4 ms·

I'm throwing darts at the wall here, but I think part of the problem is our sprawl and geographic size/car culture. In the typical US city you have the wealthie

I'm throwing darts at the wall here, but I think part of the problem is our sprawl and geographic size/car culture. In the typical US city you have the wealthier suburbanites living in separate towns/counties than the city they work in. This segregates the local funding because no one wants to pay for someone else's projects. And state funding doesn't benefit you as directly (e.g. state highway projects) and probably suffers the same problem. Public transit doesn't get funded because it only works in dense urban areas and the wealthier folks drive anyway. European and Asian countries with the better public transit systems seem to be smaller geographically and connect cities to cities with federal funding. To illustrate we've got the Bos-Wash corridor connected via Amtrak but there would be backlash if we tried to fund a super awesome high speed rail there with federal funds because nobody else outside that area would benefit. For comparison the size of Japan is basically our Eastern Seaboard or California and the UK would be the Northeast Corridor.

closeparen 9y ago
The personal car took over America for a reason: it's the fastest and most pleasant way to get around. Cities only start to seriously entertain public transit when they hit car culture's scaling limits. New York passed those long ago, so the more interesting question is why they can't maintain what they already have. Unlike a typical American city, Manhattan is richer and more expensive than its outlying bedroom communities, and transit access is a premium feature of luxury real estate rather than a handout to the destitute. I don't think your explanation works in this case.
- bsder 9y ago
  > The personal car took over America for a reason: it's the fastest and most pleasant way to get around. The personal car took over America because the auto companies waged a campaign to dismantle the transit systems that American cities already had. "Car culture" and "suburbs" are only something that started in the 1950's after the Eisenhower Interstate System got built. And ridesharing is showing that people will give up a personal car if there is an alternative.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    >And ridesharing is showing that people will give up a personal car if there is an alternative. Ridesharing is still cars. Whether the steering wheel is operated by you, a robot, or a contractor is irrelevant. Ridesharing takes you directly from door to door in a private, enclosed, climate-controlled bubble. >The personal car took over America because the auto companies waged a campaign to dismantle the transit systems that American cities already had. "Car culture" and "suburbs" are only something that started in the 1950's after the Eisenhower Interstate System got built. It's true that our car infrastructure is a human construction, but it's one that public transit advocates admit they can't compete with. Weakening the capacity and increasing the cost of roads and parking are considered necessary even alongside a best-case public transit buildout because status-quo car infrastructure will always be preferable on an individual basis. This is justified by its high collective costs. This is a silly debate, however. Not many places get to choose whether to be auto- or transit-centric. America's economy is centralizing into a few cities; public transit will be geometrically obligatory in those cities, and financially impossible in the ones that are emptying out.
    - squiggleblaz 9y ago
      The big differences between a private car and a taxi. Is it always available when you need it? Can you leave your stuff in it? If you need to stop for fifteen minutes to conduct an errand, what happens? From the perspective of the infrastructure required, there's huge differences in parking and land space needed. Taxis have to keep moving, so you need to dedicate more land to vehicle movements (instead of human movements); on the other hand, private cars need somewhere to go to sleep at each destination, so you have to dedicate land to parking instead of more productive use. Considering the massive subsidy to cars in the form of minimum parking requirements, it's a surprise anyone in America does anything other than sitting in a car getting fat.
danbolt 9y ago
I think the car culture has a lot to do with it too. I remember seeing the train be the “default” mode of transit for a family of five in Japan and the effects that gave to real estate and government spending.

closeparen 9y ago

The personal car took over America for a reason: it's the fastest and most pleasant way to get around. Cities only start to seriously entertain public transit when they hit car culture's scaling limits. New York passed those long ago, so the more interesting question is why they can't maintain what they already have. Unlike a typical American city, Manhattan is richer and more expensive than its outlying bedroom communities, and transit access is a premium feature of luxury real estate rather than a handout to the destitute. I don't think your explanation works in this case.

bsder 9y ago
> The personal car took over America for a reason: it's the fastest and most pleasant way to get around. The personal car took over America because the auto companies waged a campaign to dismantle the transit systems that American cities already had. "Car culture" and "suburbs" are only something that started in the 1950's after the Eisenhower Interstate System got built. And ridesharing is showing that people will give up a personal car if there is an alternative.
- closeparen 9y ago
  >And ridesharing is showing that people will give up a personal car if there is an alternative. Ridesharing is still cars. Whether the steering wheel is operated by you, a robot, or a contractor is irrelevant. Ridesharing takes you directly from door to door in a private, enclosed, climate-controlled bubble. >The personal car took over America because the auto companies waged a campaign to dismantle the transit systems that American cities already had. "Car culture" and "suburbs" are only something that started in the 1950's after the Eisenhower Interstate System got built. It's true that our car infrastructure is a human construction, but it's one that public transit advocates admit they can't compete with. Weakening the capacity and increasing the cost of roads and parking are considered necessary even alongside a best-case public transit buildout because status-quo car infrastructure will always be preferable on an individual basis. This is justified by its high collective costs. This is a silly debate, however. Not many places get to choose whether to be auto- or transit-centric. America's economy is centralizing into a few cities; public transit will be geometrically obligatory in those cities, and financially impossible in the ones that are emptying out.
  - squiggleblaz 9y ago
    The big differences between a private car and a taxi. Is it always available when you need it? Can you leave your stuff in it? If you need to stop for fifteen minutes to conduct an errand, what happens? From the perspective of the infrastructure required, there's huge differences in parking and land space needed. Taxis have to keep moving, so you need to dedicate more land to vehicle movements (instead of human movements); on the other hand, private cars need somewhere to go to sleep at each destination, so you have to dedicate land to parking instead of more productive use. Considering the massive subsidy to cars in the form of minimum parking requirements, it's a surprise anyone in America does anything other than sitting in a car getting fat.

danbolt 9y ago

I think the car culture has a lot to do with it too. I remember seeing the train be the “default” mode of transit for a family of five in Japan and the effects that gave to real estate and government spending.