[miketoronto]

Big projects like subway, LRT, and BRT projects are all the rage in the U.S. right now and for the past decade.
However as great as all these projects are, I think the biggest issue that transit authories in the U.S. are not addressing is the total lack of transit access for the majority of residents in their service areas.

According to the APTA less than half of America's even in metropolitan areas have access to transit services within walking distance of their homes.

And residents who do have access often have access to bus routes that only operate a couple trips a day or end service early or don't provide weekend service.

So over half of American's even in metropolitan areas do not have access to full service transit routes.

I think this is shocking. In Canada for example, 80% of residents including rural areas have access to public transit services within walking distance of their homes.

Big projects are great and rapid transit is needed. However if you have a system that can not even provide transit access to the majority of residents, or has service that is so below standards, do you think more energy should be put into bringing up those service levels before spending on big ticket items?

I think this is an issue that is not brought up enough when talking about transit expansion in the U.S. People kind of just push to the side the fact that most people can't even access transit services within walking distance of their homes.

Even in transit friendly metro areas like Chicago and NYC, suburban residents for the most part can not rely on transit and most have no access to bus routes that operate past 7PM or on weekends in most areas.

[atlantaguy]

This isn't Canada.

[Brandon716]

d

[BTinSF]

So over half of American's even in metropolitan areas do not have access to full service transit routes.

I think this is shocking. In Canada for example, 80% of residents including rural areas have access to public transit services within walking distance of their homes.


That you, a Canadian, think it's shocking is completely irrelevant. It'll change when and if the affected Americans think it's shocking.

People in many American metro areas still don't want to use transit. They want to use their cars and vote down transit projects consistently. As long as the economics allow them to drive everywhere, this won't change. If and when oil prices go back up to stay, it will begin to.

But there's nothing "shocking" about letting people make these choices for themselves. To do otherwise would be "shocking".

[miketoronto]

This is not about car drivers. This is about people who can't drive for whatever reason and there are many. These people are stuck in the suburbs.

This is about equal mobility for all.

[nickkoto]

I don't know if they exist in Toronto, but we have these things here called moving vans, which can transport all of our furniture and belongings to a new home. And we as a society do move around a lot. Very very few of us actually live in the same neighborhood for our entire lives.

The need for/accessibility to/value of public transportation is an obvious consideration when searching for a new place to live, particularly if we actually want or need to use it, which therefore makes this "crisis" something that we are continuously able to resolve on an individual level.

[BTinSF]

This is not about car drivers. This is about people who can't drive for whatever reason and there are many. These people are stuck in the suburbs.

This is about equal mobility for all.

No, it isn't. It's about public choices about how to spend public money in a democracy. People can democratically chose to forget about people who can't drive, in which case those people can make the choice to move closer to someplace that does have transit. No society can afford to give everybody every service they may desire. It's about priorities.

[Brandon716]

d

[Cambridgite]

In all seriousness, Americans have bigger crises to worry about right now.

But regarding the transit point, here's part of the issue. In most Canadian cities, we build suburbs where the houses are packed tightly together and you're rarely too far away from the nearest strip mall. And particularly in Ontario cities, you see a lot of highrise apartment blocks lining the arterials and townhouse complexes interspersed all over the place. While it's hardly Brooklyn, this does help us in achieving some degree of servicability, even in the most far-flung parts of suburbia.

One thing I notice in many parts of the U.S. is that the houses are a lot further apart from each other in the suburbs. The large lot phenomenon is very popular, much like where I used to live in New Brunswick. In NB, I used to live in a place that is now called Quispamsis, which is a spattering of exurban development about 30km outside of Saint John. The houses were far apart and we had no sidewalks. We also had NO public transit either. I suspect it has a lot to do with urban form. Frankly, I think much of American exurbia is beyond saving and will remain car dependant forever. I agree with the above poster that Americans should focus on improving transit in the places where there is hope.

[rsbear]

This is about equal mobility for all.

Good for you, Mike, stick to your ideals. I do fear, however, that the real world, outside of your university, will be a real let-down for you.

[JDRCRASH]

I hate to say it, but most of the projects that are discussed in America should probably be shelved and all the funds for transit really focused on the cities that need it... New York, Chicago, Boston, etc. and stop focusing on building suburban services if the urban areas need more funding.


HAHAHA. I have to disagree. There is far more demand for transit in Suburban L.A. than ALL of those cities.;)

[SpongeG]

even the poor have cars though

[mhays]

There are probably more car-less people in the US, say 14-85 years old, than there are people in Canada.

Sure, many poor people have junkers. They shouldn't have to waste their money on those.

Also, what about teenagers, old people, and the disabled? What about people who don't decide for themselves where to live?

Hell, what about adults who chose to live in the suburbs and don't want to leave, but want to use transit now, and even vote yes for transit measures? It's good to give people the means to do the right thing.

Suburbs need transit. At least "semi adequate" transit so the car-less and bike-less can get around town.

Seattle is going too much in the suburban-transit direction, as I've posted before. Anytime we add Metro bus service, the suburbs get over 80% of the improvements. We just voted for a 20% increase, and while Seattle itself will get a few percent growth, suburban bus service will go from good to very good. Same goes for the 19% bus service increase attached to the Sound Transit measure we also just passed, focusing on regional routes. Meanwhile the inner city suffers from overstuffed buses that don't come often enough.

[zilfondel]

To me this sounds like Seattle's strategy - provide access using cheap buses. mhays? Do you agree?

[zilfondel]

No, it isn't. It's about public choices about how to spend public money in a democracy. People can democratically chose to forget about people who can't drive, in which case those people can make the choice to move closer to someplace that does have transit. No society can afford to give everybody every service they may desire. It's about priorities.

You're right, its all about priorities. We'll drop $2 trillion on an Iraq war, plus $651 billion (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf) a year on our military, yet we won't spend money provide mobility access for ourselves in our own cities.

Outside observers call this phenomenon "voting against our own interests."

[Justin10000]

Isn't Public Transit considered "socialism" in the US? I know people seem to cringe, when they hear that word.

[Cambridgite]

You're right, its all about priorities. We'll drop $2 trillion on an Iraq war, plus $651 billion (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf) a year on our military, yet we won't spend money provide mobility access for ourselves in our own cities.

And what a purposeful war it was. :rolleyes:

Outside observers call this phenomenon "voting against our own interests."

I certainly wouldn't want to play devil's advocate here, but I'm not so sure the average Republican knew what they were getting into...the first time. The people who voted for him the second time are just beyond hope.

[Crawford]

I think most Americans are happy not to have buses within walking distance. They think it keeps out the riff-raff. Sad, but true.

[alexjon]

The problem here is most people making comments and designing this network have never actually stepped foot in suburban Toronto or understand the commuting issues that these areas face. I live out here in suburban Toronto and I know what it is like. I know the ridership and what people use the TTC for(mostly to go downtown) and the issues they face. I face the same issues since I am a daily user of the system.
TC does nothing to address slow transit that involves transfering way to much just to complete a trip. That is what we put up now in the suburbs.

Hypocrite.

[JDRCRASH]

I think most Americans are happy not to have buses within walking distance. They think it keeps out the riff-raff. Sad, but true.

I wouldn't say that. Alot of that "riff-raff" contain actually disabled riders, like me.(read my signature for reference)

[lrt's friend]

I think most Americans are happy not to have buses within walking distance. They think it keeps out the riff-raff. Sad, but true.

Sounds like a form of segregation, doesn't it?

[Strange Meat]

Sounds like a form of segregation, doesn't it?

It's been my understanding that it's exactly why you'll never see a Metro stop in Georgetown.

[tdawg]

it's because it's so freakin' cold in Canada and you all have to huddle together and live near each other for warmth. In all seriousness, i don't know why I ever bother opening a miketoronto thread.

[blockski]

It's been my understanding that it's exactly why you'll never see a Metro stop in Georgetown.

While this is the popular myth, it's really not true. Georgetown was bypassed in the DC Metro system because of engineering challenges. To get there would have required a detour off of the current route, accessing a very deep station (as the train has to travel under the Potomac and Georgetown is on top of a bluff), and so on.

Suffice it to say that any anti-transit sentiment surely wasn't lobbying to be included, but the technical aspects had more to do with it than the social ones - as documented in Zach Schrag's history of the Metro (http://www.schrag.info/research/greatsocietysubway.html).

It should be noted that the next major change to Metro would be the addition of a new line through the city to relieve congestion on the other lines, and all the concepts for this to date have included a stop in Georgetown.

[mhays]

To me this sounds like Seattle's strategy - provide access using cheap buses. mhays? Do you agree?

I'd say our strategy is to grow light rail trunk lines and a little commuter rail, but also give as many people decent bus service as possible. Plus we continue to focus much of our growth into nodes all over the metro, including nodes with buses but not rail.

[miketoronto]

I find it interesting that people think it is o.k. that transit services can be so bad and it is not an issue.

We actually know someone here in Canada who went to work in the US for a couple years as a councillor for blind people. And the number one issue she had was transit service. She could hardly get people where they needed to go, because transit service is so bad in Metropolitan America.

On top of that, the APTA indeed says there is a crisis that is going to happen if America does not start providing basic transit services like buses to more areas. And this is because of the aging population and the larger amount of people who won't be able to drive at some point and wil be stuck in areas that have no transit access.

[brickell]

For one, people are not stuck. They chose to live in areas with no transit. They're glad to live there.

For two, I agree that there's a problem, but it's a problem of choice. In many cities and suburbs there simply isn't an option to live in an area with transit. Unfortunately, many of these are the cities that grew the fastest in the last couple of decades. Instead of looking at big picture transit projects that include the whole metro, I think many places would be better off focusing on denser inner areas and let those who chose to live in the suburbs fight the traffic. There just isn't enough money for everybody.

[BTinSF]

I find it interesting that people think it is o.k. that transit services can be so bad and it is not an issue.

We actually know someone here in Canada who went to work in the US for a couple years as a councillor for blind people. And the number one issue she had was transit service. She could hardly get people where they needed to go, because transit service is so bad in Metropolitan America.

On top of that, the APTA indeed says there is a crisis that is going to happen if America does not start providing basic transit services like buses to more areas. And this is because of the aging population and the larger amount of people who won't be able to drive at some point and wil be stuck in areas that have no transit access.

I find it interesting that someone living in Toronto is worrying his fuzzy little head about those suffering from lack of transit in, say, Houston.

Your Canadian friend obviously had a reason to want to leave home and work in the frontier zones of benighted America, in spite of the lack of transit or even poutine. In other words, she found something attractive about America (I'm sure it was difficult).

The fact is we will build transit when we collectively want to build transit but I'm starting a movement to urge Canada to tear out what transit it has because I think it's bad for them and Americans know what's best for Canada just as Canadians do for the US.

[CGII]

Sounds like a form of segregation, doesn't it?

In the 1990s, as Milwaukee was proposing a light rail network, suburbanites who opposed the idea gathered around a figure (can't remember his name) who, in a more than obviously racially toned remark, said that light rail would be means of letting people in the inner city come to the suburbs and start criminal activity.

[wong21fr]

^Wendell Cox? :D

[CGII]

He jumped the bandwagon not long thereafter, believe it or not...

[SpongeG]

its been true in vancouver - areas around the stations have seen increases in crime and car break ins etc

[alexjon]

It's true of any gathering place, largely, especially those without a regular or constant patrol. Keep people moving and from milling around or keep eyes on the street and they don't get a chance to cause problems.

[CANAUS]

I find it interesting that someone living in Toronto is worrying his fuzzy little head about those suffering from lack of transit in, say, Houston.

Your Canadian friend obviously had a reason to want to leave home and work in the frontier zones of benighted America, in spite of the lack of transit or even poutine. In other words, she found something attractive about America (I'm sure it was difficult).

The fact is we will build transit when we collectively want to build transit but I'm starting a movement to urge Canada to tear out what transit it has because I think it's bad for them and Americans know what's best for Canada just as Canadians do for the US.

Why make this about Canada? A dose of criticism in any country should always be considered healthy, for every country has their inherent flaws. He is not saying that America is evil or anything like that, he is just applying his ideals in practice as he obviously believes everyone should have access to transit. Instead of acting defensively and perceiving criticism as a personal attack, there should be more serious debate about this issue on both sides. You talk about choices, but what choices do those who live in an area with no transit truly have? The choice to move out? What about those who don't have the resources to do so? Or do their choices not count.

Of course, in the future, the case for action wil become stronger as the consequences of our ever expanding capacity for gobbling up the Earth's resources will have irrevocable consequences. We cannot continue in the way we have up to now and that includes Canada and much of the western world as well. People's attitudes will not change overnight but it should not stop Mike or others from fighting for what they believe in, as after all, that is the goal of any healthy democracy.

[BTinSF]

Why make this about Canada? A dose of criticism in any country should always be considered healthy, for every country has their inherent flaws. He is not saying that America is evil or anything like that

No. He's saying the citizens of a place like Tucson are wrong to regularly vote down plans to build mass transit because he says they are wrong. His views on the subject are better than the collective wisdom of the voters of a city he probably knows nothing about.

I wouldn't complain if he simply said that in his opinion they would be wiser to build it and cited some arguable reasons. But he isn't stating his views as opinion. He's stating them as revealed truth. They aren't. And furthermore I still wonder why he cares so much that parts of the US do things a little differently than he'd prefer. Some US cities agree with him and have excellent transit. I'm quite sure some Canadian cities don't. He might have a better understanding of their reasons.

[Metro-One]

No. He's saying the citizens of a place like Tucson are wrong to regularly vote down plans to build mass transit because he says they are wrong. His views on the subject are better than the collective wisdom of the voters of a city he probably knows nothing about.

I wouldn't complain if he simply said that in his opinion they would be wiser to build it and cited some arguable reasons. But he isn't stating his views as opinion. He's stating them as revealed truth. They aren't. And furthermore I still wonder why he cares so much that parts of the US do things a little differently than he'd prefer. Some US cities agree with him and have excellent transit. I'm quite sure some Canadian cities don't. He might have a better understanding of their reasons.

Well the problem is the entire world is connected, and even aspects such as this in the United States do affect the entire world. Having such a high dependency on auto transit leads to an incredibly high dependency on oil, a non-renewable resource. So this then causes the United States to destabilize world politics by declaring wars on nations such as Iraq for phony reasons to ensure they have oil to feed their oil hunger. This affects everyone. Canada has lots of oil reserves too, so how long is it until the US declares they have to "liberate" Canada? Honestly, think about what will happen when the oil runs out. The US will be the first nation to fall, and it will fall the hardest. I am happy in Metro Vancouver many of our suburban cores are densifying along mass transit lines, and i am happy we have several new skytrain lines in the planning stages along with rapid bus and street cars. Also, crime happens everywhere, i am sure if the media reported every mugging and break in that occurred in a Wall-Mart parking lot everyone would be afraid of driving as well!

[BTinSF]

Having such a high dependency on auto transit leads to an incredibly high dependency on oil, a non-renewable resource. So this then causes the United States to destabilize world politics by declaring wars on nations such as Iraq for phony reasons to ensure they have oil to feed their oil hunger. This affects everyone.

Sorry. I think that's mostly nonsense. And even were it true, we are addressing the issue of oil importation in other ways. See http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=164171

I'm in favor of mass transit. I live carless in a city that has it. I vote for it when allowed. But I don't call it a "crisis" when other people in other places make different choices.

[electricron]

No. He's saying the citizens of a place like Tucson are wrong to regularly vote down plans to build mass transit because he says they are wrong. His views on the subject are better than the collective wisdom of the voters of a city he probably knows nothing about.

I wouldn't complain if he simply said that in his opinion they would be wiser to build it and cited some arguable reasons. But he isn't stating his views as opinion. He's stating them as revealed truth. They aren't. And furthermore I still wonder why he cares so much that parts of the US do things a little differently than he'd prefer. Some US cities agree with him and have excellent transit. I'm quite sure some Canadian cities don't. He might have a better understanding of their reasons.

Transit comes in many different forms. While it is true there are some who will support every transit proposal, and there will be some who oppose every transit proposal, I will argue there will be many who will be selective upon which transit proposal to vote yea on.

Tuscon voted nay on many transit proposals in the past. Tuscon is finally building one. Austin voted nay before too, but Austin finally voted yea on one. Golly, Seattle voted yea on monorail, but after finding how much it really costs, voted nay, but have continued to vote yea for light rail. Get my drift, Seattle citizens have finally made their choice.

Each line or route may can have different favorite modes. It's the responsibility for transit agencies to fit the correct mode keeping in mind the voters preferences for each line. America's largest cities have several modes in use. Usually just one mode will not work everywhere.

I don't know Tuscon's past votes were, but they have finally found a mode the citizens have decided to support and finance.
Technical capabilites have to be balanced by the willingness of citizens to pay.

[rsbear]

Well the problem is the entire world is connected, and even aspects such as this in the United States do affect the entire world. Having such a high dependency on auto transit leads to an incredibly high dependency on oil, a non-renewable resource. The US will be the first nation to fall, and it will fall the hardest.

Energy Consumption: Total energy consumption per capita
Units: Kilograms of oil equivalent (kgoe) per person

Country Year 2005

Qatar 19,466
Iceland 12,209
Bahrain 11,180
Kuwait 11,102
UAE 10,354
Luxembourg 10,138
Trinidad 9,736
Netherlands Antilles 9,057
Canada 8,473
United States 7,886
Norway 7,153
Brunei Darussalam 7,062

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?step=countries&ccID[]=0&allcountries=checkbox&theme=6&variable_ID=351&action=select_years

[rsbear]

Great article from the Vancouver (Canada) Sun, October 2008, on Portland

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c6d6c9de-fff6-48f1-8787-b9eef980720c

Some highlights:

"In 1976 Portland officials, instead of going with car-based sprawl -- as was happening everywhere else in North America -- adopted a European approach focussed on compact, transit-centred growth.

The Urban Growth Boundary worked. Metro Portland's population (1.58 million) has grown by 50 per cent since 1973, its land area has only grown by 2 per cent. Portland occupies about one-third the area and its population density is double that of Metro Vancouver. Infilling rather than sprawl has been the rule.

A key to success is a comprehensive transit system of light rail, streetcars and buses. Concentrating houses and shops within walking distance of transit stations got people to park their cars. I rode the MAX Light Rail in from the airport. It was easy, quick and cheap ($2.30US). Even better, in the downtown core the streetcars are free, which allowed me to explore to my heart's content.

And now a statistic unmatched anywhere in North America: from 1996 to 2006 transit ridership increased 46 per cent while automobile miles driven per capita dropped eight per cent!

As in Europe, bicycling is a way of life with a full 16 per cent of Portlanders commuting on two wheels."

It's a crisis, Mike, a terrible, terrible crisis.

[lrt's friend]

Energy Consumption: Total energy consumption per capita
Units: Kilograms of oil equivalent (kgoe) per person

Country Year 2005

Qatar 19,466
Iceland 12,209
Bahrain 11,180
Kuwait 11,102
UAE 10,354
Luxembourg 10,138
Trinidad 9,736
Netherlands Antilles 9,057
Canada 8,473
United States 7,886
Norway 7,153
Brunei Darussalam 7,062

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?step=countries&ccID[]=0&allcountries=checkbox&theme=6&variable_ID=351&action=select_years

I think the cold climate and a small population spread over a huge country has a bearing in this. Living in a rundown trailer is not an option in Canada.

[lrt's friend]

Great article from the Vancouver (Canada) Sun, October 2008, on Portland

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c6d6c9de-fff6-48f1-8787-b9eef980720c

Some highlights:

"In 1976 Portland officials, instead of going with car-based sprawl -- as was happening everywhere else in North America -- adopted a European approach focussed on compact, transit-centred growth.

The Urban Growth Boundary worked. Metro Portland's population (1.58 million) has grown by 50 per cent since 1973, its land area has only grown by 2 per cent. Portland occupies about one-third the area and its population density is double that of Metro Vancouver. Infilling rather than sprawl has been the rule.

A key to success is a comprehensive transit system of light rail, streetcars and buses. Concentrating houses and shops within walking distance of transit stations got people to park their cars. I rode the MAX Light Rail in from the airport. It was easy, quick and cheap ($2.30US). Even better, in the downtown core the streetcars are free, which allowed me to explore to my heart's content.

And now a statistic unmatched anywhere in North America: from 1996 to 2006 transit ridership increased 46 per cent while automobile miles driven per capita dropped eight per cent!

As in Europe, bicycling is a way of life with a full 16 per cent of Portlanders commuting on two wheels."

It's a crisis, Mike, a terrible, terrible crisis.

For all the Portlands out there, there are many other cities that are not making the effort. The United States was built on its world class transportation networks, first rail and then highways. The big question, is the United States (and Canada) preparing for the post-peak oil era? At that point choices beyond the automobile will be needed and this means more extensive transit systems and more compact urban and suburban designs. We better start preparing for this now.

[rsbear]

I think the cold climate and a small population spread over a huge country has a bearing in this. Living in a rundown trailer is not an option in Canada.

I guess the 28.8 percent of Toronto's population that is poor live in nice trailers near mass transit...

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Nov. 26, 2007)
United Way Poverty Report Reveals 1 in 4 Toronto Families Struggling in Poverty

Despite economic prosperity, high employment and strong job growth Toronto's family poverty rate at 28.8 per cent, compared with 19.5 per cent across Canada

The number of low-income families in Toronto continues to grow at an alarming rate, opening up an ever-widening gap with families in the rest of Canada, according to a research study released today by United Way of Greater Toronto. The study also chronicles a number of startling symptoms of the persistent growth of poverty in the city, including signs of growing debt such as insolvencies, rising eviction applications, and a rapid expansion of quick-fix money solutions targeting low-income neighbourhoods across the city...

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/United-Way-Of-Greater-Toronto-796307.html

[mhays]

Those Portland numbers are sharply different that what I've seen. I believe Vancouver's urbanized area is smaller, and that it's much, much denser than Portland's urbanized area. Second, Portland has unquestionably grown its developed area much faster than 2% (I'm guessing that's the increase in "growth boundary" area). Third, the 16% bike use figure is sharply out of line with anything else reported, such as the American Community Survey's 4.7% "other modes" number that includes bicycles.

Basically it's total BS. I'm guessing it's typical for newspaper articles about density and cities: the reporter knows nothing about the subject, and doesn't have any idea that such absurd results shouldn't pass a BS test.

[mhays]

PS, here are some density maps of several NW cities. You have to sign in to see the large versions. http://www.sightline.org/research

[rsbear]

Those Portland numbers are sharply different that what I've seen. I believe Vancouver's urbanized area is smaller, and that it's much, much denser than Portland's urbanized area. Second, Portland has unquestionably grown its developed area much faster than 2% (I'm guessing that's the increase in "growth boundary" area). Third, the 16% bike use figure is sharply out of line with anything else reported, such as the American Community Survey's 4.7% "other modes" number that includes bicycles.

Basically it's total BS. I'm guessing it's typical for newspaper articles about density and cities: the reporter knows nothing about the subject, and doesn't have any idea that such absurd results shouldn't pass a BS test.

I was just just posting what the Canadian newspaper reported. ;)

[MonkeyRonin]

I guess the 28.8 percent of Toronto's population that is poor live in nice trailers near mass transit...

Uhh yes, they actually do live near high-quality transit (no trailer parks here though, I'm afraid).


Great article from the Vancouver (Canada) Sun, October 2008, on Portland

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c6d6c9de-fff6-48f1-8787-b9eef980720c

Some highlights:

"In 1976 Portland officials, instead of going with car-based sprawl -- as was happening everywhere else in North America -- adopted a European approach focussed on compact, transit-centred growth.

The Urban Growth Boundary worked. Metro Portland's population (1.58 million) has grown by 50 per cent since 1973, its land area has only grown by 2 per cent. Portland occupies about one-third the area and its population density is double that of Metro Vancouver. Infilling rather than sprawl has been the rule.

A key to success is a comprehensive transit system of light rail, streetcars and buses. Concentrating houses and shops within walking distance of transit stations got people to park their cars. I rode the MAX Light Rail in from the airport. It was easy, quick and cheap ($2.30US). Even better, in the downtown core the streetcars are free, which allowed me to explore to my heart's content.

And now a statistic unmatched anywhere in North America: from 1996 to 2006 transit ridership increased 46 per cent while automobile miles driven per capita dropped eight per cent!

As in Europe, bicycling is a way of life with a full 16 per cent of Portlanders commuting on two wheels."

It's a crisis, Mike, a terrible, terrible crisis.

The point of this was that under 50% of Americans live withing "walking distance" of transit. That obviously doesn't apply to Portland (and certainly not bicycle ridership figures at that), so why you bring that up, I have no idea.

Oh, and Vancouver's urban area has 1,900 people/sqkm vs. 1,300/sqkm in Portland.

[mhays]

Newspapers report crap like that all the time, and it's astonishing to me. I could name a dozen occasions.

For example, the Seattle Times once reported that Nevada was doubling in population every 3 or 4 years. How that could be conceivable is beyond me. They got the number from a book, which itself was the result of an astonishing error. They ended up fact checking later, and admitted that they meant 5 increments of 3 or 4 years each.

A top Seattle columnist once compared Seattle's density to New York City's. He chose New York County (Manhattan) vs. King County (2,000 square miles that's mostly wilderness).

USA Today once ran a front-page feature wondering why Indianapolis didn't get the props Boston gets, since they were the same size.

Major almanacs get stuff wrong all the time. The "tall building" list in the World Almanac could have been written by children. The Seattle listings over the years have generally had double listings, missing listings, wildly incorrect heights... One almanac listed Seattle as a top murder city. The author later admitted that he'd read the wrong line on a table.

Don't get me started on travel books. Read one about your own city sometime, and you'll see as much wrong as right. Even major obvious things any local would know. Like the one that said the Pike Place Market was only open part of the year. Same with travel TV shows, like the POS the Travel Channel just aired about the Space Needle, which had three major errors...

The fact is, most "research," even much of what's published by respected organizations, is put together by reporters, staffers, or interns that don't know their topics at all, don't know what questions to ask, don't know the context of what they read (and often don't know why it matters), and have no basis for understanding what they're looking at.

[plinko]

The fact is, most "research," even much of what's published by respected organizations, is put together by reporters, staffers, or interns that don't know their topics at all, don't know what questions to ask, don't know the context of what they read (and often don't know why it matters), and have no basis for understanding what they're looking at.

Not unlike the 'premise' behind this entire thread.

I fear for the people of Sugarland, Texas, Canton, Michigan and Susanville, California. They can't get bus service to downtown after 7pm. My god! The horror! What a terrible crisis.

[mhays]

That's opinion, not obliviousness to facts.

Some people chose to live in places like that. Others are teenagers, grew old in place, ran out of money, room with friends who happen to live out there, whatever. It would be nice for their lives to be better than hell. As for the drivers, yes they made their beds, but people can change, and it's in everyone's best interest to give them a rope to grab onto.

Even the worst suburbs can densify and become more transit friendly. A little bus service and a little density might be better bus service and more density 10 or 15 years later.

[Metro-One]

Another problem with comparing urban areas is Metro-Vancouver has many large nature preserves/parks and ALRs throughout it (Agricultural Land Reserves). So these massive greenbelts and extensive farming areas, often located on the fringes of municipal boundaries, are included in the density equations. A perfect example is in Richmond, where one side of the street is high rise apartments, and the other is the beginning of an expansive farming region that stretches to the city's municipal boundaries.

Also on those energy stats, it says kilograms of oil "equivalent." So while we may be using lots of energy those stats do not demonstrate how much of that energy is produced from oil. In Canada, like most places, we use a wide range of energy sources such as hydro, nuclear, coal, wind, and gas/oil.

[Doady]

Another problem with comparing urban areas is Metro-Vancouver has many large nature preserves/parks and ALRs throughout it (Agricultural Land Reserves).

Urban areas only include built-up land.

[zilfondel]

The point of this was that under 50% of Americans live withing "walking distance" of transit. That obviously doesn't apply to Portland (and certainly not bicycle ridership figures at that), so why you bring that up, I have no idea.

Oh, and Vancouver's urban area has 1,900 people/sqkm vs. 1,300/sqkm in Portland.


Yeah, its obvious that the article's numbers are way off. Especially the size of metro area and density.

However, we really haven't developed that much additional land. Most of the land added to the UGB over the past 10 years has NOT been touched (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/road_to_bigger_better_damascus.html) - no new roads, (almost no) houses, or anything.

Bike numbers - the author seems to have added the % numbers for people who bike as 1st and 2nd mode of travel. However, this survey (http://bikeportland.org/2009/01/06/central-city-survey-says-13-commute-by-bike/) said that 13% of downtown commuters were cycling. Officially, citywide they are saying 8%.

8% of Portlanders (citywide) now say that the bicycle is the mode of transportation they use to get to and from work.

10% of those surveyed said the bicycle was their secondary mode of transportation to work. This means that a bicycle is used to get to work by 18% of Portlanders (either as a primary or secondary vehicle) citywide.

official numbers (http://bikeportland.org/2008/10/30/portland-bike-traffic-up-28-over-last-year/)

[ikerrin]

For one, people are not stuck. They chose to live in areas with no transit. They're glad to live there.

For two, I agree that there's a problem, but it's a problem of choice. In many cities and suburbs there simply isn't an option to live in an area with transit.

Sorry, but didn't you just contradict yourself there? How can you choose to live somewhere without transit and not have an option to live in an area with transit?

Life isn't just about picking up and moving to New York to live near a subway. People stay where they stay for complicated reasons, to be near their aging parents, or their children after a divorce, or because they want to work in an industry centred in a certain place. If you work in an industrial park in Atlanta, you have no option but to buy a car, even if you don't want to.

I think this is were the Canadian tendency toward collective liberalism shows its face compared with US individualism. We are just so far to the left of you guys on the political spectrum.

[lrt's friend]

Sorry, but didn't you just contradict yourself there? How can you choose to live somewhere without transit and not have an option to live in an area with transit?

Life isn't just about picking up and moving to New York to live near a subway. People stay where they stay for complicated reasons, to be near their aging parents, or their children after a divorce, or because they want to work in an industry centred in a certain place. If you work in an industrial park in Atlanta, you have no option but to buy a car, even if you don't want to.

I think this is were the Canadian tendency toward collective liberalism shows its face compared with US individualism. We are just so far to the left of you guys on the political spectrum.


That is bang on! There are direct parallels between attitudes towards public transit and universal health care. In the last US election campaign, I recall the rationalization for not providing even a minimal level of universal health care. It was all about big bad government not being up to the job and that always providing 'choice' was better (whether you have health care or not, or whether your employer provides health care or not). We see the same comments about public transit. It is about choice, whether public transit will be provided or not, or whether you choose to live where there is transit or not. This kind of thinking has little traction in Canada. Public Transit is a given in urban and suburban areas in Canada, as is universal health care and the public will actually fight to maintain this. This is a big difference between the two countries.

[Justin10000]

Stephan Harper is trying very hard to change that.

[brickell]

Sorry, but didn't you just contradict yourself there? How can you choose to live somewhere without transit and not have an option to live in an area with transit?


In a way I am, but I'll explain.

On point 1, it's the idea that there is a crisis. Certainly in some cities and metro's traffic is clogged and would be helped by better transit, but to call this an American Crisis is ridiculous. If it was a crisis, places like St George, Utah, Oklahoma City and and Naples, FL would have stopped growing years ago. This is the macro.

Point 2 relates specifically to Miami and to many other areas like that I've seen. I agree that transit is good and needed. I like the idea of running busses 24 hours to the far flung reaches of the city, but I also see the empty busses at night. I see the budget crisis' that envelops many American transit agencies. It's become an "all or nothing" proposition for many cities. Unfortunately, many are getting nothing. I think they need to focus on urban areas so that those (in the metro) that do need it have a choice. This is the micro. It behooves cities to give people a choice, even if most people aren't looking for it.

[lrt's friend]

Stephan Harper is trying very hard to change that.

You have that one right. Funny, how people forget that Stephen Harper represents a coalition of Alberta Reformers and Harris Conservatives, candy coated to hide their true ideals.

[J. Will]

Great article from the Vancouver (Canada) Sun, October 2008, on Portland

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c6d6c9de-fff6-48f1-8787-b9eef980720c

Some highlights:

"In 1976 Portland officials, instead of going with car-based sprawl -- as was happening everywhere else in North America -- adopted a European approach focussed on compact, transit-centred growth.

The Urban Growth Boundary worked. Metro Portland's population (1.58 million) has grown by 50 per cent since 1973, its land area has only grown by 2 per cent. Portland occupies about one-third the area and its population density is double that of Metro Vancouver. Infilling rather than sprawl has been the rule.

A key to success is a comprehensive transit system of light rail, streetcars and buses. Concentrating houses and shops within walking distance of transit stations got people to park their cars. I rode the MAX Light Rail in from the airport. It was easy, quick and cheap ($2.30US). Even better, in the downtown core the streetcars are free, which allowed me to explore to my heart's content.

And now a statistic unmatched anywhere in North America: from 1996 to 2006 transit ridership increased 46 per cent while automobile miles driven per capita dropped eight per cent!

As in Europe, bicycling is a way of life with a full 16 per cent of Portlanders commuting on two wheels."

It's a crisis, Mike, a terrible, terrible crisis.

Portland's built-up area is ABSOLUTELY not denser than Vancouver's. This is obviously an apples to oranges comparison. The writer probably did some quick search for some numbers to calculate that would support his view, and didn't bother looking into the numbers or simply didn't understand them.

And there is no comparison whatsoever w.r.t. transit ridership per capita. According to a thread on this same forum a while back (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=140806&page=2), Greater Vancouver was doing 145 boardings/capita/year, while Greater Portland was doing 64 boardings/capita/year. Those numbers aren't necessarily accurate, but they do give a rough indication.

[Gordo]

I find it interesting that people think it is o.k. that transit services can be so bad and it is not an issue.

We actually know someone here in Canada who went to work in the US for a couple years as a councillor for blind people. And the number one issue she had was transit service. She could hardly get people where they needed to go, because transit service is so bad in Metropolitan America.

On top of that, the APTA indeed says there is a crisis that is going to happen if America does not start providing basic transit services like buses to more areas. And this is because of the aging population and the larger amount of people who won't be able to drive at some point and wil be stuck in areas that have no transit access.

I find it MUCH more of an issue that we don't build cities to be transit-friendly. We start doing that and transit will come. Until then, I don't want ANY of my money spent on transit for sparsely populated suburban or exurban services that would be hardly used. Spend the money in places that will actually use it - if we do that, maybe it will help cause an increase in the desire for more people to use the service, then a desire for more development in places that have transit, etc, etc.

The problem isn't bad transit or lack of transit, the problem is auto-oriented planning. Auto-oriented planning LEADS to areas without transit, not vice versa.

[miketoronto]

I agree that the planning needs to be fixed. But there are also areas that are dense that have very little transit service.
Go to streetcar suburbs just outside of Chicago and buses stop at 7PM, eventhough these places are dense.

Go to some American inner cities and you can't get a bus past 7PM either.

It is not always about the design.

Second alot of the jobs being created are out in suburban areas now, and you need transit to get the poor out to some of these jobs.

You may not think it is a crisis, but how many millions is the US goverment paying out to transit authorities for "Reverse commute routes", or "welfare routes"???

A ton of transit authorities are opereating routes like that. So why not just make your overall transit system better, then relying on on these welfare to work routes that really don't get the job done.

[Gordo]

I agree that the planning needs to be fixed. But there are also areas that are dense that have very little transit service.
Go to streetcar suburbs just outside of Chicago and buses stop at 7PM, eventhough these places are dense.

Go to some American inner cities and you can't get a bus past 7PM either.

It is not always about the design.

Second alot of the jobs being created are out in suburban areas now, and you need transit to get the poor out to some of these jobs.

You may not think it is a crisis, but how many millions is the US goverment paying out to transit authorities for "Reverse commute routes", or "welfare routes"???

A ton of transit authorities are opereating routes like that. So why not just make your overall transit system better, then relying on on these welfare to work routes that really don't get the job done.

I would support improving service in places that you mention in your first two statements, but will VERY STRONGLY oppose any funding going to bus service in low density auto-oriented suburban or exurban areas (unless those places are paying for 100% of the service - regional, state, or national government should NOT be paying for any of it). If we spend money on service to those areas, we're basically subsidizing job growth and housing growth in those suburban areas. We already do enough of that with highway and road funding - we don't need to do it with transit funding too. If you want to see places where we've done exactly that (subsidized job and housing growth in suburbs through spending on fancy transit systems), look no further than BART in the Bay Area. For examples of doing this through road and highway funding, look anywhere in the US.

Obviously, spending money on a heavy rail subway-grade system or a multi-billion dollar freeway loop is worse than spending on a few buses, but the concept is the same - you make it easy and convenient for people and employers to locate in cheaper, undeveloped places and they will do it.

[BTinSF]

I don't know Tuscon's past votes were, but they have finally found a mode the citizens have decided to support and finance.
Technical capabilites have to be balanced by the willingness of citizens to pay.

You don't know Tuscon's past votes because Tuscon doesn't exist. It's Tucson--from the native American "shucshon" meaning "black mountain" I believe.

Anyway, what they are "finally" building is a small segment of streetcar line, essentially lengthening an existing trolley line. It hardly counts as a transit "system" by itself and the rest of the available transit--busses--would be very difficult to depend on without a car. But it's what the citizens want and are willing to pay for (while they are paying much larger amounts to enlarge roads all over town). It's their decision. I don't agree with it, but it's their town. I just spend winters in its exurbs (where I absolutely need my own vehicle).

[pip]

I agree that the planning needs to be fixed. But there are also areas that are dense that have very little transit service.
Go to streetcar suburbs just outside of Chicago and buses stop at 7PM, eventhough these places are dense.

Go to some American inner cities and you can't get a bus past 7PM either.

It is not always about the design.

Second alot of the jobs being created are out in suburban areas now, and you need transit to get the poor out to some of these jobs.

You may not think it is a crisis, but how many millions is the US goverment paying out to transit authorities for "Reverse commute routes", or "welfare routes"???

A ton of transit authorities are opereating routes like that. So why not just make your overall transit system better, then relying on on these welfare to work routes that really don't get the job done.

a culture defined on who you are not as opposed to having a unique culture

[BTinSF]

Even the worst suburbs can densify and become more transit friendly. A little bus service and a little density might be better bus service and more density 10 or 15 years later.

Some people LIKE living in low density suburbs. Life can actually be a lot easier there (have you tried carrying 4 bags of groceries on a bus?) and, in any case, the silence at night is wondrous.

Why is it necessary for some people to insist on telling other people how to live?

America has dense cities with good transit, it has small towns and suburbs with little or no transit. Take your pick and live somewhere compatible with how you want to live (Mike--PLEASE stay in Toronto).

[Metro-One]

I don't have to carry 4 bags of groceries on a bus, because living in a suburb in Van the grocery store is only 1 block down the street. So i just walk home with my shopping (like i did last night) :tup:

[alexjon]

I carried all my groceries when I lived in Beaverton since it wasn't too far from where I lived. I could also take MAX if I had to.

It's the price I pay for saving lives by not driving around with only one good eye.

[Gordo]

Some people LIKE living in low density suburbs. Life can actually be a lot easier there (have you tried carrying 4 bags of groceries on a bus?) and, in any case, the silence at night is wondrous.

Why is it necessary for some people to insist on telling other people how to live?

America has dense cities with good transit, it has small towns and suburbs with little or no transit. Take your pick and live somewhere compatible with how you want to live (Mike--PLEASE stay in Toronto).

I'm fine with this, except when money is used from one place for the other - or when laws/policies/subsidies clearly value one type over another. If all costs were plain and easy to see (including down-the-road costs and other external costs), I would be perfectly fine with everyone choosing the type of living that they desire. Unfortunately, quantifying and making all costs known is very hard (especially external costs).

[miketoronto]

Some people LIKE living in low density suburbs. Life can actually be a lot easier there (have you tried carrying 4 bags of groceries on a bus?) and, in any case, the silence at night is wondrous.

Why is it necessary for some people to insist on telling other people how to live?

America has dense cities with good transit, it has small towns and suburbs with little or no transit. Take your pick and live somewhere compatible with how you want to live (Mike--PLEASE stay in Toronto).

Excuse me but who said this was about imposing a lifestyle on someone, or making you take the bus to the food store.

All I am talking about is providing at the very least a basic level of service to get people who have no other choice a means of getting around. And hey if it starts attracting some choice riders or allows a family to go with one car instead of three, then that is great.

Believe it or not, even in the most auto centric suburbs, there are people who for medical reasons or age can not drive anymore. There are people from other areas of a region that need to get to these areas that transit does not serve well.

It is a silent crisis, because like I said, as the population ages there is going to be a point where many people can't drive. The APTA is already documenting this and the harships many people have already faced by being stuck in a place with no public transit.

Even teens. There are millions of teens who have to rely on mom and dad because there is no public transit in the areas they live.

It is a bigger issue than you might think, and it will only get worse. Why wait untill it actually is a big crisis. Why not start now?

And this extends to the inner cities to. Transit service in many American inner cities is dismal at best.

[brickell]

Mike,
It comes down to money. There just isn't enough of it.
When will you accept that?

[alexjon]

Mike doesn't care about the homeless people he's advocating for, nor does he really particularly care about the invalid or elderly.

[Justin10000]

Some people LIKE living in low density suburbs. Life can actually be a lot easier there (have you tried carrying 4 bags of groceries on a bus?)


It quite easy actually. Go to the gym, maybe? That might help.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Thats what i thought to, just 4 bags? People carry that home (myself included) all the time on transit or walking.

It comes down to money. There just isn't enough of it.
When will you accept that?

Also it is bizarre that the world's richest nation does not have the money for decent public transit... maybe trillions spent on unjust wars could help...

[alexjon]

It quite easy actually. Go to the gym, maybe? That might help.

Well, that's practical!

Thats what i thought to, just 4 bags? People carry that home (myself included) all the time on transit or walking.

I carried 11 bags that totaled around 140# about half a mile uphill.

Of course, that's hardly normal, I suppose.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Well you got me beat, hehe.

[alexjon]

:previous: Well you got me beat, hehe.

The motivation to buy that much was "well, I just blew a large amount of money on a trip to NYC and some odds and ends, so I better buy enough food to last for more than a few days" and the motivation to carry it that far was "oh god, I didn't think this through."

[Metro-One]

hehe, i did something similar (though not as extreme as that) where i bought i new microwave and did not realize how awkward the box was to carry home, but i did make it!

[Gordo]

I carried 11 bags that totaled around 140# about half a mile uphill.

Of course, that's hardly normal, I suppose.

You sound spoiled. I carry 200 pounds of groceries up and down seven hills through the snow every day. Barefoot.

[Gordo]

Also it is bizarre that the world's richest nation does not have the money for decent public transit... maybe trillions spent on unjust wars could help...

It's not lack of money, it's lack of desire or political will. There are large portions of the country where the majority of people simply have no desire to have transit because car use is so cheap, and would prefer to spend all money on roads instead. Politicians don't push transit in most places because it would not be popular. I don't agree with it, but it's the way that it is.

[alexjon]

You sound spoiled. I carry 200 pounds of groceries up and down seven hills through the snow every day. Barefoot.

I was the first born, of course I'm spoiled. I have silk pillows laid out for me at the gym to set my weights down, and when I walk anywhere, young 20-something virgins sprinkle rose petals.

[zilfondel]

I agree with Mike. And there's enough money, its just that Republicans don't want to spend it on anything remotely related to the public good.

(like the current stimulus plan, which 100% of Republican Senators are against. They want tax breaks)


I have a story to tell - my late grandmother had a stroke and we moved her into an assisted living facility. Unfortunately, it was 3 miles outside of the town of Corvallis, OR. The only way for the approximately 400 seniors who lived in the facility to get into town was a highway with a 55 mph speed limit, with no shoulder or sidewalk.

Once a week, a bus was chartered to take them on a shopping trip in town. Well, the seniors got sick and tired of being stuck in their rooms watching TV 24/7, so a bunch of them (30 or more) hopped on their mobility scooters and headed off down the highway to do some shopping...

I really wish I had a picture of that scene! At the same time, talk about dangerous - who would expect crazy old codgers weaving all over a state highway in the middle of winter - on a mobility scooter?!

I've also talked to people from my old hometown (population ~9,000) who expressed their support of having bus service to connect to the other small towns and cities nearby. I grew up in a town where the only buses were yellow (but they had at least 200 of them!).

Perhaps these towns with school buses could make them look less shitty and run actual passenger service with them.

[zilfondel]

To those people who have difficulty carrying groceries, they have these things. They're like $30:

http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/spacesavers_2036_21970309

Fred Meyers here in Portland was even selling them.

google products (http://www.google.com/products?q=grocery+cart&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1)

[Metro-One]

The funny thing is all of the best infrastructure projects / initiatives came about during and after the great depression, which was arguably Americas most socialistic period.

[tdawg]

You see these things everywhere here in NY, but then again, most grocery stores deliver to your house, which is the best.thing.evar!

http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/spacesavers_2036_21970309

[Justin10000]

To those people who have difficulty carrying groceries, they have these things. They're like $30:

http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/spacesavers_2036_21970309

Fred Meyers here in Portland was even selling them.

google products (http://www.google.com/products?q=grocery+cart&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1)

I want to get one of those, actually.

[Gordo]

:previous: You can get them for about ten bucks in any Chinatown, though they're probably a bit crappier than a Fred Meyer version. I've only had one for more than five years though.

[alexjon]

If you're he-man, there are plastic handles you can buy (someone post a picture!) that let you hang all your bags on them so your grip is stronger.

[dchan]

^ He-Man doesn't need such a sissy contraption - he lets all of those plastic-bag handle loops dig into his flesh, thank you very much.

[brickell]

It's good to see we resolved America's Transit Crisis.

Grocery carts for everyone!

[goat314]

Some people LIKE living in low density suburbs. Life can actually be a lot easier there (have you tried carrying 4 bags of groceries on a bus?) and, in any case, the silence at night is wondrous.

Why is it necessary for some people to insist on telling other people how to live?

America has dense cities with good transit, it has small towns and suburbs with little or no transit. Take your pick and live somewhere compatible with how you want to live (Mike--PLEASE stay in Toronto).

Yes people have the right to live in low density suburbs, if they pay for the full price of living there. Suburban development is heavily subsidized by the govt. and has been for the past 50 years. Many new suburban residents not only pay about 1/3 the cost of the land they live on, but they usually don't pay the full cost of the infrastructure (sewers, roads, schools) that have to be wired out there. Most Americans have been living way past their means for a long time and now where paying for it. What America really needs is planned communities and planned growth, but in a society where most people slam socialism and don't even know what it means. America will likely choke on its own fat. Look up a documentary called "fat of the land" very interesting.

[kilbride102]

I live in a rowhome in Philadelphia. I could walk one block to the north for a bus or one block to the south to get another. Both will take me to the "el" which I could then use to get anywhere in the city. It would be very convienent (sp?). However I don't use them. Why would I not use something that is convienent, nearby, cheap, and efficient?

Because I don't want to. I want to drive my car. I don't care that its cheap or convienent. I want to listen to my sirius radio in my air conditioned car. (its freaking cold so i have the seat warmers on). I know that it will cost me money to fill my tank with fuel by its my money and I'll spend it any way I please. I don't have to deal with other people in my car. I know how to avoid traffic and get where I need to go quickly. I love my cars. Yeah I got two. Just in case I want to drive the blue one on Mondays and the white one Tuesdays.

Rapid transit is great for those who want it... let them use it.

Most people I know don't want to use public transportation. They don't want to be taxed or charged for a system they don't want to use.

[Gordo]

They don't want to be taxed or charged for a system they don't want to use.

Where can I find that form to get me out of being charged for that fancy interstate highway system? I agree with you - I don't want to be taxed or charged for a system I don't use.

[kilbride102]

Do you need the federal highway system? Obviously not if you grow your own food, make your own clothes and are otherwise self-sufficient. However for everyone else who buys something .. anything, the chances are that it was trucked over the federal highway system. The highway system, i believe, is one of the greatest achievements of the US in the past sixty years leading to tremendous growth and wealth. Were there mistakes made with it? Absolutley. Tearing down neighborhoods to build highways through urban areas was a huge mistake that contributed to the downfall of many city cores, But overall the interstate system is fantastic.

[Gordo]

Because no product you enjoy was made by a worker who uses public transit. No product you use was made by a company with a headquarters in New York or San Francisco or Chicago or any other city who depends on their transit system to keep the city productive and competitive with the rest of the world.

You can't talk about the importance of one transportation system and dismiss the other - that was my point. I was certainly using hyperbole.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Yes i agree, a nation should have a good highway system, the problem is there are so many SOV in the cities clogging up the highways, causing the shipping industry to lose money on idling trucks, that could easily be taken off the road with a decent transit system.

[mhays]

We'd be fine with a much smaller road system if more people used transit, both intracity and intercity...and the same with movement of goods.

We had roads before the interstate system. The system was simply an expansion that enabled a wasteful way of life.

[Metro-One]

I also have to say it is not just the fact that people drive SOV it is more the fact that so many of them drive ridiculously oversized vehicles. I am always amazed at how in Japan and many other industrialized nations welders, landscapers and all other tradesmen are able to operate with much smaller work vehicles. The tradesmen here are hilarious, most of them go out and buy crappy monstrous pick ups that can't even fit in a parking stall. Even worse are the people who drive hummers to bring home their 4 bags of groceries. I find this to be the prime example of human stupidity.

[kilbride102]

Public Transit is a local challenge and should be dealt with by local govts and businesses. The federal government should not be taxing people all over the country to fund a transit agency that will be used by city dwellers. If the people in NYC want a new subway line then let them pay for it. If Philadelphia wants a new subway let them find the money. There are many ways to do it but the easiest way is to go to Uncle Sam with there hand out. I don't believe that the stimulus package should be used for local transit agencies. If the want to use it for transit then it should be for high speed connections from the cities to each other and for expanded freight lines. These two measures would greatly relieve the highways of congestion.

[Gordo]

:previous: Ok, again, then using your logic all roads and freeways that are not long distance should be paid for by local agencies, but that clearly doesn't happen either. Should we leave all road and transit funding out of the stimulus package?

[pip]

^oh the irony