4 ms·

Not really your main point but there are quite a few US "metro areas" with fairly sparse layout/wide scope, so I think public transit actually is a harder probl

Not really your main point but there are quite a few US "metro areas" with fairly sparse layout/wide scope, so I think public transit actually is a harder problem in the US than it is in e.g. Europe. That said even the cities that don't have this excuse tend to have mediocre at best transit here (for example Boston).

johnday 6y ago
You would expect that the surplus of space in many US metropolitan areas would make it considerably easier to install and operate metro transit lines, but this seems not to be the case. I suspect the systemic bias towards road users is much more of a problem than geographical scale.
- jakear 6y ago
  Dedicated lines need density for them to make financial sense. We tend to not have that (except where we do, but those places already have lines)
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  The point is not lack of space. If the metro station in Europe has 10 times as many people in 1 km radius around it as a metro station in US, you’ll have 10 times as many people riding it. If you have too few people riding it, the capital costs of building the metro (which, by the way, are much higher in the US than in Europe for some inexplicable reason) will be ten times higher per rider. At the same time, low ridership will also result in reducing number of trains per hour to control the costs, further reducing the ridership. The result is that you get a very expensive metro system that nobody is actually using, because most people don’t live close enough to use it, and the train schedules are less convenient than driving.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  Interestingly enough there is much more revenue generation for the state in traffic violations. When one is walking or using public transport it’s more difficult for cops to harass them. But people can have a taillight out at any moment that warrants a traffic stop and subsequent fishing expedition. Our urban planning, especially in the West has been heavily biased toward cars.
trowawee 6y ago
You have your causation backwards there. If you look at virtually every metro area in the US, the history goes: dense core -> policy decisions to favor cars above everything else, usually with a healthy dose of racism tossed in -> suburban sprawl.
- mennis16 6y ago
  That's definitely possible, I don't know enough about the history, but now that there is a lot of established sprawl it does have a causal effect in discouraging public transit. Also, in the context of comparing to other countries, I would think many did not have the land available to spread out in the same way at the time cars were available? I'm just curious how much of this may be related to the timing of the US

johnday 6y ago

You would expect that the surplus of space in many US metropolitan areas would make it considerably easier to install and operate metro transit lines, but this seems not to be the case. I suspect the systemic bias towards road users is much more of a problem than geographical scale.

jakear 6y ago
Dedicated lines need density for them to make financial sense. We tend to not have that (except where we do, but those places already have lines)
xyzzyz 6y ago
The point is not lack of space. If the metro station in Europe has 10 times as many people in 1 km radius around it as a metro station in US, you’ll have 10 times as many people riding it. If you have too few people riding it, the capital costs of building the metro (which, by the way, are much higher in the US than in Europe for some inexplicable reason) will be ten times higher per rider. At the same time, low ridership will also result in reducing number of trains per hour to control the costs, further reducing the ridership. The result is that you get a very expensive metro system that nobody is actually using, because most people don’t live close enough to use it, and the train schedules are less convenient than driving.
ultrarunner 6y ago
Interestingly enough there is much more revenue generation for the state in traffic violations. When one is walking or using public transport it’s more difficult for cops to harass them. But people can have a taillight out at any moment that warrants a traffic stop and subsequent fishing expedition. Our urban planning, especially in the West has been heavily biased toward cars.

trowawee 6y ago

You have your causation backwards there. If you look at virtually every metro area in the US, the history goes: dense core -> policy decisions to favor cars above everything else, usually with a healthy dose of racism tossed in -> suburban sprawl.

mennis16 6y ago
That's definitely possible, I don't know enough about the history, but now that there is a lot of established sprawl it does have a causal effect in discouraging public transit. Also, in the context of comparing to other countries, I would think many did not have the land available to spread out in the same way at the time cars were available? I'm just curious how much of this may be related to the timing of the US