The problem is all that energy you "save" in passenger railroads is more than lost by less efficient freight. Pushing passengers to the back of the line for rails is a good thing. It allows the far more important and efficient freight trains to run even more efficiently. We have the most efficient freight rail in the world in part because passenger rail gets the crumbs. Trams , elevated trains and subways make more sense for passengers. It operates where large numbers of people are, not where they are not and you don't need heavy rails in every street anyway.
A more realistic (IMO) AHC: US Metro/Regional Transit as good as in Europe.
- Thread starter Johnrankins
- Start date
I don't think I made myself clear as I have read timelines about the rail companies consolidation that one of the things could be part of the deal is to have the federal government buy the surplus rail tracks for dedicated passenger rail service and that way there would be no need to shunt passenger traffic to the side in favor of freight traffic.
I been watching a lot of rail videos lately and many times the Amtrak or commuter train would be shunted aside for freight and that would throw the timetable off.
By upgrading the passenger rail systems with grade separation higher speed capabilities the need for true HSR is lessened.
In the 90's the Metrolink system in Los Angeles had an agreement with Union Pacific for priority traffic during peak commuter hours and the UP would still shunt the passenger rail to the side to let freight traffic go through and more than a few years ago Amtrak had to make changes to a route in Kansas because the rails couldn't handle speeds over 45 MHP and the rail company wouldn't upgrade the track because their trains were going under that.
I been watching a lot of rail videos lately and many times the Amtrak or commuter train would be shunted aside for freight and that would throw the timetable off.
By upgrading the passenger rail systems with grade separation higher speed capabilities the need for true HSR is lessened.
In the 90's the Metrolink system in Los Angeles had an agreement with Union Pacific for priority traffic during peak commuter hours and the UP would still shunt the passenger rail to the side to let freight traffic go through and more than a few years ago Amtrak had to make changes to a route in Kansas because the rails couldn't handle speeds over 45 MHP and the rail company wouldn't upgrade the track because their trains were going under that.
Surplus rail track would work. It isn't being used anyway so it might as well be used for passengers.
Sorry but yes most folks prefer driving to mass transit, in London they have to out a HUGE fee on driving your car in the inner city to cut back the numbers and this is on top of having rediculus traffic levels and a road system designed for horse and buggy. And people still try to drivecif they can.
And as I said. Yes some folks don’t like the car. But that doesnt change that most folks if they can would drive. That being said some places make driving suck so bad (say New York) that folks prefer the take mass transit, but making a place extremely difficult to drive is not the same thing as making people prefer mass transit and you can’t make every city that bad a place to drive. Especially not in the US.
Frim my time in Europe I can tell you that folks drive as much as they can up to the point that it (driving) becomes more trouble then it is worth. Thus the roads are used up to a giveclevel of capacity then everyone else takes transit, if transit was so much better then driving then you would see a reduced traffic level on the roads below the “saturation point” but in pretty much every major city you see the roads filled to pretty much capacity. So that tells me that folks will drive until the drive sucks so badly that they are willing to take transit.
Then On top of this the vast majority of transit systems need subsidies. And in a small country that is not TOO hard to pull off. But why would a state with no cities big enough to get a transit system be willing to vote to pay for transit systems in states with big cities? This is the part everyone is ignoring. Roads and airports are everywhere so all the states are willing to pay for them even if some stares get more then others. But transit and HSR will NEVER be everywhere even in Japan, China and France (to name three) it is not everywhere as it would cost way way to much. But roads are everywhere. And in places with low population it is cheeper.
BTW cutting airport subsidies for small airports (often located in low population states and Rural areas) is NOT going to win you any votes to support HSR and Mass tranist for states that are getting subsidized airports. You actually make it worse. As now Montana is getting even KESS. Indy so they are not going to vote to give California more money.... This just goes to show that no one is thinking about the political reality of the US. Why do we have so much pork? Because I need to convince enough senators/representatives to vote for my mass transit so I add in things they want. So we get bridges to nowhere and other pork barrel projects ten costing many times the cost if the item the bill is arguably about. So if one state wants a billion dollars for Mass transit you get 25 billion in other projects tacked on to you get a majorly voting for the bill and your already expensive HSR or Mass Transit system gets even more ridiculously expensive.
So we are back to the reality that if a state it two or three wantvmass transit or HSR they are going to have to foot the bill. As to many other areas will get no advantage from it. And with the huge amount of land you cant (in general) force the population to life in densely packed cities as in general most folks pre a house and some property. Just as most folks prefer to come and go in there schedule and to and from the location they want vs on your schedule to your location and then have to walk. But if you make that hard enough then they are willing to use your mass transit system.
I do wonder how many pro mass transit system or HSR system supporters have every used Mass transit or HSR.? Because a lot of this conversation seams like folks are looking through rose colored glasses...
And as I said. Yes some folks don’t like the car. But that doesnt change that most folks if they can would drive. That being said some places make driving suck so bad (say New York) that folks prefer the take mass transit, but making a place extremely difficult to drive is not the same thing as making people prefer mass transit and you can’t make every city that bad a place to drive. Especially not in the US.
Frim my time in Europe I can tell you that folks drive as much as they can up to the point that it (driving) becomes more trouble then it is worth. Thus the roads are used up to a giveclevel of capacity then everyone else takes transit, if transit was so much better then driving then you would see a reduced traffic level on the roads below the “saturation point” but in pretty much every major city you see the roads filled to pretty much capacity. So that tells me that folks will drive until the drive sucks so badly that they are willing to take transit.
Then On top of this the vast majority of transit systems need subsidies. And in a small country that is not TOO hard to pull off. But why would a state with no cities big enough to get a transit system be willing to vote to pay for transit systems in states with big cities? This is the part everyone is ignoring. Roads and airports are everywhere so all the states are willing to pay for them even if some stares get more then others. But transit and HSR will NEVER be everywhere even in Japan, China and France (to name three) it is not everywhere as it would cost way way to much. But roads are everywhere. And in places with low population it is cheeper.
BTW cutting airport subsidies for small airports (often located in low population states and Rural areas) is NOT going to win you any votes to support HSR and Mass tranist for states that are getting subsidized airports. You actually make it worse. As now Montana is getting even KESS. Indy so they are not going to vote to give California more money.... This just goes to show that no one is thinking about the political reality of the US. Why do we have so much pork? Because I need to convince enough senators/representatives to vote for my mass transit so I add in things they want. So we get bridges to nowhere and other pork barrel projects ten costing many times the cost if the item the bill is arguably about. So if one state wants a billion dollars for Mass transit you get 25 billion in other projects tacked on to you get a majorly voting for the bill and your already expensive HSR or Mass Transit system gets even more ridiculously expensive.
So we are back to the reality that if a state it two or three wantvmass transit or HSR they are going to have to foot the bill. As to many other areas will get no advantage from it. And with the huge amount of land you cant (in general) force the population to life in densely packed cities as in general most folks pre a house and some property. Just as most folks prefer to come and go in there schedule and to and from the location they want vs on your schedule to your location and then have to walk. But if you make that hard enough then they are willing to use your mass transit system.
I do wonder how many pro mass transit system or HSR system supporters have every used Mass transit or HSR.? Because a lot of this conversation seams like folks are looking through rose colored glasses...
There's been a lot of good discussion here, but one factor I'd like to emphasize is that without a really early POD, some level of decline in the urban cores of the US post WWII is pretty much inevitable. There are several factors pushing for this, including:
- Automobile adoption enabling easier and faster access between home, work, and commercial areas.
- Aged and overcrowded city housing stocks
- Legacy industry becoming obsolete/automated/offshored (be it overseas or to the South)
- Pollution from said legacy industry making cities generally unpleasent
- Newer industry requiring fewer workers and being build in more remote areas accessible by car
- Declining birthrates
- Racists who moving to avoid integration and discriminatory housing practices preventing minorities from moving with them
- Increased crime (variety of complex factors, but likely at some point in the 50's-80's)
I can't see HSR financed by the US government in any meaningful way but mass transit is cheaper. Maybe pass a bill in which you can use the money either for mass transit or for rural development such as extended sewer lines and high speed internet (at least these days) or maybe wider cable coverage.
The Size of the US means most of our big cities are not restricted from spreading out, So once you get the technology to allow people to live farther away from their work, relatives friends and what have you then you are going to get this nothing you can do will stop it. In Europe it is a bit harder to spread out as there is only so much land but even they spread out just slower.
As for mass transit I have never been in a city that had mass transit and that didn’t have congested roads. Which tells me that folks will Drive given the the chance over mass transit up to the point that driving becomes harder then using mass transit. So you are yet again trying to legislate something the people don’t actually want.
As for mass transit I have never been in a city that had mass transit and that didn’t have congested roads. Which tells me that folks will Drive given the the chance over mass transit up to the point that driving becomes harder then using mass transit. So you are yet again trying to legislate something the people don’t actually want.
I would definitely love better local rail transit.
I will add the datum that I'm having a "wargame weekend" at my house (north San Diego County) for Memorial Day, and two of my friends in the Bay Area opted to take Amtrak down rather than fly (though they are flying back). The trip takes longer, even factoring in airport security and shenanigans, but it's MUCH cheaper.
But yeah -- Japanese rail is where it's at.
I will add the datum that I'm having a "wargame weekend" at my house (north San Diego County) for Memorial Day, and two of my friends in the Bay Area opted to take Amtrak down rather than fly (though they are flying back). The trip takes longer, even factoring in airport security and shenanigans, but it's MUCH cheaper.
But yeah -- Japanese rail is where it's at.
And yet the most populous state in the Union can't make it pay off. The cost estimates are hitting $100 billion and they still haven't completed the track between Merced and Bakersfield. A track that will be virtually unused since it is a train from nowhere to nowhere. So CA will be spending tens of billions of dollars on a train that is almost certainly destined to become an internet meme showing either virtually empty trains or trains with very few train cars.
That's not true, population density in US cities is not prohibitive to more transit, and making driving ridiculously inconvenient is not required either (although less driving does provide benefits to cities). European countries have more transit use because they provide better service, in many areas with similar densities to US cities that have low transit use.
HOP ON THE BUS, GUS
Even rural America can have good public transportation
By Ben Adler
Grist
Paul Sableman
https://grist.org/cities/even-rural-america-can-have-good-public-transportation/
Want to Grow Transit Ridership? Improve Bus Service
By Angie Schmitt
StreetsBlogUSA
Photo: wyliepoon/Flickr
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/04/want-to-grow-transit-ridership-improve-bus-service/
Also, London already had high transit use before the congestion charge, and there are a lot of hidden subsidies to driving in the U.S...
"US Metro/Regional Transit as good as in Europe."
I think the most likely way would be to close, underfund, run down, and abandon the greater part of all the European systems so they are as bad as here... :-(
I think the most likely way would be to close, underfund, run down, and abandon the greater part of all the European systems so they are as bad as here... :-(
London and pretty much every major city in the world has had bad traffic issues as long as they have had cars, And probably back to horse and buggy days.
And show me a single city that has more people riding mass transit then driving that doesn’t have congestion problems on the roads. I highly doubt you can.
New York, Boston, London, Paris, to name but 4 off the top of my head.
You can try to deny my point all you want. But show me the proof.
As far as I can tell every city with an extensive mass transit system still has close to max number of cars on the roads or at least has so many that driving is unpleasant. But you still get some folks driving. Thus you have enough people that prefer driving over mass transit which proves t hat not everyone wants to take mass transit. In general most folks will take whatever is easiest on them. The reality is as long as the roads are not overly busy it is more convenient to drive then take mass transit. You don’t have to walk at both ends (assuming parking lots located near both ends). Thus you don’t get wet, or cold or hot as much. Also you don’t have to go on the schedule of the mass transit and you can go directly to you destination without changing trains.
This is simply easier. This is THE reason street car systems in America (and other places) died out once people could buy cars. And the only exceptions to this are in big cities that were never good places to own cars. My grandfather had a motor cycle in Hamburg that he had to walk two blocks to the place he parked it. That is NOT convenient. Big cities such as London have never been easy on car drivers. Yet you still get so many folks driving that they charge a congestion fee. That should tell you something.
It was these cities where driving was difficult or that car ownership was problematic that kept mass transit, This is not a coincidence.
So you want more mass transit (as something that is used vs a sink for taxpayers dollars then you need to make mass transit easier to use the cars. So you have to make mass transit easy (and really you have limits on that as you can only ripen the lines in some many places and you can only run so many trains, thus folks will have to walk and they will have to wait for a train and some will have to change trains, the other option is to make driving or car ownership harder. Be it with bad roads high traffic columns or things like taxes. But putting artificial taxes on cars to stop folks driving is going to be very very unpopular.
Add in one additional problem in the US. We have a LOT of room. As such we can easily build more aforda houses farther out so we can easily see cuties spreading a lot faster then you can expand mass transit. So you are going to have to restrict the size of the cities forcing folks to buy smaller older houses and thus making these house more expensive then they would be in a city that has expansion. This is also not going to be popular.
In Metropolitan London they sell houses with a bit smaller then mine with less the 1/5 my property for 10+ TIMES the cost of my house. Houses that go for a Million pounds are tiny little things smaller then the cheapest starter houses. Why because they are not constantly building new houses and if they are they are really really far out and it is a pain to commute, We see similar things in a handful of cities in the Uas mostly older cities or those constrainEd by geography. But in most US cities we see a slow expansion of the cities and this slows for good sized house and lots usually at a fraction of the cost of similar houses in European cities.
So yes folks in general prefer cars and driving themselves at there own schedule . If they didn’t the roads would be empty of personal cars.
Folks like large houses and reasonable lots at reasonable prices over expensive little places.
So given there druthers folks not take (in general) mass transit because the other options are worse.
Example I have fiberboard unLondon a few times staying in various locations including right in the tourist center on the river. I took the underground almost exclusively (except to the airport the last time). And I do love the underground best mass transit I have seen. But if I could have I would have been happier driving or taking cabs. My father was with me on those trips and he was elderly (in his Eighties). And taking mass transit was a HUGE issue with him. The walking the access ((a lot of stations not having elevators or escalators) the standing the getting on and off the trying yo get a seat (actually the Londoners we’re excellent about giving him a seat, but you won’t get that in the US) and the general effort and time it took. It would have been much better to take a taxi if the roads hadn’t been so busy. And in Paris on a couple occasions we did take taxis because the congestion while bad is not as bad as London.
So if you want more mass transit you are going to have to basically force it on folks buy making the alternative much worse then owning/driving a car. If you disagree with me that is fine. But show me some ev don’t just keep saying I am wrong…
And n general the US is to low of population density for Mass transit to work most places and HSR or other rail lines to work almost anywhere. With one or two exceptions. And don’t get me started on who would pay for this.
Note I love trains and subways and that kind of thing I belong to a number of organizations that are about trains and I spend my holidays hiking out to find and document the old trains but unfortunately they just are not practical in most of the US.
And show me a single city that has more people riding mass transit then driving that doesn’t have congestion problems on the roads. I highly doubt you can.
New York, Boston, London, Paris, to name but 4 off the top of my head.
You can try to deny my point all you want. But show me the proof.
As far as I can tell every city with an extensive mass transit system still has close to max number of cars on the roads or at least has so many that driving is unpleasant. But you still get some folks driving. Thus you have enough people that prefer driving over mass transit which proves t hat not everyone wants to take mass transit. In general most folks will take whatever is easiest on them. The reality is as long as the roads are not overly busy it is more convenient to drive then take mass transit. You don’t have to walk at both ends (assuming parking lots located near both ends). Thus you don’t get wet, or cold or hot as much. Also you don’t have to go on the schedule of the mass transit and you can go directly to you destination without changing trains.
This is simply easier. This is THE reason street car systems in America (and other places) died out once people could buy cars. And the only exceptions to this are in big cities that were never good places to own cars. My grandfather had a motor cycle in Hamburg that he had to walk two blocks to the place he parked it. That is NOT convenient. Big cities such as London have never been easy on car drivers. Yet you still get so many folks driving that they charge a congestion fee. That should tell you something.
It was these cities where driving was difficult or that car ownership was problematic that kept mass transit, This is not a coincidence.
So you want more mass transit (as something that is used vs a sink for taxpayers dollars then you need to make mass transit easier to use the cars. So you have to make mass transit easy (and really you have limits on that as you can only ripen the lines in some many places and you can only run so many trains, thus folks will have to walk and they will have to wait for a train and some will have to change trains, the other option is to make driving or car ownership harder. Be it with bad roads high traffic columns or things like taxes. But putting artificial taxes on cars to stop folks driving is going to be very very unpopular.
Add in one additional problem in the US. We have a LOT of room. As such we can easily build more aforda houses farther out so we can easily see cuties spreading a lot faster then you can expand mass transit. So you are going to have to restrict the size of the cities forcing folks to buy smaller older houses and thus making these house more expensive then they would be in a city that has expansion. This is also not going to be popular.
In Metropolitan London they sell houses with a bit smaller then mine with less the 1/5 my property for 10+ TIMES the cost of my house. Houses that go for a Million pounds are tiny little things smaller then the cheapest starter houses. Why because they are not constantly building new houses and if they are they are really really far out and it is a pain to commute, We see similar things in a handful of cities in the Uas mostly older cities or those constrainEd by geography. But in most US cities we see a slow expansion of the cities and this slows for good sized house and lots usually at a fraction of the cost of similar houses in European cities.
So yes folks in general prefer cars and driving themselves at there own schedule . If they didn’t the roads would be empty of personal cars.
Folks like large houses and reasonable lots at reasonable prices over expensive little places.
So given there druthers folks not take (in general) mass transit because the other options are worse.
Example I have fiberboard unLondon a few times staying in various locations including right in the tourist center on the river. I took the underground almost exclusively (except to the airport the last time). And I do love the underground best mass transit I have seen. But if I could have I would have been happier driving or taking cabs. My father was with me on those trips and he was elderly (in his Eighties). And taking mass transit was a HUGE issue with him. The walking the access ((a lot of stations not having elevators or escalators) the standing the getting on and off the trying yo get a seat (actually the Londoners we’re excellent about giving him a seat, but you won’t get that in the US) and the general effort and time it took. It would have been much better to take a taxi if the roads hadn’t been so busy. And in Paris on a couple occasions we did take taxis because the congestion while bad is not as bad as London.
So if you want more mass transit you are going to have to basically force it on folks buy making the alternative much worse then owning/driving a car. If you disagree with me that is fine. But show me some ev don’t just keep saying I am wrong…
And n general the US is to low of population density for Mass transit to work most places and HSR or other rail lines to work almost anywhere. With one or two exceptions. And don’t get me started on who would pay for this.
Note I love trains and subways and that kind of thing I belong to a number of organizations that are about trains and I spend my holidays hiking out to find and document the old trains but unfortunately they just are not practical in most of the US.
Grade separated heavy/medium rail is popular and beloved
LRTs, streetcars are middling popularity but crazy popular with transit nerds
Buses are unpopular.
Speed and reliability are top priority for riders and potential riders, aka why they prefer grade separated medium and heavy rail.
There. That’s the sum-up of like fifty years of mass transit studies of rider preference. If you can build a heavy/medium rail system your populace will like and use it. People will only use buses if they don’t have a car / can’t afford their car.
So if you want a popular mass transit system you have to build the most expensive construction-wise possible variants (monorail/SkyTrain type systems or subways) although if you run it automated you save a lot operationally.
LRTs, streetcars are middling popularity but crazy popular with transit nerds
Buses are unpopular.
Speed and reliability are top priority for riders and potential riders, aka why they prefer grade separated medium and heavy rail.
There. That’s the sum-up of like fifty years of mass transit studies of rider preference. If you can build a heavy/medium rail system your populace will like and use it. People will only use buses if they don’t have a car / can’t afford their car.
So if you want a popular mass transit system you have to build the most expensive construction-wise possible variants (monorail/SkyTrain type systems or subways) although if you run it automated you save a lot operationally.
Last edited:
People don't take medium/heavy rail either if they can afford and/or drive a car. They will indeed take buses. Milwaukee County has a transit system and many of the busses run full or did before Covid. If you had more buses running more often they would run at least half full. On the more popular routes its standing room only or wait for the next bus. You aren't going to get people to pony up cash for ultra-expensive rail.
Maybe an ad campaign stressing it? Instead of stressing environmental issues and other things most people (although most won't admit it) don't care too much about and stress things they do care about.
But the problem is….. Mass transit IS only for people that don’t have other options. This is the part you are missing. Or actively choosing to ignore because it doesn’t fit your pro mass transit agenda. Whenever people have the option to NOT take mass transit they choose to not take it and thus mass transit dies off. This is pretty much 100% universal.
The US is the best example of this most of our large cities and even many towns had mass transit back in the day. Then the car becomes avoidable and poof the mass transit systems all died out. This is not a coincidence. This is because people if given a chance would rather drive a car then take mass transit. The car is just simply more convenient.
Advantages of a car.
It goes from my house
It goes TO my destination.
It goes when I want to go. If i want to take an extra 5 minutes to say good buy i can without worrying that I will miss my train.
(Real story i was visiting my brother we planned to go into.Boston via train. His cat got sick delaying us a couple minutes then his wife needed to use the bathroom we arrived just in time to watch the train leave without us…but our car didn’t leave until we told it to)
It does not require changing from one train to another.
it does not require me to go from suburb A into the hub then out to suburb B. I just Drive from A to B.
I dont have to walk to the station often in the rain the snow the heat or the cold.
I dont have to walk from the station to my destination.
I dont have to try and carry everything on my i can put my stuff in the trunk of spare seat. Try buying a week’s groceries using the underground
Much less likely to get stuck up against someone that needs to shower, or that is drunk or that will try to feel you up or that will try to pick you pocket.
And dont get me started on on the problem that those with mobility issues have with mass transit, Geting to the station. Getting to the platform getting on the train getting a space. And doing this in a timely Manor and dealing with the distances involved. I took my 86 year old father to London and Paris. As well as Germany and the South if France and he was very fit for his age and mass transit was still a PITA for him. He was MUCH MUCH happier and could do a LOT more when we’ were using a car.
This list goes on and on. There is a reason that mass transit is only used when driving is made extremely inconvenient, or to expensive of just plain outlawed. As for Europeans prefering it because there system is so good. Sorry but i don’t see that. Every city I have ever been in From London to Paris to Amsterdam to Nice to Hamburg to many many others all have one thing in common. The roads are used to capacity, This tells me that if given a chance folks drive. Do they take mass transit? Sure because they cant all drive the roads can’t handle the traffic.
And as for how well the system runs…. I have been delayed by more then 5 minutes on probably 30% of all trains i have ever taken in Europe. I was delayed over an hour on the TGV in Lyon. Going from Avignon to Paris , and I was delayed over half an hour departing Köln and over an hour by the time we got to Paris. To name but two.
And the service on the TGV is worse then Amtrak. I had first class tickets and we couldn’t find our seats because A) the conductor would answer (even in French) B) the idea of signs has not occurred to them and C) they don’t actually use numerical order for the seat numbers in all cars.
Was this horrible? No. But let’s not pretend it is al absolutely great service running on time with perfect cars.
So the truth is you will get as many people driving as can reasonably do so and the rest will take the transit system because it beats the alternative.
So you want more folks taking mass transit in the US then you have to make driving a much worse option.
And dont forget that in Europe the charge extremely high taxes on driving (fees, and fuel taxes and such) in order to help pay for those extremely expensive mass transit systems. And in the US the cost is going to be even higher. Because Montana and Idaho and Alaska are not voting to pay billions of dollars for a state thousands of miles away to get HSR or a new subway line. Unless they get something they want. So you will have to pay the cost of the system then pay the cost of getting enough votes for it to pass unless you do it on a state by state basis and then you still have the same issue just on a smaller scale where the Upper Peninsula of Michigan wants something to offset the cost of Detroit’s new Streetcar line..
Dont get me wrong. I love London’s Underground and I take trains whenever I can. But then I am a tourist in London and i am a train buff that goes places just to ride the train. But I am also realistic enough to understand that if mass transit was a better option preferred by most folks then we would have it still. But it went away for very valid reasons. That can be summed up as in general people prefer to drive,
The US is the best example of this most of our large cities and even many towns had mass transit back in the day. Then the car becomes avoidable and poof the mass transit systems all died out. This is not a coincidence. This is because people if given a chance would rather drive a car then take mass transit. The car is just simply more convenient.
Advantages of a car.
It goes from my house
It goes TO my destination.
It goes when I want to go. If i want to take an extra 5 minutes to say good buy i can without worrying that I will miss my train.
(Real story i was visiting my brother we planned to go into.Boston via train. His cat got sick delaying us a couple minutes then his wife needed to use the bathroom we arrived just in time to watch the train leave without us…but our car didn’t leave until we told it to)
It does not require changing from one train to another.
it does not require me to go from suburb A into the hub then out to suburb B. I just Drive from A to B.
I dont have to walk to the station often in the rain the snow the heat or the cold.
I dont have to walk from the station to my destination.
I dont have to try and carry everything on my i can put my stuff in the trunk of spare seat. Try buying a week’s groceries using the underground
Much less likely to get stuck up against someone that needs to shower, or that is drunk or that will try to feel you up or that will try to pick you pocket.
And dont get me started on on the problem that those with mobility issues have with mass transit, Geting to the station. Getting to the platform getting on the train getting a space. And doing this in a timely Manor and dealing with the distances involved. I took my 86 year old father to London and Paris. As well as Germany and the South if France and he was very fit for his age and mass transit was still a PITA for him. He was MUCH MUCH happier and could do a LOT more when we’ were using a car.
This list goes on and on. There is a reason that mass transit is only used when driving is made extremely inconvenient, or to expensive of just plain outlawed. As for Europeans prefering it because there system is so good. Sorry but i don’t see that. Every city I have ever been in From London to Paris to Amsterdam to Nice to Hamburg to many many others all have one thing in common. The roads are used to capacity, This tells me that if given a chance folks drive. Do they take mass transit? Sure because they cant all drive the roads can’t handle the traffic.
And as for how well the system runs…. I have been delayed by more then 5 minutes on probably 30% of all trains i have ever taken in Europe. I was delayed over an hour on the TGV in Lyon. Going from Avignon to Paris , and I was delayed over half an hour departing Köln and over an hour by the time we got to Paris. To name but two.
And the service on the TGV is worse then Amtrak. I had first class tickets and we couldn’t find our seats because A) the conductor would answer (even in French) B) the idea of signs has not occurred to them and C) they don’t actually use numerical order for the seat numbers in all cars.
Was this horrible? No. But let’s not pretend it is al absolutely great service running on time with perfect cars.
So the truth is you will get as many people driving as can reasonably do so and the rest will take the transit system because it beats the alternative.
So you want more folks taking mass transit in the US then you have to make driving a much worse option.
And dont forget that in Europe the charge extremely high taxes on driving (fees, and fuel taxes and such) in order to help pay for those extremely expensive mass transit systems. And in the US the cost is going to be even higher. Because Montana and Idaho and Alaska are not voting to pay billions of dollars for a state thousands of miles away to get HSR or a new subway line. Unless they get something they want. So you will have to pay the cost of the system then pay the cost of getting enough votes for it to pass unless you do it on a state by state basis and then you still have the same issue just on a smaller scale where the Upper Peninsula of Michigan wants something to offset the cost of Detroit’s new Streetcar line..
Dont get me wrong. I love London’s Underground and I take trains whenever I can. But then I am a tourist in London and i am a train buff that goes places just to ride the train. But I am also realistic enough to understand that if mass transit was a better option preferred by most folks then we would have it still. But it went away for very valid reasons. That can be summed up as in general people prefer to drive,
That is true to a large extent, but not entirely. I think you can do both. Add say a 50 cent a gallon tax to pay for mass transit. That is going to add up for most people. As importantly it will add tens of billions of dollars to the mass transit budget. With that you probably can both get fares to go down and to expand the system more. Will it stop people from taking cars? No. What it will do is get some of them to take the bus to work because you both increased the cost of driving and decreased the cost of mass transit. You won't get HSR out of it but you will probably get better bus service in cities and maybe a few trolley systems and the like.
Riain
Banned
How much of a kick in the nuts has the 'rona given public transport?
I use commuter rail but I didn't go to work for 51 weeks from March 2020, I now have a work from home agreement for 2 days a week and went back into lockdown 2 weeks ago. I'm far from the lone ranger, there is a bit of a panic in the Melbourne CBD that people just won't come back, crippling the cafes, restaurants, pubs etc, I think only ~40% of people have come back to work which I assume includes people like me who only go 60% of the time.
Vline seemed to run most of it's commuter services, but they tended to decouple the 2 x 3 car trains and run them as single car car sets. Even through we were free to return to work back in March 4 months later in June the trains are far from full.
I use commuter rail but I didn't go to work for 51 weeks from March 2020, I now have a work from home agreement for 2 days a week and went back into lockdown 2 weeks ago. I'm far from the lone ranger, there is a bit of a panic in the Melbourne CBD that people just won't come back, crippling the cafes, restaurants, pubs etc, I think only ~40% of people have come back to work which I assume includes people like me who only go 60% of the time.
Vline seemed to run most of it's commuter services, but they tended to decouple the 2 x 3 car trains and run them as single car car sets. Even through we were free to return to work back in March 4 months later in June the trains are far from full.