5 ms·

Public transportation is typically worse than using a private car. You can't decide when to leave, you pretty much need to plan your trips around public transpo

Public transportation is typically worse than using a private car. You can't decide when to leave, you pretty much need to plan your trips around public transportation. They don't take you directly from A to B etc. This is typically true in North America, but it is not a fundamental law. Particularly, in Europe, but also for some trips in Sydney, Vancouver, et cetera, I have found public transit superior to a private car. The key is to have as wide of a network as possible, frequent service (every 5 minutes so you don't need to think about schedules) and a average speed that is higher than the car (doable with trains, dedicated bus lanes and so on). Anywhere that there is enough traffic to cause congestion ought to be a viable place for public transportation . . . population density is not necessarily the driving factor. In fact, in some situations, a high population density might allow people to move less as they are closer to shops, work, friends, et cetera, rendering transit less important. No, the problem with public transit in North America isn't some fundamental flaw with public transit, it is because we tend to half-ass it.

GVIrish 12y ago
Population density is key to mass transit otherwise you have to spend a lot more money to provide frequent and convenient service. You can't get around the need for high enough ridership to make a transit system financially viable. Sparse population density = higher per rider cost = more difficult to offer frequent service without losing a lot of money. In North America part of the reason we don't have as much mass transit as other parts of the world is because we like our urban sprawl and that makes it difficult to make the economics work out.
- Swizec 12y ago
  > make a transit system financially viable I don't know about other parts of Europe, but where I'm from public transit is most definitely not financially viable. Even in the big cities, it produces millions of euro of losses each year. Those are covered by taxes. The problem in North America isn't [just] the suburban sprawl, it's also that you want to make a profit off of everything. Sometimes some things just need to be a public service because it's better that way.
  - ricilake 12y ago
    Roads are (mostly) not free, and also cost millions of (insert currency unit here) which are covered by taxes. In particular, the asphalted road in a residential street occupied without charge by someone's expensive vehicle is being paid for by, among other people, me -- and as a non-car-owner, I gain essentially no benefit from the provision of this parking space. So clearly, we've opted as a society for subsidizing public services -- but only certain services.
    - Swizec 12y ago
      I think the difference is in the perception that roads are static and once built just sort of stay there for everyone, whereas public transit has a lot of running costs. Sure roads have a lot of upkeep cost as well, but it's not as obvious. Then again, the roads I've seen in the US are so shitty I'm [almost] certain there's no upkeep being done anyway.
      - fl0wenol 12y ago
        The way this works in municipalities or low-population regions of states (which is what most people experience traveling through 95% of the United States' road miles) is that roads are left to deteriorate until such time as they can't avoid fixing, and preferentially might be completely rebuilt which takes a different flavor of money that can be subsidized by the federal govt. Regions with affluent populations and dense metros essentially have their own road budgets and taxes to keep conditions acceptable. The other problem in the states is that the weather varies very strongly; this coupled with snowplows and road freight does a number on roads in short order. Some stretches have to be resurfaced yearly. Doing this is expensive and disruptive, so sometimes it is only done in the worst spots if the other parts can wait.
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        Roads have to be maintained, the cost is non-trivial. The roads in the US are absolutely a dream compared to say Indonesia, or even China where new roads tend to crumble after a few years of iffy maintenance.

GVIrish 12y ago

Population density is key to mass transit otherwise you have to spend a lot more money to provide frequent and convenient service. You can't get around the need for high enough ridership to make a transit system financially viable. Sparse population density = higher per rider cost = more difficult to offer frequent service without losing a lot of money. In North America part of the reason we don't have as much mass transit as other parts of the world is because we like our urban sprawl and that makes it difficult to make the economics work out.

Swizec 12y ago
> make a transit system financially viable I don't know about other parts of Europe, but where I'm from public transit is most definitely not financially viable. Even in the big cities, it produces millions of euro of losses each year. Those are covered by taxes. The problem in North America isn't [just] the suburban sprawl, it's also that you want to make a profit off of everything. Sometimes some things just need to be a public service because it's better that way.
- ricilake 12y ago
  Roads are (mostly) not free, and also cost millions of (insert currency unit here) which are covered by taxes. In particular, the asphalted road in a residential street occupied without charge by someone's expensive vehicle is being paid for by, among other people, me -- and as a non-car-owner, I gain essentially no benefit from the provision of this parking space. So clearly, we've opted as a society for subsidizing public services -- but only certain services.
  - Swizec 12y ago
    I think the difference is in the perception that roads are static and once built just sort of stay there for everyone, whereas public transit has a lot of running costs. Sure roads have a lot of upkeep cost as well, but it's not as obvious. Then again, the roads I've seen in the US are so shitty I'm [almost] certain there's no upkeep being done anyway.
    - fl0wenol 12y ago
      The way this works in municipalities or low-population regions of states (which is what most people experience traveling through 95% of the United States' road miles) is that roads are left to deteriorate until such time as they can't avoid fixing, and preferentially might be completely rebuilt which takes a different flavor of money that can be subsidized by the federal govt. Regions with affluent populations and dense metros essentially have their own road budgets and taxes to keep conditions acceptable. The other problem in the states is that the weather varies very strongly; this coupled with snowplows and road freight does a number on roads in short order. Some stretches have to be resurfaced yearly. Doing this is expensive and disruptive, so sometimes it is only done in the worst spots if the other parts can wait.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Roads have to be maintained, the cost is non-trivial. The roads in the US are absolutely a dream compared to say Indonesia, or even China where new roads tend to crumble after a few years of iffy maintenance.