4 ms·

We Americans often think we have a well developed public infrastructure until we visit almost any other developed nation in the world, from Korea to France, to

We Americans often think we have a well developed public infrastructure until we visit almost any other developed nation in the world, from Korea to France, to even China, they all have 'expected' rail systems. Why is America so far behind in a developed transit and public infrastructure?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
drivebyacct2 15y ago
Density. And the perception of funding public transportation in the same realm as alternative energy, global warming, etc.
- MichaelSalib 15y ago
  In most of the US, building densely is illegal. We have massive public subsidies and implicit taxes to support car ownership (in the form of mandatory parking requirements and absurdly underpriced municipal parking just for starters). Public transportation cost effectiveness is highly dependent on density which we've outlawed.
  - TechNewb 15y ago
    Would love to read a paper on this. If its not already written maybe we can build a google doc with a list if related resources so that one of u could write a paper.
    - MichaelSalib 15y ago
      Ed Glaeser at Harvard has written extensively about this, including in his recent book. Ryan Avent also covers this on his blog and I think in his book The Gated City as well.
      - TechNewb 15y ago
        Thanks! I'll check out those resources.
rilindo 15y ago
The growth of the suburbs in the middle of the last century and the subsequent flight from the inner city. These two factors contributed to the death of railway transit systems in all but a few of the large and medium-sized cities. From that point one, most of the transportation investment is in expanding highways from the suburbs to the city and maybe bus services as well. It is only in the last 10-15 years that serious efforts are being made to rebuild the inner system rail ways system. In the face of public apathy (and sometimes outright opposition) as well as interests depended heavily in highway transportation, it is been slow going.
- ams6110 15y ago
  It's really a myth that public transit is cheaper, more convenient, and more efficient than people driving their own cars when and where they want to go. Public transit appears to be cheaper only because of massive government subsidies. If passengers had to pay fares commensurate with the true cost of the service, it would not be competitive.
  - TechNewb 15y ago
    There are many factors at play, other than just generalizing 'public transit'. In many American cities you may be correct. But have you ever been to Seoul, Shanghai, Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, etc? Do you really think driving would be more practical and cost effective in those cities? One of America's greatest problems is the lack of any development into great city infrastructure. Our American society lacks the idea of planning for the future since post WWII, and only focuses on the 'now'. Where are the great cities in America? NYC, Boston, DC, maybe San Fran, rather a few for a country as large as ours, with a population of 300 million. We need to start thinking about our infrastructure more. And thinking of the future, with integrated design through out our public systems.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      It's hard to take seriously an argument that the only great US cities are NYC, Boston, DC, and SF. NYC is the most populous city in the US, and the spread between it and the next most populous city on your list includes the twelve next largest cities in the US. Seattle, one of our greatest cities, is all the way down at #23, meaning you have to disqualify almost 20 other bigger cities to add it-and-only-it to that list. Sure, I'm no fan of Houston, and that list includes Detroit, but dismissing Austin? San Diego? Philly? Come on.
sc68cal 15y ago
Because we haven't made it a priority. We've spent our resources fighting abroad and cutting taxes at home, leaving little money left over to repair our current infrastructure, let alone fund any ambitious public works projects. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that the nation faces a $2.2 trillion infrastructure backlog. One of every eight bridges is "structurally deficient," and 85 percent of public transit systems are struggling to carry the growing number of riders. As ASCE President Blaine D. Leonard puts it, "We are still driving on Eisenhower's roads and sending our kids to Roosevelt's schools." http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Looming-Infrastructure-Crisis.html http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Loomi... We also have one half of our two-party democracy steadfastly against public transit. Despite the fact that trains and rail were a central theme in their cultural touchstone, Atlas Shrugged. Why did President George W. Bush try to zero out Amtrak funding in 2005? Why is the conservative Republican Study Committee suggesting that we do so now? Why does George Will think "the real reason for progressives' passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism"? "You need to distinguish between Republicans and conservatives and libertarians when you look at this," says William Lind, the director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. "It's the libertarians who push this crap." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/03/off_the_rails.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
- tptacek 15y ago
  The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies. I like the Acela, a lot, and I disagree philosophically with the GOP's take on public infrastructure, but I think it's a bad idea to pretend that they don't have a valid point regarding Amtrak.
  - MichaelSalib 15y ago
    Would Amtrak be cost effective if Congress didn't force it to run lots of unprofitable routes that it was desperately trying to shed? This is a fun game! Congress forces Amtrak to lose money and then lambastes it for not being profitable.
tptacek 15y ago
First, I think it's easy to ignore the fact that the US Interstate System is a monumental public infrastructure achievement. You can learn this the way I did: cross over from rural Montana to Alberta. Even the bleakest, most desolate part of the US has roads better than the TCH, and you don't get to the TCH for several hours from the southern border of Alberta. Second, for its core purpose --- not moving people from home to vacation, but for moving products between manufacturing centers, ports, and consumers --- the US has a powerful and reasonably effective rail infrastructure. Read Buffett's shareholder note after buying Burlington Northern. Third, if (say) 80-90% of public transit is commuter transit, keep in mind that most US major metros have tolerably effective public transit, and many (NYC, Chicago, DC, &c) have extremely good public transit. While you think about that remember also that the real estate bubble and artificially low commuter costs (cheap gas, &c) distorted public transit in our metro areas by encouraging the development of exurb suburbs that can't cost-effectively be addressed by rail. It's possible that within the next 20 years, they won't be cost-effective for cars either, and that problem will self-correct as housing values in exurbs plummet and families move back into the public transit rings around the cities. Put differently, because maybe that point seems banal ("suburbs bad!"), consider that in complaining about transit, we may effectively be complaining that it is hard to link a city with what should be a corn field in the middle of nowhere. Well, yeah? Then read everything everyone else writes about long distance high speed rail. I'd love to have it. People made fun of STL->CHI high speed rail, hoping instead for coast-to-coast or Chicago->Detroit->Cleveland->NYC, but STL->CHI would link two major metros and allow companies to expand between the cities; for instance, it would allow us to hire out of STL and serve STL companies as house accounts. But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way. It's easy for Europe to have effective rail, because Europe is comparatively tiny; the distance from Berlin to Rome is just a little more than twice the distance the Acela runs; Acela's got nowhere to go north of Boston, and extending it to Atlanta would make Acela longer than Berlin-Rome.
- TechNewb 15y ago
  I agree with your insights. >>But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will become. I say we should act now and swift. Instead of bailing out failing financial systems, we should have solely put that money to our infrastructure. That would have put deserving people to real work. Imagine how much harder it will become in another 20 years, and this is the future of America we are talking about. Also, I believe cities ordinances should start outlawing the development of the traditional suburb. It should not be legal for these developers to build suburbs with out having a library, hospital, and school in walking distance. Having grown up in a suburb, and traveled the world a bit, I want nothing to do with suburbs. The reason why many in our government likes suburbs is because it encourages consumerism. Some have even argued that the reason why we solely have an almost auto based public transit system is because of auto lobbyist in congress during the 20th century. Although of course there have been many other social economic factors as well, such as 'white flight', as you touched upon.
notatoad 15y ago
America doesn't have a well developed public transportation infrastructure because of the auto lobby. You can't build a train without annoying GM and ford.
- TechNewb 15y ago
  Agreed, do we have any documentation on this? (I know the lobby industry conveniently has little documentation in general, but I'd love to see any papers written on the subject)
  - natesm 15y ago
    GM bought and destroyed almost all sustainable transportation in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...
    - tptacek 15y ago
      That Wikipedia article doesn't make that claim, and normalized by GDP actually contradicts it by pointing out that 5 of the top 10 of those cities actually have well-developed rail (I'd add DC and Atlanta to that list, bringing us up to 7 --- in other words, leaving out only LA, Houston, and Dallas).
      - rilindo 15y ago
        I disagree about Atlanta. Atlanta does not have a well-developed rail. I should know - I live there. :)
- tptacek 15y ago
  The top 10 cities in the US by GDP: * NYC * LA * Chicago * DC * Houston * Dallas * Philly * SF * Boston * Atlanta Most of these cities have effective public transit. LA is the notable exception (and the one the "auto lobby" narrative seems to pick out).
Turing_Machine 15y ago
Some of it has to do with the sheer size and low population density of most of the United States. Oregon (a medium-sized western state) is larger than the UK. Texas is larger than France. Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe. You mention South Korea. It's slightly larger than Indiana, but has close to 49 million people, while Indiana has only about 6.5 million. Overall, the population density of the United States is 1/7 that of Germany and 1/15 that of South Korea. Canada is in a similar situation, only more so. Lots of land, not many people living on it. Just as in the U.S., you find public transit in large, dense cities like Toronto, not so much in the smaller and more rural areas. Same with Russia -- good subways in Moscow, etc. by all reports, but you aren't going to find subways or buses in the middle of Siberia.
Zak 15y ago
II think it's actually pretty easy to understand just by comparing the US to a country with a useful passenger rail system. I'll use Germany because I've spent some time there and taken a few trips by train. Two things are required for a regional or national train service to be useful enough that it can be self-sustaining: population density and local public transportation. Local public transportation also requires population density to be effective; someone considering taking a train to Tallahassee FL might decide to drive instead after looking up the bus schedules online. Busses run about once an hour during the hours people normally commute to day jobs and do not go to many useful locations, like the airport. Germany has a population of about 80 million people. Germany is smaller than Montana. The US as a whole has 26 times the land area but less than 4 times the population. There are useful train services in population-dense areas of the US such as the SF bay area and the NYC/northern New Jersey region. The population density of these areas is such that it's often easier to travel by train, subway and bus than by car. The same is not true of Billings, MT, the largest city in a state bigger than Germany. The population of Billings is about 100,000, and the closest city in the state with a population over 10,000 is Bozeman, about 150 miles away. The population of the whole state is about the same as the city I live in, Jacksonville FL, and that city can barely sustain a barely useful bus system. If the US is to have a decent nationwide public transportation system, it needs about a billion more people. I'm not sure we actually want that.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

drivebyacct2 15y ago

Density. And the perception of funding public transportation in the same realm as alternative energy, global warming, etc.

MichaelSalib 15y ago
In most of the US, building densely is illegal. We have massive public subsidies and implicit taxes to support car ownership (in the form of mandatory parking requirements and absurdly underpriced municipal parking just for starters). Public transportation cost effectiveness is highly dependent on density which we've outlawed.
- TechNewb 15y ago
  Would love to read a paper on this. If its not already written maybe we can build a google doc with a list if related resources so that one of u could write a paper.
  - MichaelSalib 15y ago
    Ed Glaeser at Harvard has written extensively about this, including in his recent book. Ryan Avent also covers this on his blog and I think in his book The Gated City as well.
    - TechNewb 15y ago
      Thanks! I'll check out those resources.

rilindo 15y ago

The growth of the suburbs in the middle of the last century and the subsequent flight from the inner city. These two factors contributed to the death of railway transit systems in all but a few of the large and medium-sized cities. From that point one, most of the transportation investment is in expanding highways from the suburbs to the city and maybe bus services as well. It is only in the last 10-15 years that serious efforts are being made to rebuild the inner system rail ways system. In the face of public apathy (and sometimes outright opposition) as well as interests depended heavily in highway transportation, it is been slow going.

ams6110 15y ago
It's really a myth that public transit is cheaper, more convenient, and more efficient than people driving their own cars when and where they want to go. Public transit appears to be cheaper only because of massive government subsidies. If passengers had to pay fares commensurate with the true cost of the service, it would not be competitive.
- TechNewb 15y ago
  There are many factors at play, other than just generalizing 'public transit'. In many American cities you may be correct. But have you ever been to Seoul, Shanghai, Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, etc? Do you really think driving would be more practical and cost effective in those cities? One of America's greatest problems is the lack of any development into great city infrastructure. Our American society lacks the idea of planning for the future since post WWII, and only focuses on the 'now'. Where are the great cities in America? NYC, Boston, DC, maybe San Fran, rather a few for a country as large as ours, with a population of 300 million. We need to start thinking about our infrastructure more. And thinking of the future, with integrated design through out our public systems.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    It's hard to take seriously an argument that the only great US cities are NYC, Boston, DC, and SF. NYC is the most populous city in the US, and the spread between it and the next most populous city on your list includes the twelve next largest cities in the US. Seattle, one of our greatest cities, is all the way down at #23, meaning you have to disqualify almost 20 other bigger cities to add it-and-only-it to that list. Sure, I'm no fan of Houston, and that list includes Detroit, but dismissing Austin? San Diego? Philly? Come on.

sc68cal 15y ago

Because we haven't made it a priority. We've spent our resources fighting abroad and cutting taxes at home, leaving little money left over to repair our current infrastructure, let alone fund any ambitious public works projects. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that the nation faces a $2.2 trillion infrastructure backlog. One of every eight bridges is "structurally deficient," and 85 percent of public transit systems are struggling to carry the growing number of riders. As ASCE President Blaine D. Leonard puts it, "We are still driving on Eisenhower's roads and sending our kids to Roosevelt's schools." http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Looming-Infrastructure-Crisis.html http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Loomi... We also have one half of our two-party democracy steadfastly against public transit. Despite the fact that trains and rail were a central theme in their cultural touchstone, Atlas Shrugged. Why did President George W. Bush try to zero out Amtrak funding in 2005? Why is the conservative Republican Study Committee suggesting that we do so now? Why does George Will think "the real reason for progressives' passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism"? "You need to distinguish between Republicans and conservatives and libertarians when you look at this," says William Lind, the director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. "It's the libertarians who push this crap." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/03/off_the_rails.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

tptacek 15y ago
The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies. I like the Acela, a lot, and I disagree philosophically with the GOP's take on public infrastructure, but I think it's a bad idea to pretend that they don't have a valid point regarding Amtrak.
- MichaelSalib 15y ago
  Would Amtrak be cost effective if Congress didn't force it to run lots of unprofitable routes that it was desperately trying to shed? This is a fun game! Congress forces Amtrak to lose money and then lambastes it for not being profitable.

tptacek 15y ago

First, I think it's easy to ignore the fact that the US Interstate System is a monumental public infrastructure achievement. You can learn this the way I did: cross over from rural Montana to Alberta. Even the bleakest, most desolate part of the US has roads better than the TCH, and you don't get to the TCH for several hours from the southern border of Alberta. Second, for its core purpose --- not moving people from home to vacation, but for moving products between manufacturing centers, ports, and consumers --- the US has a powerful and reasonably effective rail infrastructure. Read Buffett's shareholder note after buying Burlington Northern. Third, if (say) 80-90% of public transit is commuter transit, keep in mind that most US major metros have tolerably effective public transit, and many (NYC, Chicago, DC, &c) have extremely good public transit. While you think about that remember also that the real estate bubble and artificially low commuter costs (cheap gas, &c) distorted public transit in our metro areas by encouraging the development of exurb suburbs that can't cost-effectively be addressed by rail. It's possible that within the next 20 years, they won't be cost-effective for cars either, and that problem will self-correct as housing values in exurbs plummet and families move back into the public transit rings around the cities. Put differently, because maybe that point seems banal ("suburbs bad!"), consider that in complaining about transit, we may effectively be complaining that it is hard to link a city with what should be a corn field in the middle of nowhere. Well, yeah? Then read everything everyone else writes about long distance high speed rail. I'd love to have it. People made fun of STL->CHI high speed rail, hoping instead for coast-to-coast or Chicago->Detroit->Cleveland->NYC, but STL->CHI would link two major metros and allow companies to expand between the cities; for instance, it would allow us to hire out of STL and serve STL companies as house accounts. But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way. It's easy for Europe to have effective rail, because Europe is comparatively tiny; the distance from Berlin to Rome is just a little more than twice the distance the Acela runs; Acela's got nowhere to go north of Boston, and extending it to Atlanta would make Acela longer than Berlin-Rome.

TechNewb 15y ago
I agree with your insights. >>But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will become. I say we should act now and swift. Instead of bailing out failing financial systems, we should have solely put that money to our infrastructure. That would have put deserving people to real work. Imagine how much harder it will become in another 20 years, and this is the future of America we are talking about. Also, I believe cities ordinances should start outlawing the development of the traditional suburb. It should not be legal for these developers to build suburbs with out having a library, hospital, and school in walking distance. Having grown up in a suburb, and traveled the world a bit, I want nothing to do with suburbs. The reason why many in our government likes suburbs is because it encourages consumerism. Some have even argued that the reason why we solely have an almost auto based public transit system is because of auto lobbyist in congress during the 20th century. Although of course there have been many other social economic factors as well, such as 'white flight', as you touched upon.

notatoad 15y ago

America doesn't have a well developed public transportation infrastructure because of the auto lobby. You can't build a train without annoying GM and ford.

TechNewb 15y ago
Agreed, do we have any documentation on this? (I know the lobby industry conveniently has little documentation in general, but I'd love to see any papers written on the subject)
- natesm 15y ago
  GM bought and destroyed almost all sustainable transportation in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...
  - tptacek 15y ago
    That Wikipedia article doesn't make that claim, and normalized by GDP actually contradicts it by pointing out that 5 of the top 10 of those cities actually have well-developed rail (I'd add DC and Atlanta to that list, bringing us up to 7 --- in other words, leaving out only LA, Houston, and Dallas).
    - rilindo 15y ago
      I disagree about Atlanta. Atlanta does not have a well-developed rail. I should know - I live there. :)
tptacek 15y ago
The top 10 cities in the US by GDP: * NYC * LA * Chicago * DC * Houston * Dallas * Philly * SF * Boston * Atlanta Most of these cities have effective public transit. LA is the notable exception (and the one the "auto lobby" narrative seems to pick out).

Turing_Machine 15y ago

Some of it has to do with the sheer size and low population density of most of the United States. Oregon (a medium-sized western state) is larger than the UK. Texas is larger than France. Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe. You mention South Korea. It's slightly larger than Indiana, but has close to 49 million people, while Indiana has only about 6.5 million. Overall, the population density of the United States is 1/7 that of Germany and 1/15 that of South Korea. Canada is in a similar situation, only more so. Lots of land, not many people living on it. Just as in the U.S., you find public transit in large, dense cities like Toronto, not so much in the smaller and more rural areas. Same with Russia -- good subways in Moscow, etc. by all reports, but you aren't going to find subways or buses in the middle of Siberia.

Zak 15y ago

II think it's actually pretty easy to understand just by comparing the US to a country with a useful passenger rail system. I'll use Germany because I've spent some time there and taken a few trips by train. Two things are required for a regional or national train service to be useful enough that it can be self-sustaining: population density and local public transportation. Local public transportation also requires population density to be effective; someone considering taking a train to Tallahassee FL might decide to drive instead after looking up the bus schedules online. Busses run about once an hour during the hours people normally commute to day jobs and do not go to many useful locations, like the airport. Germany has a population of about 80 million people. Germany is smaller than Montana. The US as a whole has 26 times the land area but less than 4 times the population. There are useful train services in population-dense areas of the US such as the SF bay area and the NYC/northern New Jersey region. The population density of these areas is such that it's often easier to travel by train, subway and bus than by car. The same is not true of Billings, MT, the largest city in a state bigger than Germany. The population of Billings is about 100,000, and the closest city in the state with a population over 10,000 is Bozeman, about 150 miles away. The population of the whole state is about the same as the city I live in, Jacksonville FL, and that city can barely sustain a barely useful bus system. If the US is to have a decent nationwide public transportation system, it needs about a billion more people. I'm not sure we actually want that.