Auto vs Mass Transit

[DSchmitt]

Some thoughts[}:)], please comment:

The autombile is capable of providing good convienent transportation for the INDIVIDUAL in a broad range of conditions.

Mass trainsit, whether rail or on the highway, is capable of good service for the INDIVIDUAL in a much more limited set of conditions.

Efficiency for a mass transit system is often at odds with efficient convenient transportation for the individual.

[Anonymous]

The crux of the mass transit problem is to bring those two condidions together.

[dehusman]

The goal is to get the rider within walking distance of his destination. The modern cities tend to be very spread out with few extremely dense "downtowns". Companies relocate to "office parks" with a very low job to sq foot density located outside of the downtown.

I see the failure of most of the mass transit proposals in the midwest being that there is no core mass of jobs in one place within walking distance (1/4 mile ?) of the route that would attract enough riders and, more significantly, there is no infrastructure of buses, trolleys or subways to carry the rider from the downtown terminus to locations up to a mile or more away, expanding the service area of the system to the point where it can "catch" enough riders to make it work.

The planners always account for the primary system, but don't adequately address the feeder network.

Dave H.

[daveklepper]

Again, we are on the them and us syndrom. I think that is a mistake. The auto and mass transit have to work together to solve the totol commuting problem. Where traffic congestion is a problem, additional investment in mass transportation facilities and/or just better service is clearly justified as the less expensive way, in most cases, of solving the congestion problem. But for the forseeable future, the personal auto will remain North America's primary mover of people. And mass transportation should be planned with that in mind, with minimum disruption during construction and improvement and not restriction, of auto traffic, and the right amount of park and ride lots with room for future expansion.

[MP57313]

Commuting patterns do not consistently follow the "suburb-to-city" pattern anymore. For as long as I have been working I have lived in one suburb and commuted to work in another.

I work 1/4-mile from a rail transit terminal, but the rail line does not go to my regular destinations, and I am not planning to move to be closer to the rail line.

[Anonymous]

I agree with much of what has been said here. Today's metropolitan areas are just so spread out it is difficult to even begin forming a transportation plan. I have a degree in geography with a specialization in Urban Planning, and I find transporation planning to the most interesting feature of planning by far. Some cities are beginning to redevelop and make more "walkable" places to live. Urban sprawl is a huge issue and until development patterns change I don't think public transporation will be very successful, in the aspect of creating any new systems. There are some very successful modes of public transporation like New York City Subway obviously, but also look how congested that city is as well. Living in some southern Chicago suburbs I noticed that there aren't even any sidewalks along many streets!!! EVerything is very spread out, and again like many people have already said the current public transportation does not provide service in a suburb to subrub scheme, but in a suburb to city core scheme instead. Fortunately, many people in city government are beginning to see the hastle that urban sprawl has brought and many municipalities are beginning to revise planning strategies to combat urban sprawl. I think public transporation can make a comeback, but it needs the support of wise planning decisions on a regional scale.
Another issue is economics, which I barely understand so please take my thoughts on this issue with a grain of salt. Currently our economy relies almost exclusively on the use of oil for refining into gasoline, buring for energy, etc. Many large industries support and rely on Oil, such as automobile manufacturing, trucking, etc. So, I believe that the government tends to support Oil based/reliant industries more due to the large impact they have on our economy. I know president Bush supports research on hydrogen fuel cells and the like, but I think more needs to be done due to the limited supply of oil left. Due to necessity I think the trend to support other sources of fuel and a more funding towards mass transit will occur in the near future. Again my comments may be hazy due to my lack of understanding, but bear with me. [:D]

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Again, we are on the them and us syndrom. I think that is a mistake. The auto and mass transit have to work together to solve the totol commuting problem. Where traffic congestion is a problem, additional investment in mass transportation facilities and/or just better service is clearly justified as the less expensive way, in most cases, of solving the congestion problem. But for the forseeable future, the personal auto will remain North America's primary mover of people. And mass transportation should be planned with that in mind, with minimum disruption during construction and improvement and not restriction, of auto traffic, and the right amount of park and ride lots with room for future expansion.

You are so right. There is a park-n-ride 2 or 3 miles from my house, from which a bus leaves that stops less than a block from where I work. I would love to use that bus, because it would (a) eliminate my need to fight the psychos while driving about 12 miles twice a day and (b) eliminate the waiting while changing modes of transportation (up to 45 minutes of my 3&1/2-hr daily commuting time). I refuse to ride a local bus to get to a bus going into the city because it would add 30-45 minutes each way to my commute, unless I happened to live near where the express bus started/ended.

[TH&B]

Walking is good for your health too, so even a 30 to 40 min walk to the station or work might only be slightly longer then a local bus with its indirect routing so commun on bus routes and wait times at transfers. There is of course also roler blading.

The thing I've noticed about many ((not all)) commuter rail sevices in North America is that they don't realy serve as a true and flexible public transit system and are often opperated wastefully in terms of fuel and labour and accessability, but their prime reason of existance is just to reduce the amount of autos at the most congested locations and times of the day.
In other words commuter trains just assist the automobile sociaty we live in. They are still real trains but not real transit service and most people seem to drive or bus to the station.

As world population grows including the USA eventualy public transit will become the prime form of transportation unless alot of people suddenly die off. But for now in North America we will use the automobile while we have the space.

Trains can be nice to ride and cars can be fun to drive.

[oltmannd]

I think we usually get the auto/transit thing backwards.

The transportation almost always comes first with the land development coming second.

Back in the 1st part of the 20th century, land speculators would buy up chunks of farm land and then build a transit line out to it. The transit line made the land valuable and the land was supdivided and house build and sold. The land speculator made a great profit. A lot of the NYC subway lines into the outlying boroughs were built this way. The housing tended to be higher density and clustered near the transit line as people generally had to be able to walk to the stations.

In the second half of the century, the gov't built highways between the cities. This raised the value of land near cities that was adjacent to the highways. The land owners made money developing the land. But in this case, access was by auto, not walking, so the result was much less dense housing.

It is pure folly if you think you can build successful transit to areas that have been developed around the automobile with no change in land use. But, if you build transit lines and then allow the land use to change to higher density, you can win. A good example of this is Washington DC. They built the Metro in an area that was 100% conformed to auto traffic. Development occurred along the Metro lines that would not have been possible without it, making places like Bethesda and Alexandria/Crystal City small cities in their own right.