Public transportation: What's the problem in the U.S.?

[prolesunited]

CSPAN devoted the morning to discussing this issue and it surprised me that so many callers were against it and said it is a waste of taxpyer money.

I know they are intent on letting Amtrack die and the squeeze they are putting on federal funds is destroying existing systems because of shortfalls. So, not only are they not expanding infrastructure, but they are hampering existing systems.

For example, in Chicago they are cutting services because fare increases just can't make up the shortfall.

So, why don't people use public transportation and why doesn't the government push it more? Even under Dems, I wouldn't say it's been a big priority.

What keeps the U.S. from having the same sort of system found around the world?

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

1. Are you some kind of creeping socialist

or something? Use perfectly darn good tax money on PUBLIC transportation like those Euro-fags do instead of spending it on stadiums and guns?

Actually, if there is no money in it for Chimpy and his friends, it doesn't really matter how it helps the people.

[prolesunited]

14. "Creeping"?

Full-fledged and proud of it!

Well, actually, not full fledged, but moreso in the European sense. Sweden is an excellent model for what I would like the U.S. to look like.

[Bridget Burke]

2. The auto industry is against it, for one thing.

So there's been tax money to fix roads--but we mostly let the rail lines languish. (A stretch of "heavy rail" parallelling the Katy Feeway was pulled up a couple of years ago. Projected plans for widening the freeway have the affected suburbanites screaming.)

Statewide, we've now got so little tax money for road repair that Governor Good Hair is planning a massive highway/transit system to be built by private industry (using eminent domain rights)--which will lead to long-term exclusive leases for the resulting TOLL ROADS & all business frontage. A giant boondoggle--let's hope he gets booted before he does this. Many Republicans & Libertarians are against it--not to mention the environmentalists.

Houston suburbanites have been begging for transit. We've finally got embryonic light rail running up & down Main Street, with outlying suburbs hoping for expansion. A long term opponent to Federal Transit money to the area--Tom Delay. His Sugarland constituents are among those with insane commutes...

[Itsthetruth]

3. We Need To Build A 21st Century Passenger Train System

The money currently used to help fund Amtrak (1 billion) is barely a "piss in the ocean" in a federal budget of over one trillion dollars.

A government program to greatly expand and modernize the nations rail system is urgently needed. Spending 10 or 20 billion a year would go a long ways toward establishing a 21st Century modern high speed rail transportation system. Our current system is the worst in the entire industrialized world.

Operating and building such a system would create tens of thousands of good paying jobs. And the increased revenues from millions of new passengers would subsidize much of that operation.

The government has given other modes of transportation such as the airlines and trucking hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies. What's wrong with partially subsidizing a railroad passenger train system?

We need real money to rebuild the nations railroad system. If the government can spend 300 billion dollars to pursue the war against Iraq and give a 1 trillion dollar tax break to the rich, surely we can spend a fraction of that to build a modern 21st Century passenger railroad system.

Now that would be a good use of taxpayers money that would serve the common good and needs of the nation. That's what ALL other advanced industrial nations have done and it has served the general public very well.

And you can't outsource or NAFTA export those good paying railroad jobs that would be created. In addition, there would need to be an outsourcing prohibition for all of the railroad locomotives, passenger cars, steel and other related purchases necessary to build and maintain a new railroad network and system.

We're talking about an important and useful "job creation" program that would pay for itself in both increased railroad revenues from paying passengers and tens of thousands of newly hired workers in good paying jobs who would pay income taxes.

[SKKY]

38. B. I. N. G. O. And "Bingo" was his name-o...

...I've been saying that for years. A french company produces a "Bullet Train" that can travel in excess of 500kms per hour. If only offered as a connections between major cities (LA to Denver, or NY to Chicago for example), it would take a huge load off our Air system, reduce fuel usage (Which I'm all for), and yes, create a new industry which would create more jobs. Plus, for people like me who absolutely hate to fly, I'd much rather take a 18 hour train ride than a 4 hour plane ride any day.

[burythehatchet]

4. Why do you hate our freedom

if we allow this socialist mass transit bullshit what will happen to the oil companies, the car manufacturers, the concrete pourers, the repair shops, etc. Jeez.

[BlueJazz]

5. I think it's mainly advertising.

We Americans are brought up from birth with ads that portray automobiles as our "own space"...our home away from home...our freedom...our right...our happiness.
We see ads that depict individuals with an absolutely carefree, wonderful lifestyles, cruising down the highway with-out a care in the world...our loyal fun friends and family happily by our side going to exciting places that we've never been before.

On the other hand, most depictions of Public Transportation are crowded with filthy, unclean individuals who are too poor to even have a chance of the wonderful life offered by the Royal Automobile.

We're brainwashed

[atommom]

6. The big automakers were instrumental in shutting down

effective public transportation a few years ago.

In the 1930's, a corporation called National City Lines backed by General Motors, Standard Oil, Phillips Petroleum, Firestone Tire/Rubber, Mack Truck and other auto interests bought up and closed down over 100 electric trolley lines in 45 cities (including LA) across America.

In 1949, federal grand jury convicts GM and others of conspiring to replace electric transit systems with buses and monopolize the sale of buses. Corporations were only fined $5,000 for this long term damage to a previously excellent trolley system. The damage was already done, in 1947 40% of US workers relied on public transit to get to their jobs, In 1963, only 14 percent did. By this time electric trolley lines became extinct,

In 1974, antitrust lawyer Bradford Snell testified before Congress on the corporate conspiracy to wreck mass transit. The Big Three automakers -- GM, Ford, Chrysler-- 'used their vast economic power to restructure America into a land of big cars and diesel trucks', Snell contended.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292550.shtml

[hatrack]

11. Exactly!

First, buy up and destroy the interurban lines & streetcar systems, then sell the cities the buses you manufacture.

Then, as central cities hollow out and the middle class flees to the suburbs, sit tight until city governments, pinched for funds, cut back on bus service.

Then, as bus service becomes a less efficient option for those still using it, sell them cars.

[prolesunited]

16. That's one of the problems

Bus service in the outlying areas is minimal at best. You may have to take a bus and then wait two hours for your appointment or work to start and then face delays getting home. They say no one uses it, but perhaps because it is so inconvenient.

I'm not advocating everyone giving up there cars, but it would be nice to have way more alternatives and communities are set up that you have to drive anywhere to get something.

[CBHagman]

24. You beat me to it.

If you hadn't mentioned that shameful episode, I would have. I seriously doubt most Americans are familiar with the story of how the street cars were destroyed for the benefit of corporate profits.

One of the other problems is that there's an addiction to believing that the market ought to control everything, we worship naught but corporate profits, and any public program that can't point to a measurable profit is undesirable. Notice how the right has gone after mass transit, cultural spending, public broadcasting, and the public schools, for example, even though all of those provide many tangible and non-tangible benefits to society. There's an implicit contempt for anyone who can't manage just beautifully with his expensive car, his private schools, and his government-financed highways and streets.

[kittykitty]

34. You're absolutely right-hence the death of the "downtowns" of most

American cities. Flight to the suburbs followed. Now we have urban sprawl, malls and 'big box' stores.

I feel sorry for people who have never experienced the excitement of going to a major downtown. It was exciting because it was not a trip often taken, and was rather a big deal. In those days, one dressed for the occasion. But it involved shopping in a big department store, lunch in the tea room (elegant), perhaps getting new shoes and looking at your feet in the X-ray machine to see how they fit, really rigerous shopping for household needs, clothing, etc, then getting on a streetcar, really tired. Carrying packages was no problem because the department stores delivered your purchases for free the next day or so.

[seg4527]

I couldn't live with the MetroTransity here in Minneapolis

Seriously. I would be completely useless as a person without it. Couldn't get to class, couldn't get to meetings, couldn't get to my girlfriends.

I actually like riding the bus.

[Toucano]

7. Taken for a Ride

Long before predictions of mushroom clouds from Iraq and claims of a crisis in Social Security, there was another propoganda scheme at work.

The triangulation of automakers, oil companies, concrete companies and the federal government waged a propoganda war that eventually convinced people to give up their streetcars and trollies in favor the "freedom" of individual combustion engines for every man, woman and child in America.

http://www.culturechange.org/issue10/taken-for-a-ride.htm

[Siyahamba]

8. The US has been designed so public transportation would be inconvenient

Take out windows, big box stores and office parks in the middle of nowhere...

[leftofthedial]

9. Murkans don't have to ride on the bus with them darkies and pore people

we need our SUVs and monster trucks to feel safe (and to provide rolling platforms for our Bush stickers and Murkan flag decals). Support the troops! Drive a gas hog!

[slor]

42. That is what killed the light rail proposal in Cincinnati too...

and those federal matching funds are now all gone.

[Tsiyu]

10. leftofthedial has it right

Racism, pure and simple.

When I lived in Gwinnett County, Georgia, there was a push to bring MARTA ( Atlanta's system) into that Northern County.

"But Black people might ride the bus up here. We would have to look at Black people and deal with Black people." That was all I heard from anyone who thought it was a bad idea. Pure racism. It made me sick.

Now Gwinnett County is very multicultural. ( Black people and Oriental people and Hispanic people moved there anyway. HA!) and the roads in Gwinnett are so congested, those morons are looking at every color of person as they sit in standstill traffic in their fancy White People cars.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

39. Not to forget to mention "white flight" from the cities to the suburbs

In Europe, public transportation makes more sense because many more people live downtown. Typically, the buildings are five or six story structures, with the ground floor housing businesses and the upper floors providing apartments. Cars are inconvenient as parking is hard to find. Public transportation is feasible if distances are short and living conditions are compact. Take for example Paris and Los Angeles, which have roughly the same population. Paris covers about 41 square miles, while Los Angeles has well over 450.

I think one of the reasons (although perhaps not all) for the spreading out of American cities into vast expanses of green lawns and enclaves has involved the flight of whites to the edges of cities where they formerly dwelled.

[spinbaby]

12. Most Americans have never experienced decent public transportation

If they've experienced public transporation at all, there's a good chance it's been dirty, smelly, inconvenient, and unreliable.

[Patiod]

13. Red States don't need it, so why let Blues have it?

With the exception of MARTA ($1.75 for my ride from the airport to Buckhead last night), most of the major public transport systems (NY subway, T in Boston, BART, SEPTA, Chicago transit) are in Blue areas.

True story - one of the guys who records the interviews I do (different folks in every city) said to me "you're from back East? Why would anyone want public transportation?"

Excuse me?

Well, A) we were in Kansas and b) he was reading that Left Behind crap, so I'm guessing he was some brand of fundamentalist.

I asked if he had ever been East - no, he had not.

It's hard for folks in the West (non coast), Midwest and South to imagine the sheer volume of people who live in areas served by mass transit. It doesn't make sense to someone in Overland Park to have mass transit in Overland Park, so they can't imagine what would happen to Boston, Phila or NY without it.

And they don't care, either.

We may be supporting them with out taxes and our industries, but they think they'd be okay if we collapsed.

[msongs]

15. the OIL industry is against: Bush/Cheney are oil lobbyists.......and

bush/cheney support the welfare of the oil industry ahead of the welfare of the US. Now too bad none of the cowardly dems will point this out, along with the bush/cheney fraud, cons, deceit, and incompetence.


Msongs
www.msongs.com/vvpb our paper ballot proposal for CA

[WillowTree]

17. American's are addicted to their cars, that's why.

Back when I was in high school, we still even had reasonably decent bus service in the Chicago suburbs. I could get off the school bus right at a regular bus stop and take that to my after-school job at the mall and catch another one to come back afterwards that dropped me off just a matter of blocks from home.

Later on, when I lived in the Western burbs and worked downtown, I didn't mind commuting by train at all. I had 30-40 minutes to just relax and let my brain wake-up on the ride down in the morning, would pick-up an abandoned newspaper as I got off the train, and then I could again relax and read that paper on the ride home and just kind of recharge. The best part was when I worked in a building that was built directly atop the underground part of Union Station. On days when the weather was really crummy, I could get on the train in the AM and never have to set foot outside again until I got back to DuPage County after work. It was a lousy job, but that was a nice perk, anyway.

Of course, back then, a monthly train pass from DuPage downtown was well under $50. I haven't checked the fares in years, but last time I did it was almost three times that much. Probably closer to $200 now. That would be a major bite for clerical and entry-level types and the more affordable El trains don't run out very far from the City, nor does the bus service. And I think the reason, as I said, is that we, as a society, have gotten too used to having our cars only a matter of feet away from us at all times. It doesn't seem to be a matter of governmental agencies not being willing to provide more generalized mass transportation service but the fact that when we had it, we didn't use it enough to make it worthwhile. And I really don't know how we would go about selling mass transit to Americans anymore. Sorry situation.

[MsTryska]

18. I actually work for a Non-profit

that makes it's money asking this question.

1. Urban Sprawl is a big factor. Most areas just aren't pedestrian-friendly enough.

2. Culture, Convenience and control - most people are loathe to give up there cars, we've got drive-thrus to get to.

3. We live in a HUGE country that's essentially federalist when it comes to this type of stuff. it's not as easy to coordinate and build the type of eco-friendly infrastructure that you can in Japan or in various european countries.


it's tough to say "if you build it, they will come", because chances are depending on where you live, it's not bloody likely that "they" will show up.


it's frustrating.

[prolesunited]

19. Has there been much discussion

on the "tipping point" for gasoline prices? At what point does gas become so expensive that it's not feasible?

[MsTryska]

20. excellent question.

i've actually been planning on having a Peak Oil conversation with my favorite Transportation Analyst.


let me get back to you on that. :-) (i'm an IT geek - everything i know about Transportation i get from him)

[MsTryska]

22. well i asked him, and

he said basically, that people really don't like giving up their cars, and it would take a huge jump in prices (like a couple $/gallon) for people to notice. but if it keeps creeping slowly like it does now, people will still keep driving.

[lostinacause]

21. With out getting into the oil/auto industry debate

The low gas prices, lower population, higher travel distances and higher amount of wealth are big factors.

[Tesha]

23. Public transportation doesn't enrich many corporations

Public transportation doesn't enrich many corporations such as oil
companies, car companies, and road-building companies. By definition,
it's owned by "the public" so where's the profit in *THAT*?

Ergo, in the current American system, it is bad and must be stamped
out so that you can spend more money on cars, gasoline, and the
gas taxes that pay the highway construction companies.

And if the planet melts in the process, well Hell, the Rapture's
coming anyway...

Tesha

[Karenina]

25. I can take the S-Bahn or the U-Bahn

or DB or my bike or my rollerblades. No muss, no fuss. PLEASE, for your own sake, DO NOT ALLOW *TPTB to dismantle Amtrak. :SIGH:

[AngryAmish]

26. It depends on population density

First of all, buses suck. The ride is uncomfortable. Many times there are crazy people on the bus. I do not like the bus.

I do like light rail. It is generally faster than driving. Light rail only makes sense in very dense areas because of cost of building the infrastructure.

Other countries tend to have more public transportation are denser countries and poorer countries. When folks are wealthy, they want their own cars.

[Telly Savalas]

43. I deal with more crazy people when I drive...

than when I take transit. (e.g. "If we're doing 60 MPH and I have to brake suddenly and you are situated only half a car length behind me, you WILL hit me and injure me. So back the fuck off, you psycho.")

Buses rock. I can read while on the bus. You can't read while driving, although some try. (See title of post again.) I find it liberating not to have to deal with paying attention in congested traffic or not having to deal with finding a parking spot. And I see a lot of wealthy-looking people on the buses and subways around here who must feel the same way.

Low population density is an impediment to effective public transportation. Having human scaled, pedestrian friendly spaces is critical. Since the bus or subway isn't going to drop me off at the front door of my destination, the space between the transit stop and destinations needs to be short and walkable. 6-8 lane roads, giant parking lots, and subdivisions with needlessly large spacing between houses prevent this from happening. (Don't even get me started on suburban "business parks" where the buildings are all 2 stories or less and situated a half a mile from one another.) So rather than accomodating an unhealthy and environmentally unfriendly car fetish, we should start planning our cities in a manner that facilitates the growth of public transportation.

[Johonny]

27. I like the light rail

The biggest negative to living in LA is the lack of a rail line. I was amazed coming from the North East to the west coast. People that grew up in California looked at me funny when I told them I rode the Bart in S.F.

[Kickin_Donkey]

28. You hit the nail on the head.

From what I can tell (I wasn't born then), America did have a pretty good public transit system up through World War II. Everybody moved by train and most cities, even towns, had trolley lines.

My town (and beyond) in the Central Valley of California once had passenger rail service for the 125 miles to San Francisco. Even my little town, which probably had about 5,000 people in the mid-century, had city trolley service.

Then the oil, tire and automobile corporations conspired to buy up and rip out the rails for public transit. The rest, as they say, it history.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. In short:

1. Deliberate destruction by the auto companies. The Twin Cities used to have a superb street car system that went everywhere, even quite far into the suburbs. That was all gone after 1954.

2. The Interstate Highway System, which was originally designed to be for intercity travel only, was incorporated into urban traffic plans, leading to the latticework of freeways that exists in most American cities.

3. Real estate agents consciously used racism ("The blacks are coming!") to get white people to sell their urban houses and move into new suburbs.

4. Snobbery. The bus is "the loser cruiser," and in most cities, transit is grudgingly supported as being necessary for all those poor people to get to their minimum wage jobs.

5. Ignorance. Most Americans have never lived in or even seen a place with good public transit, except for possibly TV dramas about murders in the NY subway.

Some people may indeed "love" their cars, in the sense that they get almost orgasmic about a new Lexus or something. However, an awful lot see their cars only as necessary evils and are just as happy to get rid of them.

In Portland, where the public transit is really good by U.S. standards (mediocre by world standards), the number of people who have given up their cars is much higher than the national average. I was one of them for ten years, and I was surprised at how many other people I met who had made the same decision.

Here in Minneapolis, however, #3 and #4 prevail, and even I, who managed to live car-free for a decade, am forced to drive about half the time.

It's the greatest disadvantage of the Twin Cities.

[seg4527]

30. I'm in Minneapolis, and I think the bus service is really good.

There have been a few times, usually later at night, that i've been annoyed at it. It gets me all kinds of places. To and from campus, downtown, uptown, st. paul. And I actually really enjoy it. Even riding the 16 late at night with a bunch of those "blacks", I usually get to relax and read a book, something I could never do if I had a car.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Well, I was spoiled by living in Portland for ten years:

Four light rail lines, a downtown streetcar, and bus service that runs seven days a week, including to the suburbs. The only places that I couldn't go to were borderline rural. Here, the suburban buses are designed entirely for commuters, and they don't go close enough to ANY of my relatives to be useful. (In Portland, I could use the bus to visit friends who lived in the suburbs.)

Connections between Minneapolis and St. Paul are also inadequate. Yeah, it's fine to go to downtown St. Paul, but many getting to many locations in St. Paul from Minneapolis require going first to downtown St. Paul and then out from there, because there are no more direct connections.

Tri-Met is working on running buses at least every 15 minutes or more often, seven days a week, on all the major routes. I lived on two different routes that ran on this schedule (more are added every year), and knowing that if you miss a bus, another will be along in 10 to 15 minutes is a great incentive to ride.

Here, if I miss a bus, it's 20-30 minutes till the next one on my route.

Also, the fares were by distance instead of time, so that the transit system didn't penalize its most frequent riders by charging them more. Last time I bought a monthly pass (summer 2003), it was $55 to ride the entire system at any time. (Oh, and I'm irked that I can't use my Super Saver to ride the light rail but have to buy a separate ticket with cash.)

Tri-Met also publishes a master schedule for the whole system and sells it to anyone for three dollars. This made it so easy to plan trips, since you didn't have to go on line or phone the bus company to talk to some clueless person.

I'm totally unafraid to ride or even wait for a bus or train at night, but in comparison to Portland's system, the one here is noticeably inadequate. If you only go to the U., downtown, uptown, and St. Paul, yes, the bus system is adequate, but if my gold standard for transit, Tokyo, gets an A+, then Portland is a solid B and Minneapolis-St. Paul is a C.

[seg4527]

32. I do see what you mean...

I do see what you mean. I haven't taken the buses that many places, but I do take them often. Nearly every day, as a matter of fact. The 16 goes just a few blocks past my apartment (I live in Stadium Village) near Washington Avenue. Typically I just go to my girlfriends in St. Paul, so I take the 16 to the 21. Takes me about 30 minutes to get there, as well as home. I've also gone to Roseville a few times, as well as out exploring downtown and uptown.

I also am kind of spoiled, in that I'm a student at the U. I get to pay 55 dollars for something they call a U Pass, unlimited rides on the buses and ligh rail for the semester.

The only time I get afraid is when I'm in the Midway area around 9.30-10 at night. There are some pretty creepy people out sometimes. I worry more about my girlfriend though. One time she had a guy come up to her and he kept on asking her where her man was.

Anyway, I do see what you mean about the bus service. The only other bus service I know about is from Reading, PA, a city of about 80,000 that I used to live near. And as far as I can tell, they were way behind the twin cities public transportation.

[FlemingsGhost]

35. Given our size, I think Portland should be extremely proud.

I believe our public transportation system to be one of the best in the country.

[kittykitty]

33. The U.S. had WONDERFUL public transportation before WWII! Read on....

I grew up in Cleveland, OH. There were streetcars everywhere and they were ELECTRIC! ALso buses that were ELECTRIC! There was an Interurban train that ran by my house before I was born, but the Interurbans were discontinued in 1938. They were little one car trains that went between urban areas.

It was said that you could travel from Maine to Wisconsin by taking connecting Interurban trains.

You could travel by train (although they were steam engines and not so clean) to any large city and many small towns. We once had a map of Ohio from the early 1900's that was covered with train lines that went to and from any small burg, so you could travel anywhere.

After the war the oil companies bought up all the trains, and the public transportation companies, tore up all the tracks and made travel by automobile necessary--thus making us dependent on buying gasoline.

The oil companies changed the way we live and really are the root of all evil.

[kittykitty]

36. San Francisco still has good public tansportation

Cable Cars aside. There are streetcars (electric, of course) that go from down town out into the avenues, and buses, too. Walking is a pleasure there, also.

[Carl Yasutomo]

37. Americans don't like public transportation because...

public transportation in the US sucks. Of course, it sucks because no one wants to pay for better public transportation. So basically, Americans and their elected officials refuse to pay for better public transportation on the grounds that it doesn't work, when in fact the whole reason it doesn't work is because they won't LET it work.

It's kind of symptomatic of the whole American philosophy toward government. We hate big government and we think it's awful, so let's destroy every government agency. Then, once we've de-funded everything and government programs all suck because of it, let's say "SEE?? I TOLD you the government can't do anything right!"

Haven't you noticed how government agencies are now all headed by people who hate them? The EPA is headed by anti-environmentalists, the Dept of Education is headed by people against public education, the elected branches of government are headed by people who hate government. It's the culmination of the hate-government movement started by Reagan in the 80s.

I never quite understood why so many Americans think it's a good idea to put in charge of the government people who want the government to fail. Would any of these government-haters think it's a good idea to put in charge of a big corporation a CEO who hates the company?? Of course not!!

By the way, I live in Tokyo, which has the best public transportation in the world. I have not driven a car even once in my seven years here, and I LOVE it!

[ComerPerro]

40. I gladly use it whenever I am in Chicago or any other big city.

But, I don't live there...

Public transportation isn't as widely availible nor nearly as convenient in suburbia and in more rural areas as it is in big cities.

Too bad Chicago is cutting services. I really like their setup.

[latteromden]

41. It REALLY pisses me off.

I live in the suburbs of Minneapolis, and if I miss the bus at 8 AM, I can't take it again until 5 PM. I don't drive; I can't get to the cities to take the train to a city that HAS public transportation. Drives me crazy.