3 ms·
I agree with your solution, and that densification is the most important piece of the puzzle. However, it is a chicken and egg problem. The second you build new
by screye 4y ago
I agree with your solution, and that densification is the most important piece of the puzzle. However, it is a chicken and egg problem. The second you build new housing in an area that requires a car, the person sinks in the cost of a spare car. That very second, public transport stops being a competitive because it becomes an added cost. Additionally, the spare cars demand lanes and storage that destroy any dream of densification. Densification has to start with low-occupancy buses.
Most of the US has low occupancy buses because there are just few enough buses that no one wants to ever ride them. Buses suffer a self-fulfilling prophecy of occupancy rates. Bus occupancy in Europe is consistently high [1] and there is nothing to indicate that the same cannot be achieved in US cities of similar density given enough time. It is fair to use these numbers.
[1] https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/occupancy-rates-of-passenger-vehicles/occupancy-rates-of-passenger-vehicles https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/occupancy...
- btilly 4y agoIt is unfortunately more complicated than that. First, the density of a city is different than the density of the area over which people live who commute to that city. Even American cities with comparable density are not necessarily as dense on that apples to apples comparison. Second, you have to look at commute distance. The average American commutes around 40 miles each way. The average European commutes around 9 miles each way. 4x the distance = 16x the area, which means that adding a bus from A to B is likely to be helpful for about 1/16 the people. And that, right there, is going to explain a HUGE difference in ridership on mass transit.