2 ms·

I like the comments about how public ownership and operation of public transit works in Europe. I'm curious as to why, and I have some ideas: - private owne

I like the comments about how public ownership and operation of public transit works in Europe. I'm curious as to why, and I have some ideas: - private ownership of automobiles in the U.S. took off much more than in Europe - the States did not put much emphasis on public transit - the States invested in roads - so Americans have long had an alternative to bad public transit: just drive - European countries put up a lot of impediments to private automobile usage: high taxes, limited road investment(? guessing on this one) - so the cities had reduced incentives to providing decent public transit, unlike Europe, where bad public transit would have been fatal to many political careers just due to the lack of alternatives There's also the fact that geography meant that private automobile usage in the U.S. had to be higher than in Europe... Maybe that's all wrong. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.

nine_k 8y ago
Most of Europe is way denser than most of the US. Parts of the US where density is high, like the Northeast, or areas around Chicago or Seattle, did and do have rather decent mass transit, much / most of it initially privately started, that is, seen as lucrative, in high demand. Most of US railroads were, and are, cargo-oriented. They haul a lot, but passenger trains are few, except in metro areas. Again, in dense areas like those around Philadelphia / NYC / Boston, commuter trains are a norm. But once density lowers, keeping up train infrastructure becomes unprofitable, and can only be sustained bu subsidies. Even countries with very high train penetration and very high average popular density, like Japan, sometimes have to stop subsidizing lines to some stations where ridership is too small, and close them. In US in particular, land is abundant in most of the territory, and home ownership is seen as a status symbol and an investment, so "proper cities" with sufficient density do not form, or form partially, with a lot of city territory being effectively suburbs. This makes investment-heavy public transit not a great option; buses suffice, since roads are already present.

nine_k 8y ago

Most of Europe is way denser than most of the US. Parts of the US where density is high, like the Northeast, or areas around Chicago or Seattle, did and do have rather decent mass transit, much / most of it initially privately started, that is, seen as lucrative, in high demand. Most of US railroads were, and are, cargo-oriented. They haul a lot, but passenger trains are few, except in metro areas. Again, in dense areas like those around Philadelphia / NYC / Boston, commuter trains are a norm. But once density lowers, keeping up train infrastructure becomes unprofitable, and can only be sustained bu subsidies. Even countries with very high train penetration and very high average popular density, like Japan, sometimes have to stop subsidizing lines to some stations where ridership is too small, and close them. In US in particular, land is abundant in most of the territory, and home ownership is seen as a status symbol and an investment, so "proper cities" with sufficient density do not form, or form partially, with a lot of city territory being effectively suburbs. This makes investment-heavy public transit not a great option; buses suffice, since roads are already present.