How America Killed Transit

[Doady]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Boston and DC's urban areas consist of cities, satellite towns and suburbs / exurbs of varying densities and urban characteristics.

LA, Vegas and Toronto consists of densely packed single family homes on a grid, connected by long arterial roads.

LA, Vegas and Toronto are denser than Boston and DC.



From an urbanist standpoint, one may prefer Boston and DC over Toronto, LA and Vegas despite their lower density.

Yes, what matters most for urbanity are the historic towns and villages. Density and transit don't matter, what matters is a the pre-war history. That's why the urbanity of Toronto pales even compared to Detroit. Toronto = the Las Vegas of the North.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Americans don't like transit. We don't really need it. We don't want to sit next to some weirdo that's talking to himself and smells like he hasn't taken a shower since last Monday. We like our space and our privacy. Public transpiration is the complete opposite of that and it isn't really necessary to have 15 minute service til midnight 7 days a week, given that only 5% of the overall population uses it.

People that can afford and have chosen to live in an urban core won't take public transit, they take Uber. The trend is transit passenger counts to continue to decline as ride share technology continues to become more efficient and cheaper, picking off riders and car operators.

Damn straight!

Originally Posted by Doady

I find it odd people come to a website called Skyscraper Page to argue against transit and high density. It seems like cognitive dissonance.

Presumably you'd be more comfortable at Streetsblog; it's quite the echochamber.


BTW, I love transit and I'd even argue that there's a place for light and commuter rail in lower density areas. Denver, for example is building a largely suburb to city system that's intended to be visionary meaning its current 'lousy' ridership (per mile) will grow over the next couple of decades due to TOD and slow, but changing attitudes. Key for Denver is that roughly 78 miles of light rail were built for 'all-in' costs of $74 million per mile or ~$5.8 billion

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

BTW, I love transit and I'd even argue that there's a place for light and commuter rail in lower density areas. Denver, for example is building a largely suburb to city system that's intended to be visionary meaning its current 'lousy' ridership (per mile) will grow over the next couple of decades due to TOD and slow, but changing attitudes. Key for Denver is that roughly 78 miles of light rail were built for 'all-in' costs of $74 million per mile or ~$5.8 billion

I see a lot of similarities between enthusiasm for transit and enthusiasm for nuclear. I'm a huge nuclear energy fan and think it would be a great benefit to our country. You look at how quickly and cheaply nuclear plants used to be built in the US and how quickly they were built in places like Japan and South Korea and you'd think nuclear was great. Unfortunately due to a whole host of onerous anti-nuclear regulations and a loss of construction talent in the US we've completely lost the ability to build nuclear plants anymore which means when we do try to build them they end up being the most expensive and longest construction times pretty much in History. Transit is in a very similar boat. Cities like NYC used to be able to build new subway lines quickly and cheaply. Other countries still seem to have that ability. But the US absolutely DOES NOT. If new transit lines in the US cost the same as they did in the rest of the world we'd be building them like they were going out of style. But that is not the reality we are faced with. Virtually every new project completes blows out its schedule and budget and the big name projects usually end up being the most expensive of their kind ever built.. often by wide margins. Until those problems are fixed transit just plain doesn't make any sense except for a few specific instances.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Virtually every new project completes blows out its schedule and budget and the big name projects usually end up being the most expensive of their kind ever built.. often by wide margins. Until those problems are fixed transit just plain doesn't make any sense except for a few specific instances.

I've reeeally enjoyed your comments.

Your point about costs is well taken. For example, if Denver would have had to pay Seattle construction costs or over 4X as much per mile as what they did, their projects would have made no sense. Fortunately for Seattle they have $54 billion to play with thanks to generous taxpayers.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Your point about costs is well taken. For example, if Denver would have had to pay Seattle construction costs or over 4X as much per mile as what they did, their projects would have made no sense. Fortunately for Seattle they have $54 billion to play with thanks to generous taxpayers.

One of the biggest, "holy shit" moments I had concerning transit was when I realized that some of Seattle's project costs are 5x that of the Second Avenue Subway on a cost per rider metric. Seeing as the Second Avenue Subway is generally derided for its absurd expense the fact that it's actually one of the cheapest projects in the US from a per person basis is a total mind fuck. Like, who thought it was a good idea to tunnel under single family homes to get to a shopping mall (Northgate Link)?

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by Doady

How about instead of deciding for other people that cars are better for them than transit, we let the people decide for themselves what is better.

It's funny reading the OP and then reading this quote.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by 10023

As for the rest of it, that’s lifestyle...The better way to shop

I'm fucking dying. I shop like you do, but it's hilarious that you just decided your lifestyle is 'better', without a shred of self awareness. Have you ever considered that our subjective lifestyle choices might be just that: subjective? Or did you actually think it was some objectively better thing? Fuck, you're precious.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Doady

I find it odd people come to a website called Skyscraper Page to argue against transit and high density. It seems like cognitive dissonance.

No one is "arguing against transit and high density". They're saying transit/high density don't make sense in geographies when the existing environment is hostile to density and transit (which is the vast majority of the U.S.).

I don't doubt most here are very pro-transit and density, but in appropriate locales. It's stupid that the U.S. has neglected its traditional urban centers, but not stupid that we don't have subways running through Phoenix.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

is this even true? and has this guy ever taken the 4/5/6 or 2/3 at 9:00 in the morning?

NYC subway ridership is not "well below its peak", but yes, it is somewhat below its immediate postwar peak.

Right after the war, for a couple of years, there was crazy high transit ridership in the U.S. since new cars and new homes weren't commonly available (the wartime emergency rationing had just ended). But by the early 1950's subway ridership had declined and was below its current day level. By that time, GIs were starting to buy cars and settle in new homes.

Also, NYC, in an epic bout of idiocy, went about mass-demolishing elevated lines before replacement subway lines had been built. Of course, the vast majority of the planned "second system" was never built (due to the city's 60's-70's financial crisis) so the system is the only one on the planet smaller now than 60 years ago (though capacity is slightly higher because existing lines were upgraded/platforms lengthened, etc.).

Of all the idiotic things NYC did in the postwar era, the mass-demolition of elevated lines prior to replacement has to rank among the dumbest.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Seeing as the Second Avenue Subway is generally derided for its absurd expense the fact that it's actually one of the cheapest projects in the US from a per person basis is a total mind fuck. Like, who thought it was a good idea to tunnel under single family homes to get to a shopping mall (Northgate Link)?

The SAS is indeed an ridiculously expensive project, but yeah, it's probably simultaneously among the "cheapest" U.S. projects. It already carries 200k weekday passengers, despite being a partially built line of three new stations.

And this is another indictment of the idiocy of postwar planners. They tore down TWO elevated lines on 2nd and 3rd Ave., assuming the replacement subway was just around the corner. Of course it only opened 20 months ago, and there are four more phases (and that's just for Manhattan). The Bronx portion will probably be done after I'm dead.

[lrt's friend]

It seems to me that American highway policy especially the building of ring roads damaged many downtowns, which had a negative affect on transit. This and disasterous urban renewal projects and white flight.

I is laughable to suggest that building more highways through Manhattan might have been desirable. Look at how much that Boston was willing to pay to bury its downtown highway. Isn't Seattle trying to do likewise?


Downtown highways built in the 50s and 60s generally turned out to be terrible eyesores and divided urban neighbourhoods whereever they were built.

No matter the cost, once urban rail projects are built, they start to remake a city, usually for the better.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Chicago's network would look pretty similar to Toronto's I would think. I don't know of any non-commuter express routes that have headways lower than 30 mins (but they probably exist on the far south side or far northwest side, and some buses might stop before midnight). Considering just CTA and the city of Chicago, it comes in at around 185 / capita. That's a bit cheating because CTA serves some other cities (Evanston, Oak Park, Forest Park, Skokie, Cicero, Berwyn) as well, but Metra, the South Shore Line and PACE serve parts of Chicago too, so it's not easy to make a Chicago-only comparison. Doing it for the metro area is also non-trivial since some areas (Gary, Kenosha, Valpo) have their own transit agencies, and SSL serves areas outside the Chicago Metro. Also, pretty much nowhere outside the CTA area has frequent transit at all (other than a few select near-city pace routes).

I haven't been to Chicago in awhile. But my recollection was that away from the Els bus service was not much like Toronto's but perhaps I'm misremembering of things have changed.

As opposed to the map shown above. This is the one for Every-10 minute service, all-day, every-day (except overnight)



Many other routes are every-10m or better except late at night or Sunday morning etc.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Americans don't like transit. We don't really need it. We don't want to sit next to some weirdo that's talking to himself and smells like he hasn't taken a shower since last Monday. We like our space and our privacy. Public transpiration is the complete opposite of that and it isn't really necessary to have 15 minute service til midnight 7 days a week, given that only 5% of the overall population uses it.

People that can afford and have chosen to live in an urban core won't take public transit, they take Uber. The trend is transit passenger counts to continue to decline as ride share technology continues to become more efficient and cheaper, picking off riders and car operators.

This statement reflects what many Americans (wrongly) think, about transit. But also about class and mental illness.

As someone in Toronto, who is a financially comfortable, professional, who owns a car, I take transit all the time.

Transit here is not a service where ridership is primarily destitute.

If you provide quality service, that's clean, reliable, convenient and pleasant you tend to attract a broad middle and even upper-middle class ridership.

I'll add here that most poor folks have good hygiene and don't talk to themselves on transit.

Your impression of transit is based on providing limited, crappy service that no one who has a choice would ride.

This would be like examining car ownership if the only cars allowed were 40-year old Ladas, with no a/c, that didn't run overnight or on Sundays, and that hadn't been cleaned since 1993.

Not a reasonable comparison.

New buses here come w/USB ports for passengers, that's a reflection of the type of customer anticipated and the appropriate design for service.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Canada has lower incomes, higher car/gas prices, and limited auto infrastructure, so naturally has higher transit share. Also is a more urbanized country with worse congestion and fewer through-streets. Like 40% of the country lives in three cities. And driving doesn't make sense for a huge cohort of commuters. This is rarely true in the U.S. outside of a half-dozen cities.

You've posted stuff like this before.

I had problems w/it then, as now.

When looking at median incomes, Canada and the US are statistically indistinguishable at both the household and personal level.

We do have higher sales and gas taxes.

But income taxes are nearly a wash, and supplementary healthcare costs are much lower for the 'average' person. (apart from insurance, we're talking co-pays and deductibles) Taken together, net income is also highly comparable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...s-richest.html

The numbers will be lower for Canada if taken today, as the exchange rate is less favourable than 2014, nonetheless, the gist holds.

Material wealth/income in Canada is a non-factor in why more of us use transit.

***

Also, fewer through streets? Really? Toronto is a grid system, it has a gap here or there, but by and large most streets are through streets.

In fact, far more so than most US cities I've visited. (which is a lot)

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

This statement reflects what many Americans (wrongly) think, about transit. But also about class and mental illness.

As someone in Toronto, who is a financially comfortable, professional, who owns a car, I take transit all the time.

Transit here is not a service where ridership is primarily destitute.

If you provide quality service, that's clean, reliable, convenient and pleasant you tend to attract a broad middle and even upper-middle class ridership.

I'll add here that most poor folks have good hygiene and don't talk to themselves on transit.

Your impression of transit is based on providing limited, crappy service that no one who has a choice would ride.

This would be like examining car ownership if the only cars allowed were 40-year old Ladas, with no a/c, that didn't run overnight or on Sundays, and that hadn't been cleaned since 1993.

Not a reasonable comparison.

New buses here come w/USB ports for passengers, that's a reflection of the type of customer anticipated and the appropriate design for service.

Ok. There was nothing 'wrong' about my post. Americans do not like to ride public transit period. If we did, we would've built an environment that is conducive to public transit. American suburbs continue to grow, urban sprawl continues outwards. If given a choice, we're going to choose to operate our own car or hire a driver. Public transportation is often the absolute last option for many Americans.

Why would we have 10-15 minute bus service to and from areas that do not have the demographics nor the desire for public transit?

[JoeMusashi]

We will never have these widespread transit systems in most of the US. Building the infrastructure for it is too expensive and pointless aside from maybe commuter and high speed passenger rail. Why tear up streets and neighborhoods spending billions of dollars when we are on the edge the electric and autonomous car revolution?

The amount of work I’ve seen them do here in Milwaukee tearing out utilities, installing overhead wires, and ripping up the street to build a streetcar loop is absurd. It may have some uses for downtown workers but who else? Instead of spending hundreds of millions to build comprehensive service, why not wait until we have autonomous buses that run on sensors and can literally go anywhere? It doesn’t make sense for most workers. You can’t connect workers to all the disconnected industrial sites and suburban office parks. Our cities are too decentralized and spread out for this to work most places, even here in Milwaukee which is fairly dense and compact as a metro area.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

but it's hilarious that you just decided your lifestyle is 'better'.

Funny, people are declaring cars are better.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

American suburbs continue to grow, urban sprawl continues outwards.

That's what everyone chooses because that's the only thing being built. Seems circular.

[dc_denizen]

Sun belt is posting from 2005 I think.

In the real world multifamily construction, much of which infill is at all time highs. Sprawl markets in the sun belt like Phoenix are in the doldrums while New York City has 70000 units under construction.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

You've posted stuff like this before.

I had problems w/it then, as now.

When looking at median incomes, Canada and the US are statistically indistinguishable at both the household and personal level.

I don't know what you're looking at, but it's not true. Canada has lower household incomes. And in the postwar era, Canada had significantly lower household incomes. StatsCanada doesn't even appear to produce median income data, BTW, they only have mean data.

Even though the gap has closed from the 60's, Canada is still less productive and produces less household wealth. Toronto's current economic product is more like that of Detroit than that of Chicago.

When you combine lower incomes + higher taxes + higher home prices and consumer costs + better transit + fewer roads + more urbanization you get higher transit, especially considering the differing racial/cultural contexts.

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Material wealth/income in Canada is a non-factor in why more of us use transit.

This is nonsense. Bus riders in Toronto are mostly poor(er) immigrants. Of course professionals commute downtown to their jobs, as in U.S. cities, but the demographic profile of bus riders in Scarborough or Mississauga is the same as in American sprawl, it's just that Toronto has a shit-ton of working class recent immigrants living in newer sprawl, and the U.S. generally doesn't.

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Also, fewer through streets? Really? Toronto is a grid system, it has a gap here or there, but by and large most streets are through streets.

Also nonsense. There are barely any through-streets in Toronto. Those that exist tend to be narrow and congested (see Yonge). In most American cities almost every street is a through-street. Toronto is a very difficult city to cover distances via surface roads.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Who exactly do you think funds the construction of rail and bus lines if not the government?

The government spends far more money on roads than on mass transit.