Why few Americans use public transport?

A lot of people, myself included cannot walk long distance due to physical impairments. If I couldn't drive everywhere I need to go, I wouldn't be able to survive. The greenies certainly don't take my well-being into consideration when they crusade against fossil fuels.

I live in one of the 50 largest cities in the US. Some TV person tried to get around town using the bus. Took forever. Buses were late, schedules inconvenient.

I have done mass transit in Boston, DC, and SF. All have systems that worked for where I was and where i needed to go.

If I lived in one of those cities, I might not own a car (all the associated costs are way too high). LA is a car town--stupid idea to think they would change.

arthritis wrote:

A lot of people, myself included cannot walk long distance due to physical impairments. If I couldn't drive everywhere I need to go, I wouldn't be able to survive. The greenies certainly don't take my well-being into consideration when they crusade against fossil fuels.

You'll have to figure somethig out. Fossil fuels won't be around forever.

I live in Toronto without a car. Public transport and zipcar/cargo make it easy. It is much safer here than any US city, however.

Yeah, as an LA native you are right on. Takes forever to get anywhere by bus.

But driving here is also dangerous. I lived in a small town on the east coast for 6 years and I forgot how to drive in LA! Woah, that was a dangerous experience when I returned. The thing about it is the mix of people: you have the rich who believe they purchased the right of way when they bought their fast BMW, mixed with broken-down cars driven from some guy who migrated from a place that never had stop lights. It is like a game of dodgeball with motor vehicles because they don't signal and you can count on them pulling out right in front of you when you are going 65.

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

You'll have to figure somethig out. Fossil fuels won't be around forever.

The sun won't be around forever, either. Anti-business liberals shouldn't obstruct the production of the fossil fuels upon which innocent lives depend. Your post clearly demonstrates that the liberals' feigned concern for the vulnerable is utterly phony.

t94bell wrote:

The most developed countries seem to not use public transportation as much compared to other countries. Russia is the obvious outlier. Our great wealth enables us to buy our own cars?

Uh, no, pretty much the opposite. The U.S. is the obvious outlier.

6 and 3/4 wrote:

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

You'll have to figure somethig out. Fossil fuels won't be around forever.

The sun won't be around forever, either. Anti-business liberals shouldn't obstruct the production of the fossil fuels upon which innocent lives depend. Your post clearly demonstrates that the liberals' feigned concern for the vulnerable is utterly phony.

Of course it won't. The difference that fossil fuels will be all but consumed within a few centuries, while the Sun will allow for life on earth for a million times that duration, so addressing the replacement of fossil fuels as our primary source of energy is a more inmediate issue.

photofinish wrote:

I realize that ... however, I maintain that it is not the government's job to move you around. The fact that it has stepped in to do so in many cases doesn't mean that it is right to do so.

The government doesn't move you around. It provides the infrastructure for you to move around on your own - whether in a car on on a train.

Maybe you think everyone should build their own roads?

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

6 and 3/4 wrote:

The sun won't be around forever, either. Anti-business liberals shouldn't obstruct the production of the fossil fuels upon which innocent lives depend. Your post clearly demonstrates that the liberals' feigned concern for the vulnerable is utterly phony.

Of course it won't. The difference that fossil fuels will be all but consumed within a few centuries, while the Sun will allow for life on earth for a million times that duration, so addressing the replacement of fossil fuels as our primary source of energy is a more inmediate issue.

I remember in the seventies when they said we would run out of oil by 2000. They also said the world could not support 5 billion people and there was an ice age imminent.

So before you say it, I'll just go back and bury my head in the sand

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

arthritis wrote:

A lot of people, myself included cannot walk long distance due to physical impairments. If I couldn't drive everywhere I need to go, I wouldn't be able to survive. The greenies certainly don't take my well-being into consideration when they crusade against fossil fuels.

You'll have to figure somethig out. Fossil fuels won't be around forever.

Neither will he.

Ghgu wrote:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/natgeo_surveys_countries_trans.html

It seems like outside East Coast cities, the only walkable cities with good public transport systems are Chicago,SF,Seattle, and Miami.

It's obvious why there is a weight crisis. People have access to cheap calories and don't have to move around.

A lot of it has to do with the way America has chosen to structure zoning and land use, especially post World War 2. Suburbs are deliberately zoned for single use, i.e. one geographic area is for housing, another for retail, another is zoned as a 'business park', and still another for municipal buildings, schools, etc. The areas are generally separated and not accessible by walking or even biking, at least not safely. Mass transit cannot efficiently serve such an land use system either.

There are a lot of great books out there discussing the disaster of land use and planning in the USA. I suggest Suburban Nation, The Geography of Nowhere, and The Death and Life of Great American Cities.

Look at Copenhagen for a great example of what can be done with educated, enlightened leadership - they have built a system of dedicated bike highways, not just bike lanes. Furthermore, in areas where they do have bike lanes, they are placed between the sidewalk and the parked cars, so cyclists are protected from traffic by the barrier formed by the parallel parked vehicles. Copenhagen has around 40% of all commuters biking, despite suboptimal weather. And the impact on health, obesity, diabetes, etc has been very real.

Would any US politician advocate doing something like this? Just imaging the ruckus makes me sad.

I know you asked about mass transit, but it is all interconnected. And yes, people do use mass transit in the pre-automobile eastern cities like NYC and Boston, because you can hop on a subway or bus, reach your destination, and easily walk to wherever you want to go. Try that in LA or Phoenix.

If you like not having a car, that is awesome and you don't need one to be awesome. More people need to think like you on that subject, myself included. I find driving relaxing, but I feel guilty that I like doing something that isn't great for the environment. Someday I hope to get an electric car. Hopefully one that can fly.

You fugging scared-ass faggios see something on a screen and think it's everyone's everyday reality? Sack up and get on the damn train/bus.

Frank Luntz wrote:

You fugging scared-ass faggios see something on a screen and think it's everyone's everyday reality? Sack up and get on the damn train/bus.

Oh, a retarded teenager talking dirty. Does your mum know about that?

I'm 22 and have never been behind a wheel of a car. My mother couldn't afford a car when I was young do I used public transit to get around.

In Chicago, it's pretty safe. Just avoid certain parts of the city in general, basically the most western and southern parts of the city(green/red lines) where crime and poverty are concentrated. Oh and avoid using the bus/train from 11:00pm- 4:30am.

A one month pass of unlimited rides costs $86. 86x12, $1032 for the entire year. It works for me because I don't have a family.

Because they're lazy and only care about one thing, consuming recklessly and going into debt to sustain their lifestyle.

City Planner 420 wrote:

Lot of dumb things on this thread. There is low transit ridership in America because automobile travel and suburban living have been encouraged and heavily subsidized by the government. Federal tax dollars allow cities like phoenix to grow outwards, not upwards. This results in such low population density that public transit is not feasible.

To the poster who said it's not the government's job to get you from point a to b: you're an idiot. Car owners pay only a fraction of the total social costs of automobile travel, the rest of us pick up your tab.

Wow! What an indoctrinated irrational thing to say.

Try the "pay-as-you-go" methodology, and you'll see car owners by and large pay directly for those roads and highways via fuel taxes and license fees. Meanwhile, the real leeches on society pay only a fraction of the cost to operate public transport.

And FYI - you can start talking about "social costs" the day you progressivist nutjobs find a way to quantify those alleged costs via GAAP.

I come from Detroit, where I would drive a quarter mile in the same neighborhood to go to a friends house (despite me running 70 miles a week). It has no public transportation, it was build with the car in mind. Now I live in Chicago, where I now don't have a car. It's $250 to park it compared to $2.50 for a more convenient bus ride, do the math. In Detroit, you can't live without a car. Now I can't see EVER having one if stay in Chicago. It all comes down to cost verse convenience.

Ive had the opportunity to use the public trans in London, Paris, Rome and Munich. I will say that Europe's public transportation is way more efficient than the US (at least Chicago, I'm sure NYC's is better). I don't ever remember waiting more than 3-4 minutes between trains in London. Chicago you will wait at least 15-20 minutes between trains