Discussion for article #235927
Nice article, but it misses a big point as to why so many cities lack good reliable public transportation. Housing is spread out all over the place. The housing and business densities are just too low to justify light rail in most of the newer American cities. Nearly as important are the automobile oriented zoning laws that result in the lack of shopping within walking distance of most American homes.
For the car to go away, American cities are going to have to be rebuilt with public transportation and close shopping in mind.
3 Likes
I just got back from 2 weeks in the Philippines. It amazes me how much better their public transportation is. (Although anyone who ever questioned the need for an EPA needs to step off an airplane in Manila and breath deep, it’s like breathing through a tailpipe.) But you can live in the most remote part of a village and step outside your house and there’s a tricycle or a jeepney ready to take you wherever you need for a few pesos. Owning a car is flat out not necessary in that country.
1 Like
Got it correct. I loved Seattle when I lived there in 2000 and was actually contemplating selling my car. I had found that I needed to force myself to use it monthly otherwise it sat in a $100+ monthly slot unused. I walked to work, 1 mile, 2 block had 3 groceries (Local, Safeway and QFC), had 2 indoor urban malls within a mile, movies 2 blocks and 1/2 mile, etc, etc, etc… Also has 4/5 star restaurants as my neighborhood places to eat. Daily walked a waterfront park, then down Alaska Way then up to Pike Place for coffee and or fresh groceries. All in all within a mile was just about everything I wanted. I walked to baseball or football games as parking was 1/2 way and cost a small fortune so why bother. Then when I needed a bus I was within the free fare zone. I’ll go back as soon as I possibly can.
1 Like
Even in areas where there is sufficient population density there is a financing issue. The current mindset is that public transportation should be self-financing, i.e. only the riders benefit. That ignores the benefits that car users get from fewer cars on the road and less congestion and the benefits we all get from fewer emissions, etc. All things considered, including convenience, I think public transportation is overpriced.
3 Likes
Gosh! Weren’t we just told last week that Americans no longer care about cars?
Gosh, did you actually read the piece?
3 Likes
It would be interesting to see an in depth exposition of social attitudes toward public transportation. I still believe that in much of the US these attitudes are appalling. In many cities I have had contact with (Houston and Atlanta come to mind), public transportation is still associated only with lower economic classes and therefore seen as undesirable, and undeserving of funding. Only in the concentrated urban environments (NYC, Chicago, San Francisco) where daily (if not hourly) use cuts across economic class lines are public transportation systems seen as vital for all. Los Angeles is an interesting case. My impression is that many see the need for a dense, responsive system and would use it, but whatever system this might be can’t constructed fast enough. Would love other observations on this.
6 Likes
In the Motor City folks started leaving for the suburbs before WWII. After the war the suburbs grew even more. With gas being cheap folks were willing to drive farther to work. The auto companies for obvious reasons were not interested in mass transit. Our transit system sucks. Many read about the guy who walked miles to get to work. It’s insane. Finally a train is going to go down Woodward Ave from the Detroit River to the New Center area as the beginning of what we have needed for so long. Yes it’s only the beginning, but in other cities it was the start of a well run mass transit system. I sure hope it happens here. I would love to be able to use it.
1 Like
If you live where there is no choice but to drive, you do care about cars.
I’m 64, and have never had to commute to work by car. (I’ve lived in San Diego, Iowa, Minnesota, Rochester NY, and Vermont). I now live in Middlebury, VT and can get to work and all essential needs (food, hardware, bank, books, doctors, etc.) on foot. Town officials mention “walkability” constantly – it is an intentional and central part of their planning, something they think about whenever they make decisions about town issues. And this is one reason we live here. (I’d love to see a profile of small and medium-sized towns who have done well supporting alternatives to the car.)
In general in the U.S. we have the cause and effect backwards when we think of public transit. We say – there isn’t enough demand for it so we won’t build it. But transit influences development and creates demand. This is what early developers understood – they’d buy worthless land outside of the city, then build a road or transit line to it, instantly transforming it into high-value property. The same has happened with cars – we’ve subsidized the development of roads on a huge scale, and that, of course, has produced development patterns that favor cars.
We do drive a lot in Vermont when we do stuff outside of Middlebury. I wish there were better train and bus options between cities. But I’m happy that, day to day, I don’t need a car for day-to-day life in town.
2 Likes
The are not “big cities.” They are “concentration camps.” We can’t have things like high speed rail to spread out the population because the rich suburbanites own all the property in the concentration camps and (a) they don’t want rents to go down and (b) they don’t want your ass fucking up their bucolic towns, especially if you’re a fucking minority. Add in the fact that GOP/Teatroll political viability is almost entirely dependent on keeping liberals and minorities “concentrated” in the camps and we’re pretty much fucked in terms of trying to spread the population in a more responsible manner, etc.
1 Like
Yes. Sorry the sarcasm went over your head.
Go back to my comments in the shitty auto piece from last week.
Check out Ed Black’s book, “Internal Combustion.” It details how the oil, auto, and tire companies helped destroy trolley systems by buying them up, tearing out the tracks and foisting buses on the public.
Also, GM in the 1940s had an exhibit at the World’s Fair that created a fantasy futuristic city of tomorrow that relied on autos.
2 Likes
Yes, many cities that have successful mass transit were developed before widespread auto use and suburban sprawl
1 Like
Exactly so – my grandfather worked for one such company which doubled as a streetcar company and a real-estate development company. But after WWII, the suburbs expanded a lot faster than bus service did, and the Richmond area has no light rail at all. And bus service is only adequate (and barely that) if you are travelling between the dowtown area and the inner suburbs. Between suburban areas or to and from the outer suburbs, forget it.
Yes I know. They wanted us to be all about cars.
1 Like
Another factor that fueled the exodus from cities to suburbs – white flight.
Whites were eager to flee urban areas with their large minority populations for lily-white suburbs.
Gee; I wonder if the Oil and Auto companies had anything to do with this. If we had good public transportation, what would that do to gas and auto sales; hmmmm.
I live in Chicago and work in a nearby suburb. I have seven different ways to get to work via public transportation. I have a 10-year-old Ford that has 43,000 miles on it. My workplace runs a shuttle from the L and Metra to encourage employees to use public transportation. Of 275 employees, three use the shuttle regularly. "Muricans love their cars.
1 Like