are limited to areas on concentrated poverty and crime (which limits investment and job creation? Do you think public transit could be a significant social justice issue?

I don’t know if it would make a huge impact or not. I guess I’d need to understand how you would see this changing things. I could see it perhaps giving a chance to leave more crime ride areas, but I don’t see how that could take someone with little skills and suddenly give them the ability to get a better job.

Perhaps it might allow them to work in more affluent areas, but I don’t know that it would cause more than a token increase in their income. I guess it might provide opportunities to meet with others who are more well to do and potentially give them better networking opportunities. Even at that I don’t know that it would be a panacea to large number of the poor.

 

[GEddie]

Freeways are what you’d expect, large high speed (typically 65 mph) limited access roads with usually 2+ lanes in each direction, with exits, no at grade crossings, etc… that are owned, funded and operated by the state (or by the state with Fed assistance on Interstates and US Highways). And they are patrolled by the CHP. Examples in the South Bay being Interstates 280, 680, 880, US 101, CA 85, 87, 17, 237

Expressways (at least those in Santa Clara County where San Jose resides) are also large restricted access higher speed roads (typically 50 mph) with 2+ lanes in each direction. However they have mostly at grade crossings with a few grade separated crossings) which means they have traffic lights on them. They are typically owned, funded by and operated by the county. They are however still patrolled by the CHP like freeways and unlike normal city streets. Examples would be G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G8, G21.

Ok, I get it.

In Tex the terms are used synonymously.

ICXC NIKA

 

[johnnyt3000]

The U.S. appears to lack public transport in general compared with Europe. Why?

More than 3 million Londoners use public transport in the capital every day, in the absence of which the City would grind to a halt.

In the U.S. hardly anybody seems to use it nor do they have much of a choice, the services being so meagre. Why?

I’m guessing it has something to do with rampant individualism and preferring to travel alone

Just because people choose not to use public transportation doesn’t mean they’re an individualist; besides, private means of transportation is better than government funded means. A private company can make their own transportation business, and help the economy.