4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - ComputerGuru 15y ago
      And Chicago! Come on, Thomas, how could you forget Chicago?
      - tptacek 15y ago
        The fact that he left out the greatest city in the US doesn't improve his credibility either. ;)
    - TechNewb 15y ago
      I'm not saying those are the only great cities in America. But I'm considering it on an international scale, considering good public transit, and city planning. (I've never been to, or read much, about Seattle, so I can't comment on that, and same with Detroit, but both are relatively small cities on an international scale in terms of population, and/or general political/cultural influence) I'm talking about well designed cities. San Diego is awesome, but it's kind of an urban sprawl, not well planned. But any infrastructure would be great in that climate, right? Cool laid back culture in San Diego, but how would the city's deign, aesthetic, beauty, and public infrastructure hold up on an international level? Maybe really well, but it could be so much better. (And don't get me wrong, I love SD, and their beaches) Austin is really cool, but again, is also a classic example of a good city gone wrong with suburbs. Many American developers, and American's just don't understand the purpose of a grid system. In Austin there is 'downtown', but where are the people living there. Downtown in Austin seems to merely represent the 'soul' of the city, while the majority of the 'residents' live in poorly planned suburbs with 1.5 Walmarts, and 3 starbucks for every 5 miles you drive in your SUV. So Austin is not a great city in my book, because of it's poor surrounding suburb infrastructure, and 'fo' downtown. Austin downtown acts more of an amusement park, than an actual great city. But that does not mean Austin is not 'great', it's just not a 'great city' on an international scale, in terms of public infrastructure and the such. But relative to other American cities, it's cool, but it's be strangled by the surrounding suburbs. I live in Atlanta, actual Atlanta, not a suburb. And it's an example of a city infrastructure gone horribly wrong. Little public design going on in Atlanta, which is a shame, because there is so much potential, like many American cities. I think Georgia needs to rethink how we tax, residential tax makes no sense to me. Living in another area from where you work, is a strange concept. I think we should take away the tax incentives for living in the suburbs, as I find them morally wrong in the first place.
- Anechoic 15y ago
  If passengers had to pay fares commensurate with the true cost of the service, it would not be competitive. The same can be said about driving. I read a few months ago that all 50 states now receive more in highway funding than they pay out in user fees/taxes.
- davekinkead 15y ago
  Actually, its a myth that its a myth that public transport is cheaper (see http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08111140802369820 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08111140802369820) Once the massive externalities of private motor and road subsidies are accounted for, private motor is much more expensive per km/mi travelled than public transport (and obviously orders of magnitude more than bike) In Sydney, AU for example driving costs $0.86/passengerKm while trains are only $0.48 (http://melbourneurbanist.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/glazebrook-1.jpg http://melbourneurbanist.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/glazebr...) If motorists had to pay the true cost of the service, everyone would be riding bikes.

by rilindo 15y ago

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.
  - ComputerGuru 15y ago
    And Chicago! Come on, Thomas, how could you forget Chicago?
    - tptacek 15y ago
      The fact that he left out the greatest city in the US doesn't improve his credibility either. ;)
  - TechNewb 15y ago
    I'm not saying those are the only great cities in America. But I'm considering it on an international scale, considering good public transit, and city planning. (I've never been to, or read much, about Seattle, so I can't comment on that, and same with Detroit, but both are relatively small cities on an international scale in terms of population, and/or general political/cultural influence) I'm talking about well designed cities. San Diego is awesome, but it's kind of an urban sprawl, not well planned. But any infrastructure would be great in that climate, right? Cool laid back culture in San Diego, but how would the city's deign, aesthetic, beauty, and public infrastructure hold up on an international level? Maybe really well, but it could be so much better. (And don't get me wrong, I love SD, and their beaches) Austin is really cool, but again, is also a classic example of a good city gone wrong with suburbs. Many American developers, and American's just don't understand the purpose of a grid system. In Austin there is 'downtown', but where are the people living there. Downtown in Austin seems to merely represent the 'soul' of the city, while the majority of the 'residents' live in poorly planned suburbs with 1.5 Walmarts, and 3 starbucks for every 5 miles you drive in your SUV. So Austin is not a great city in my book, because of it's poor surrounding suburb infrastructure, and 'fo' downtown. Austin downtown acts more of an amusement park, than an actual great city. But that does not mean Austin is not 'great', it's just not a 'great city' on an international scale, in terms of public infrastructure and the such. But relative to other American cities, it's cool, but it's be strangled by the surrounding suburbs. I live in Atlanta, actual Atlanta, not a suburb. And it's an example of a city infrastructure gone horribly wrong. Little public design going on in Atlanta, which is a shame, because there is so much potential, like many American cities. I think Georgia needs to rethink how we tax, residential tax makes no sense to me. Living in another area from where you work, is a strange concept. I think we should take away the tax incentives for living in the suburbs, as I find them morally wrong in the first place.
Anechoic 15y ago
If passengers had to pay fares commensurate with the true cost of the service, it would not be competitive. The same can be said about driving. I read a few months ago that all 50 states now receive more in highway funding than they pay out in user fees/taxes.
davekinkead 15y ago
Actually, its a myth that its a myth that public transport is cheaper (see http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08111140802369820 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08111140802369820) Once the massive externalities of private motor and road subsidies are accounted for, private motor is much more expensive per km/mi travelled than public transport (and obviously orders of magnitude more than bike) In Sydney, AU for example driving costs $0.86/passengerKm while trains are only $0.48 (http://melbourneurbanist.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/glazebrook-1.jpg http://melbourneurbanist.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/glazebr...) If motorists had to pay the true cost of the service, everyone would be riding bikes.