How America Killed Transit

[sopas ej]

From CITYLAB:


How America Killed Transit
JONATHAN ENGLISH 11:38 AM ET

Streetcar, bus, and metro systems have been ignoring one lesson for 100 years: Service drives demand.

One hundred years ago, the United States had a public transportation system that was the envy of the world. Today, outside a few major urban centers, it is barely on life support. Even in New York City, subway ridership is well below its 1946 peak. Annual per capita transit trips in the U.S. plummeted from 115.8 in 1950 to 36.1 in 1970, where they have roughly remained since, even as population has grown.

This has not happened in much of the rest of the world. While a decline in transit use in the face of fierce competition from the private automobile throughout the 20th century was inevitable, near-total collapse was not. At the turn of the 20th century, when transit companies’ only competition were the legs of a person or a horse, they worked reasonably well, even if they faced challenges. Once cars arrived, nearly every U.S. transit agency slashed service to cut costs, instead of improving service to stay competitive. This drove even more riders away, producing a vicious cycle that led to the point where today, few Americans with a viable alternative ride buses or trains.

Now, when the federal government steps in to provide funding, it is limited to big capital projects. (Under the Trump administration, even those funds are in question.) Operations—the actual running of buses and trains frequently enough to appeal to people with an alternative—are perpetually starved for cash. Even transit advocates have internalized the idea that transit cannot be successful outside the highest-density urban centers.

And it very rarely is. Below is a set of maps that show the present-day network rail and bus lines operating at least every 30 minutes, all day to midnight, seven days a week, for five urban areas in the U.S. and one in Canada for comparison. That could be considered the bare-minimum service level required for people to be able to live adequately car free. In fact, research says that frequencies of 15 minutes or better—good enough for people to turn up and go without consulting a schedule—are where the biggest jumps in ridership happen. But that is so far off from service levels in most American cities that a 30-minute standard is more appropriate.


From top left corner: Columbus, Ohio, does not have a single route that meets the full service standard. In Charlotte, North Carolina, the the newly extended Lynx LRT helps a little. Denver, Colorado is adding light rail and commuter rail, but many still struggle to get to the rail station without a car. So do people in Portland, Oregon, despite its large light rail network and forward-thinking transit culture. Washington, D.C.’s Metro is one of the most well-used U.S. rapid transit systems, but connecting bus service is limited. It’s Toronto, Canada, that shows what properly high level of transit service looks like in North America. (Design: Jonathan English/Michael Binetti/David Montgomery/CityLab. Ridership data: American Public Transportation Association/Toronto Transit Commission. Map tiles: Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL.)

The maps illustrate the vast swaths of urban areas untouched by full service bus routes. For those who do live near one, it’s quite likely that the bus wouldn’t get them where they need to go, unless their destination is downtown. A bus that comes once and hour, stops at 7 pm, and doesn’t run on Sundays—a typical service level in many American cities—restricts people’s lives so much that anyone who can drive, will drive. That keeps ridership per capita low.

What happened? Over the past hundred years the clearest cause is this: Transit providers in the U.S. have continually cut basic local service in a vain effort to improve their finances. But they only succeeded in driving riders and revenue away. When the transit service that cities provide is not attractive, the demand from passengers that might “justify” its improvement will never materialize.

Here’s how this has played out, era by era.

[...]

Link: How America Killed Transit

[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).

[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.

[BrownTown]

I love transit. Just this year I've gone to LA to see the construction on the Crenshaw Line, Regional Connector and Purple Line, gone to Seattle to see the construction of the Northgate Link and East Link, gone to DC to see the construction on the Silver Line Phase 2 and Purple Line and gone to San Francisco to see the BART extension and Central Subway. I rode on the first train on the Second Avenue Subway, the 7 Line Extension and the Silver Line Phase 1.

BUT

I think cars are simply far superior to transit for most people. They greatly expand where you can go, they're usually faster and you don't have to be around a bunch of questionable people etc. I just don't get why so many people feel the need to be so anti-car. The US went so auto centric after the war because the economy was booming and people used all that money to improve their lives.. and cars are a clear improvement. Transit certainly has a place. It is superior for areas of very high density and it's useful for the poor who cannot afford cars, but these are limited uses and we shouldn't try to jam it in where it doesn't belong. Even if we want to expand transit, I think the solution in most instances isn't the light rail that is pushed so hard now, it's commuter rail to actually connect the suburbs to the core of the city because that's where the bulk of the traffic is coming from.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

I think cars are simply far superior to transit for most people. They greatly expand where you can go, they're usually faster and you don't have to be around a bunch of questionable people etc. I just don't get why so many people feel the need to be so anti-car.

Maybe people don't want cities to become a sea of parking lots and giant roadways covered in smog. Who knows.

[mhays]

The more we can focus on alternatives, the better our cities get. Letting cars dominate makes cities suck on several levels.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by mhays

The more we can focus on alternatives, the better our cities get. Letting cars dominate makes cities suck on several levels.

Maybe go ahead and explain exactly what those, "levels" are? The only really obvious one to me is cars take a lot more energy than mass transit.

Originally Posted by Doady

Are you suggesting that the people in Toronto, a mostly post-war suburban city built around the car, cannot drive to the grocery store or out of town because of all the TTC buses in their neighbourhoods?

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. And for the 37% of Torontonians that commute using transit, I think the preference is clear.

Keep in mind that the 37% you're quoting is going to work, not going to another city or the grocery store etc. So the total number of trips on transit is well lower because trips to work are the easiest to make on transit since transit is generally geared towards getting people from the outskirts of the city where people live into the core of the city which is where jobs are at. The better questions to ask are what percent of those people still own cars and what percent that don't own cars would own cars if the had more money. But anyways, nobody is saying they want 0% transit, just that there's no need to get upset at say 10% commutes on transit if that's all that there is demand for.

[xzmattzx]

I'm with BrownTown. Cars provide more mobility within a metropolitan area. You can go places where buses and light rail don't go, including right up to your house.

Cars are also better between metros, in many cases, and definitely between between an urban and rural area. I can leave my house in Wilmington and be in Buffalo in 6 hours, or I can be in Richmond in 4 hours, or I can be in Seaford in 2 hours. So I can go between my metro and another metro as quickly as I want, and at any time of the day. I'm doing it tomorrow: I'm driving to Canada for the long weekend, leaving before lunch and arriving before dinner.

Cars also transport better. Ever try taking a full shopping cart of groceries onto a bus? If you can even carry 10 bags of groceries in both hands, you're going to take up a lot of space for other people. I just borrowed my dad's ladder and weedwhacker to do some yardwork earlier today. I can't bring those on a bus or train.

[chris08876]

A couple of things that I think would increase transit usage:

1) Increase the amount of housing within cities to lower prices and offer developers benefits
2) Lower city prices / cheaper prices for rents or buying as a result of #1
3) Continue to compete for business to reside within the cores of cities. Cities and suburbs DO COMPETE. They are not friends, but competitors.
4) Clean certain cities up (neighborhoods that would offer #2 but folks don't want to live there due to crime or bad schools
5) Aggressive rezoning (forget about how your neighborliness looks... rezone it all)

In otherwords, cities need to compete with the suburbs because the suburbs offer all of 1-4#.

Believe it or not, a lot of people could care less about being next to others or being in a cultured area. Sure there are those that like cities for the experience, but at the end of the day, we need to talk about the masses, and the masses like lower costs, good schools, and go towards with the jobs are at.

Cities have plenty of good jobs and quantity, but its just easier and cost effective to just commute 30-60 minutes. A little sacrifice compared to being assaulted in costs or living in neighborhoods that are crime-ridden.

Now, point #5 is touchy, but in the world of supply and demand and profit... all I'm saying is that if the cities push for mass quantity of units, they will be built but it takes a will, and American cities for the most part do not have the balls to think big. Bar a few select cities. What can cause these units to rise? Making it lucrative for developers.

The following taxes of all forms could be used to fund transit.

With transit, also limit the bureaucratic c block of regulations and rubbish. Speed the damn process up.

America has the means to build big. To fix its issues, but the cities continue to not think big, in fear that it might piss the residents off.

Well, take a risk! Risk is good! Risk is progress. Even it fails, learn from those mistakes.

All of points #1-5 would encourage the development of transit options. If the demand is not there or is lackluster, its not worth the investment point blank.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

I'm with BrownTown. Cars provide more mobility within a metropolitan area. You can go places where buses and light rail don't go, including right up to your house.

Cars are also better between metros, in many cases, and definitely between between an urban and rural area. I can leave my house in Wilmington and be in Buffalo in 6 hours, or I can be in Richmond in 4 hours, or I can be in Seaford in 2 hours. So I can go between my metro and another metro as quickly as I want, and at any time of the day. I'm doing it tomorrow: I'm driving to Canada for the long weekend, leaving before lunch and arriving before dinner.

Cars also transport better. Ever try taking a full shopping cart of groceries onto a bus? If you can even carry 10 bags of groceries in both hands, you're going to take up a lot of space for other people. I just borrowed my dad's ladder and weedwhacker to do some yardwork earlier today. I can't bring those on a bus or train.

Are you suggesting that the people in Toronto, a mostly post-war suburban city built around the car, cannot drive to the grocery store or out of town because of all the TTC buses in their neighbourhoods?

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. And for the 37% of Torontonians that commute using transit, I think the preference is clear.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Doady

Are you suggesting that the people in Toronto, a mostly post-war suburban city built around the car, cannot drive to the grocery store or out of town because of all the TTC buses in their neighbourhoods?

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. And for the 37% of Torontonians that commute using transit, I think the preference is clear.

Yes, and think how cars influence the design of cities. Just look where transit is good. People are on the streets. Look at where there is little or no transit. There are no pedestrians and nothing is walkable. Cars make everything spread out. Cities cannot have dense downtowns without transit. Where transit is poor, either the downtown is struggling or half the downtown is devoted to parking lots and highway accesses.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, and think how cars influence the design of cities. Just look where transit is good. People are on the streets. Look at where there is little or no transit. There are no pedestrians and nothing is walkable. Cars make everything spread out. Cities cannot have dense downtowns without transit. Where transit is poor, either the downtown is struggling or half the downtown is devoted to parking lots and highway accesses.

See, the problem is that a lot of the transit people are begging the question by assuming high density is an end in itself. Density can be useful, but it also comes with major challenges and is certainly not needed in a country as sparsely populated as the US. In many ways we're still thinking of cities in a 19th century way where everything needs to be in a central core, but with the rise of better communications there's absolutely no need for this.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

n many ways we're still thinking of cities in a 19th century way where everything needs to be in a central core, but with the rise of better communications there's absolutely no need for this.

If people can be anywhere thanks to phones and computers, why is there such an intense concentration of tech workers in San Francisco and Seattle and almost zero of these jobs in most parts of the United States?

Turns out that physically being in the same physical space, even for paperwork type jobs, is still incredibly important.

And why, if traditional walking cities shouldn't matter anymore, are so many people willing to pay huge money to live in walkable neighborhoods and as short of a distance as possible from their workplaces?

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Doady

Are you suggesting that the people in Toronto, a mostly post-war suburban city built around the car, cannot drive to the grocery store or out of town because of all the TTC buses in their neighbourhoods?

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. And for the 37% of Torontonians that commute using transit, I think the preference is clear.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Who would think that buses are clogging up the roads and keeping cars from going somewhere? What I was saying was that a car can serve more purposes for many people than a bus network or light rail network. Or, a car can do more than the public vehicles themselves can do.

I'm not deciding that cars are better for people. Most people have made that decision themselves. That's why so many people have them. That ties into Browntown's point, as well.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Keep in mind that the 37% you're quoting is going to work, not going to another city or the grocery store etc. So the total number of trips on transit is well lower because trips to work are the easiest to make on transit since transit is generally geared towards getting people from the outskirts of the city where people live into the core of the city which is where jobs are at.

Toronto's transit network is a grid system, not a hub-and-spoke system centered around downtown. This should be clear from the map above.

And yes, % of people going to work is important to keep in mind since that is what most people are using the transportation network for. Rush hour is when transportation network is most congested, and thus that is what the transportation network has to be designed for.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

The better questions to ask are what percent of those people still own cars and what percent that don't own cars would own cars if the had more money.

Somehow I doubt that poverty is a bigger problem in Toronto compared to US cities.

Don't act like USA became so car dependent because "the economy was booming and people used all that money to improve their lives" and Canada is just some third world country or something.

But yes, social equity is an important aspect of transit. Giving people more opportunites reduces poverty, while solation entrenches poverty. Thanks to its robust transit network, both inside and outside of the city, people in Toronto don't have to worry about becoming isolated if they cannot drive a car, for whatever reason (money, disability, etc.). Do you really believe that people in Columbus have more mobility than people in Toronto? Seems to me the opposite is true.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

But anyways, nobody is saying they want 0% transit, just that there's no need to get upset at say 10% commutes on transit if that's all that there is demand for.

10% transit mode share in a lot of US cities would be a huge achievement. No one would get upset.

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Who would think that buses are clogging up the roads and keeping cars from going somewhere?

Browntown said of transit that we "shouldn't try to jam it in where it doesn't belong", as if it interferes with cities in some way, and you are agreeing with him.

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

What I was saying was that a car can serve more purposes for many people than a bus network or light rail network. Or, a car can do more than the public vehicles themselves can do.

Okay, so light rail wouldn't be able to take you directly from Wilmington to Buffalo or into Canada. So what? It is hard to understand why Wilmington's municipal government should care so much about travelers to Buffalo and Canada use that as justification for not improving local transit.

I'm not deciding that cars are better for people. Most people have made that decision themselves. That's why so many people have them. That ties into Browntown's point, as well.

So you believe that car dependence is a decision that people made all by themselves, and it had nothing to do with all the money that government spent on roads and the funding cuts to transit as highlighted by the article above and the six different cities that it compared? Looking at those maps, it seems to me that in a lot of these cities, there wasn't any choice for people to decide.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Doady

Somehow I doubt that poverty is a bigger problem in Toronto compared to US cities.

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.

And U.S. transit ridership plummeted during the era of integration, which has no equivalent in Canada. A huge proportion of Americans wion't take the bus under any circumstances because it's associated with "ghetto" blacks and poverty. In Canada most of the riders are immigrants, culturally comfortable with buses and don't have the same historical legacy.

Originally Posted by Doady

Don't act like USA became so car dependent because "the economy was booming and people used all that money to improve their lives" and Canada is just some third world country or something.

The U.S. was significantly wealthier in the postwar era and developed a massive road infrastructure, so, again, not surprising that U.S. is more auto-dependent.

Auto-dependency is not a "problem" in 95% of the U.S. There is no need to build rail, or even frequent bus service, in the Columbus and Tulsa. In such places auto ownership is like 95% and congestion is rare.

The issue in the U.S. is neglect of transit infrastructure in the few places where it makes sense. On this measure, Canada is much better. But honestly building rail in Nashville or Indy is throwing money down the drain.

[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.

[10023]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

I'm with BrownTown. Cars provide more mobility within a metropolitan area. You can go places where buses and light rail don't go, including right up to your house.

Cars are also better between metros, in many cases, and definitely between between an urban and rural area. I can leave my house in Wilmington and be in Buffalo in 6 hours, or I can be in Richmond in 4 hours, or I can be in Seaford in 2 hours. So I can go between my metro and another metro as quickly as I want, and at any time of the day. I'm doing it tomorrow: I'm driving to Canada for the long weekend, leaving before lunch and arriving before dinner.

Cars also transport better. Ever try taking a full shopping cart of groceries onto a bus? If you can even carry 10 bags of groceries in both hands, you're going to take up a lot of space for other people. I just borrowed my dad's ladder and weedwhacker to do some yardwork earlier today. I can't bring those on a bus or train.

This is because you’re in America, and you’re an American.

Cars are useful to go to out of the way places, like villages and small towns. They’re necessary to go anywhere outside of a metro, basically. In the countryside, where once you would have had a horse, you now need a car.

But in Europe, between cities like Wilmington and Buffalo, there would probably be fast efficient train service (probably changing somewhere, but so what). It would require a quick taxi or perhaps a streetcar or bus in each city to/from the station, but the train itself would be so much faster for the long distance part (100+ mph average for a standard, non-high speed service), that you could be there in 4 hours.

As for the rest of it, that’s lifestyle. I don’t carry 10 bags of groceries at once. No one over here does. Unless you’re hosting a BBQ and buying everything at once (take a taxi), you shouldn’t be buying that much food at once anyway. The better way to shop, and the traditional way in Europe (or NYC), is to go food shopping every 2-3 days at least, for fresh produce, meat, fish, etc. Good bread won’t last more than a day or two anyway, for instance. I pass a greengrocer, bakery, fishmonger, and two small format grocery stores on my 5 minute (3 block) walk from the tube (the butcher is 5 mins in the opposite direction), so I just stop in on the way home.

And when I last needed a ladder and a power drill, I went to the hardware store around the corner that rents them for like £5. Cities with transit adapt to the needs of people who largely rely on transit.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by 10023

This is because you’re in America, and you’re an American.

Cars are useful to go to out of the way places, like villages and small towns. They’re necessary to go anywhere outside of a metro, basically. In the countryside, where once you would have had a horse, you now need a car.

But in Europe, between cities like Wilmington and Buffalo, there would probably be fast efficient train service (probably changing somewhere, but so what).

Yes, Europeans are so much more enlightened than Americans and are definitely not autocentric since cars only account for an insignificant 83% of all passenger-km using motorized ground transport in the mass transit paradise of EU-28 instead of 90+% percent in the auto-dominated hellhole of the US.

[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.