Living Car Free - The Sorry State Mass Transit Is Slipping Into

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-transit-crunch27-2009jan27,0,5385552.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-transit-crunch27-2009jan27,0,5385552.story)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-transit-crunch27-2009jan27,0,5385552.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-transit-crunch27-2009jan27,0,5385552.story)

That was inspirational. :thumb: I sent an email to the president with the link. Certainly if we are going to build infrastructure, we need more of this and not new freeways.

I really don't know what people expect when they demand better road & highways at the expense
of mass transit nationswide.

Every other developed nation, and many not so developed, spend their money on mass transit first!

The american public is going to get a very painful lesson in where to put the money for transportation
to move goods, people, and services. The "were to put" isn't on interstates an more multi lane roads.
People just ignore the fact that the interstate highway sytem was built for military use not public use.
However, the car makers and politicians all saw lot's of easy money.

Now it's time to pay up.:innocent:

I'm still hopeful that President Obama can stand up to his promise to help reduce the US dependence on foreign fossil fuel. And to start investing in highway infrastructure at the same time would be pure craziness.

Transit use is up all over the country and a lot of people [me, for one..] is just now learning that a bus system is a great asset for a city. And particularly cities as congested with cars as in California.

Around here there is very little mass transit. Every time the local television station posts an article about mass transit all the automobile owners start ranting and raving about making mass transit "pay" it's way, we need more roads, etc, etc, ad nauseum. This country has royally screwed itself via the automobile, the sooner it gets corrected the better off we are going to be, but it took 75 years to get to this point, so I doubt it will be fixed overnight. I am not amused by what I have seen coming out of DC so far...

Aaron:)

Britain is slow to spend on bikes and public transport too. Except in London. We've also neglected our infrastructure, and now it is creaking at the seams. Especially parts of our rail network, which are really pretty old.

Wow. Imagine commuting 30 miles to work at McDonald's.

People want the same three things from public transit that they want from automobiles:


Cheap
Fast
Convenient


My guess is that you can have two of those things, but not all three. The solution is to raise fares on public transit. Of course, at the same time we're going to have to raise the cost of driving cars.

Higher fares and higher gas taxes. It's time to "put away childish things" like the notion that you can have as much as you want of something without having to pay full price for it.

Here in the Springs, they recently improved the intersection of Circle and Constitution, and we got a BIKE TUNNEL under Circle, on our main East West bike trail!

Our mouths are still hanging open. Now if they would just do one under Acadamy Blvd.

Who would have thought in times of trouble, transit would become the sacrifical lamb. When push comes to shove, the highways must get funded but transit doesn't. What's going to happen when the price of gas starts to go up again?

The whole problem stems from the fact that we have continue constructing more infrastructure for the motorcar to boost the economy. The only money for transit in this bill are basically matching funds for states looking to construct or expand their service. However, states don't have money for operating expenses on their current bus and rail lines! How they going to buy new buses or trains if they can't afford the system they have today?

Would it stimulate the economy if we subsidize operating expenses? Is it more effective economically to pay for new construction?

Sometimes it seems like everybody (especially the politicians) are forgetting that stimulation is the stated purpose of the new spending.

We're in the same boat as everyone else... ridership is WAY, WAY up, and they're cutting service as fast as they can.

I moved from where I was living in part because they cut back on the light rail line that I rode... now they're going to eliminate it altogether. :mad:

Screw it... I have a bike... I feel bad for all the drivers, though... if they cut the service and raise rates much more you're going to have many more transit riders switching back to cars, with parking problems and traffic issues.

I wish they could make people pay more directly for the costs of car ownership and use (Road maintenance, construction, etc)... maybe THEN they'd realize how much this insane lifestyle we're fighting so hard to keep REALLY costs.

People want the same three things from public transit that they want from automobiles:


Cheap
Fast
Convenient


My guess is that you can have two of those things, but not all three. The solution is to raise fares on public transit. Of course, at the same time we're going to have to raise the cost of driving cars.

Higher fares and higher gas taxes. It's time to "put away childish things" like the notion that you can have as much as you want of something without having to pay full price for it.

To address the lower incomes they could get reduced fares.

I am about to explode.
We just had a fare increase last year and now face another for mass transit all the while level of service was reduced, yet gas tax hasn't increased since 1992.
To top it off Rapid Bus which serves only the outer suburbs on Freeway's which were built with a county sales tax, the bus is on the county sales tax, and the inner bus in on the city sales tax. Rapid bus gets comfy seats, never late, faster service, and while we are on a reduced schedule for inner city they haven't ever seen a reduction over the course of the two reduced schedule changes. In fact they continue to increase service for ridership of only 9,000 people a month. When the city bus serves up a million plus each week.

EXPLODING

Looks like mass transit advocates have taken their licks.. Commerce is transit. Commerce creates jobs. An efficient means to get to work promotes commerce. So, those critics of the stimulus bill have had their way..
.. Little of the current infrastructure spending will go to rapid transit. Instead, tax cuts for those who don't need it , to purchase products from China.. We could have employed engineers and construction crews to bring us new transit systems, instead more crap from China.
..

People want the same three things from public transit that they want from automobiles:


Cheap
Fast
Convenient


My guess is that you can have two of those things, but not all three...

In Sacramento:
Cheap? Yes, even at the newly raised price it's only $4.5 a day at full price and many employers provide subsidies making it dirt cheap (I can get tickets for about $1.15 a day).

Fast? Not. I regularly beat the bus on my bike and I'm slow. 2-3 times the car time.

Convenient? No way. Closest bus stop is 10 minute walk from home, and another ten minute walk to work once I get there (nice walks on a good day, but the rain/brutal heat bites). Two buses an hour during rush hour, 1 during mid day, no weekend or evening buses at all. And you better want to go downtown. If you need to go somewhere else, you'll have to go downtown first, then where ever it is you wanted to go. In some cases it just may not be possible.

We have a shuttle which is a little closer to home and at least 10 minutes faster, but it only runs at rush hours and only once an hour. It's a little cheaper at full price ($3 a day, $1.50 subsidized).

The price makes it worthwhile for us. You can't park downtown for less than $5 a day. Start adding in the cost of gas, etc and the bus at full price probably saves us $10-$15 each a day. It costs more to ride my bike! (But not much and it's worth it for other reasons).

But until either speed or convenience is addressed, most people won't ride. If I drive, I can drop off my daughter at school and still be there in less time than it took me to ride the bus. And then when I go home I can easily do some shopping on the way (and probably still beat the bus home). And if I need to run an errand at lunch, it's easy with the car. People like easy.

Make the bus as easy as the car and people will do it.

Here in Houston Metro fares went up to 1.25 from a 1.00 (local fare) but in my opinion it was long overdue, it has been a dollar since I can remember. As far as frequency of buses I really couldn't tell you since I have not ridden a bus or looked at a schedule in years thanks to a bike. We did get a light rail some years ago mainly built for the superbowl going from downtown to the reliant stadium, but now they are adding a new rail which seems a little better laid out. I am disappointed in the fact we no longer have a 24 hour lines but that was cut years ago way before the recession.

Looks like mass transit advocates have taken their licks.. Commerce is transit. Commerce creates jobs. An efficient means to get to work promotes commerce. So, those critics of the stimulus bill have had their way..


I hope the transit advocates are reading this! Getting commercial interests involved in transit advocacy is a key ingredient in increasing support for public transportation. Business leaders--industry, commerce and retail--understand that good transit is ESSENTIAL for business, as it brings both workers and consumers to the businesses.

Here in Lansing, our CATA bus company put a tax increase on the November ballot. They threatened massive service cutbacks if the tax failed. Leaders in industry and commerce advocated strongly for the bus tax, and the Chamber of Commerce also helped out. The tax increase passed almost two to one!

Can't find an online link, but in the current issue of Trains Magazine (yes I am a subscriber:love:) there is an article on How to Fix Amtrak, interesting reading. There is also a little graphic showing how much the average annual public funding of passenger railroads from 1996-2006. The US with a population of 300 million spent an average of around $800 million Denmark with a population of around 5 million spent over $900 million. In this case you get what you pay for. FWIW Germany with it's population of 82 million spent an average of over $22 billion. And AFAIK there train system is the best in the world. I have friends that have been stationed over there and that is what they always marvel over.

Yes we do have different issues and the US is physically much larger, but that doesn't mean passenger rail would be ineffective, it just means we need a different plan.

Aaron:)

I hope the transit advocates are reading this! Getting commercial interests involved in transit advocacy is a key ingredient in increasing support for public transportation. Business leaders--industry, commerce and retail--understand that good transit is ESSENTIAL for business, as it brings both workers and consumers to the businesses.
!

Can you imagine how taming the northwest territories would have been slowed, if the Erie Canal would not have been built. or the lock system on the Mississippi River. Are we less intelligent or forward looking than our ancestors 240 years ago.

Can you imagine how taming the northwest territories would have been slowed, if the Erie Canal would not have been built. or the lock system on the Mississippi River. Are we less intelligent or forward looking than our ancestors 240 years ago.

Not to mention the railways, which were heavily subsidized by the federal and state governments in the mid-nineteenth century. The wagon trains were romantic, but most settlers rode the rails.

In tough economic times, the government ought to run a deficit. What better place to put that government deficit in to than lowering transit fares? The reason transit fares ought to be low is that the system is more efficient and effective the more it's used. Adding riders is so much in the best interest of cities where public transit is underused (and I'd include every large U.S. city except New York in this) that they ought to lower fares to $0.25, and then if they're overloaded with passengers, add capacity instead of raising fares. If the system expands to the point of running full covering the city really well, then it'll be time to cut subsidies to transit rides to the point where the system breaks even... provided, of course, that the road system it competes with is also subsidy-free. ;)

Actually, it may make more sense to perpetually keep transit fares (and road-use costs too, maybe) priced on an "opportunity cost" model: at points where adding more users increases overall efficiency (this is true with underused roads and underused transit systems) use should be encouraged through subsidies. At points where adding more users decreases efficiency (this is certainly true on the most congested city streets, it could eventually become true on mass transit as well) increased use should be discouraged by putting extra costs on the users. Road tolls, london style "congestion pricing", and gas taxes are all possible ways to discourage over-use.

In tough economic times, the government ought to run a deficit. What better place to put that government deficit in to than lowering transit fares? The reason transit fares ought to be low is that the system is more efficient and effective the more it's used. Adding riders is so much in the best interest of cities where public transit is underused (and I'd include every large U.S. city except New York in this) that they ought to lower fares to $0.25, and then if they're overloaded with passengers, add capacity instead of raising fares. If the system expands to the point of running full covering the city really well, then it'll be time to cut subsidies to transit rides to the point where the system breaks even... provided, of course, that the road system it competes with is also subsidy-free. ;)

Actually, it may make more sense to perpetually keep transit fares (and road-use costs too, maybe) priced on an "opportunity cost" model: at points where adding more users increases overall efficiency (this is true with underused roads and underused transit systems) use should be encouraged through subsidies. At points where adding more users decreases efficiency (this is certainly true on the most congested city streets, it could eventually become true on mass transit as well) increased use should be discouraged by putting extra costs on the users. Road tolls, london style "congestion pricing", and gas taxes are all possible ways to discourage over-use.

Keeping transit prices low might raise ridership, and that would be a good thing. Still, I think most people will pay more on many systems--provided service is good enough to warrant higher fares. My bus company recently raised fares from $1 to $1.25 and ridership didn't go down, AFAIK. However, service is good (by low US standards) and the company has managed its finances well. That makes it easier for people to tolerate fare increases.

It would be interesting to find out why transit companies lose money. Is it because ridership is too low, resulting in inefficiencies and poor economy of scale? Or do they lose money per rider, no matter how many or how few people ride? IOW, if ridership goes up, do they lose more money or less money?

It would be interesting to find out why transit companies lose money. Is it because ridership is too low, resulting in inefficiencies and poor economy of scale? Or do they lose money per rider, no matter how many or how few people ride? IOW, if ridership goes up, do they lose more money or less money?

This is one of those mysteries. Here our transit system carries more riders than it was originally designed for but you can tell by the increasing malfunctions that maintenance isn't happening. Occasionally there are stories of the trains needing more funding and fare increases. I guess if the fare doesn't cover a trip's wear and tear on the system more riders means higher uncovered maintenance costs.

It would be interesting to find out why transit companies lose money.
Probably also be interesting to understand why people think the transit system has to make a profit. Perhaps if all the benefits were weighed in -- for example, the reduction in wear-and-tear on road systems from having all those passengers suddenly driving a car -- the balance sheet would look better.

A national health system would also be a money loser, but the benefits would greatly outweigh those loses.

We have a problem with our local government thinking various things like recycling should be a profit center:rolleyes: They lose track of the fact that some things are SERVICES and are not going to make a profit... Seems like they can find the money to build/fund something but can never find the money to repair or maintain it. I was at a school the other day that I helped build over 25 years ago. The building is in horrible shape, basically nothing has been done to it in terms of preventive or even standard maintenance, but now they are finding the money to replace things that could still be serviceable if they had maintained them.

Aaron:)

FWIW Germany with it's population of 82 million spent an average of over $22 billion. And AFAIK there train system is the best in the world. I have friends that have been stationed over there and that is what they always marvel over.

My sister's over there now, and whenever we've visited we used the train and bus systems for almost everything. The closest streetcar stop isn't a half-mile away, it's on the next block.

We've still rented vehicles for side trips, but those have mainly been because it was significantly cheaper to rent a van than to buy several train tickets.


This is one of those mysteries. Here our transit system carries more riders than it was originally designed for but you can tell by the increasing malfunctions that maintenance isn't happening. Occasionally there are stories of the trains needing more funding and fare increases. I guess if the fare doesn't cover a trip's wear and tear on the system more riders means higher uncovered maintenance costs.

Yeah, I remember what Metro's been saying about the maintenance. They say that they try to not run more than 85% of their train cars at any one time, meaning that the other 15% are "in the shop", either waiting in reserve or being worked on. With the record ridership they've been having, they run more trains more often, which keeps them from getting the maintenance they need.

I also imagine that it's costing a pretty penny just to pay the engineers who do the maintenance work, too. *edit* AND the electricity for the tracks, the cost of spare parts, etc etc etc... */edit*


I was at a school the other day that I helped build over 25 years ago. The building is in horrible shape, basically nothing has been done to it in terms of preventive or even standard maintenance, but now they are finding the money to replace things that could still be serviceable if they had maintained them.

Sounds like how the average person treats a bike. ;)

Yeah, I remember what Metro's been saying about the maintenance. They say that they try to not run more than 85% of their train cars at any one time, meaning that the other 15% are "in the shop", either waiting in reserve or being worked on. With the record ridership they've been having, they run more trains more often, which keeps them from getting the maintenance they need.


This gets us back to the original question of operating versus capital expenses and the stimulus package. New capital equipment is needed all the time, even if the transit company is doing a good job on maintenence. It really isn't an either/or question. A good transit company will have redundancy in equipment to meet unusual demands.

While busing around Lansing the other day, I took two buses in a row that were the old-fashioned high-floor diesel buses, rather than the ultra-chic low-floor diesel-electric hybrids that we usually ride on. (The more hyphens, the better the bus!) The driver said that a lot of the new buses broke down at the same time, after several months of extreme weather driving. Luckily my well-run bus company had retained some of the old buses. They were beautifully refurbished and ran well--ready to avoid a shutdown in case of emergency.

This gets us back to the original question of operating versus capital expenses and the stimulus package. New capital equipment is needed all the time, even if the transit company is doing a good job on maintenence. It really isn't an either/or question. A good transit company will have redundancy in equipment to meet unusual demands.

While busing around Lansing the other day, I took two buses in a row that were the old-fashioned high-floor diesel buses, rather than the ultra-chic low-floor diesel-electric hybrids that we usually ride on. (The more hyphens, the better the bus!) The driver said that a lot of the new buses broke down at the same time, after several months of extreme weather driving. Luckily my well-run bus company had retained some of the old buses. They were beautifully refurbished and ran well--ready to avoid a shutdown in case of emergency.


I had this conversation with an Amtrak guy back when gas and diesel were in the $4 a gallon range. He said that Amtrak has some cars in reserve but due to funding problems (as in they never know what their budget is going to be from year to year) they didn't have enough and many of the cars were damaged and put on a side track until they got enough money to fix them. We have done a terrible disservice to this country by not fully funding passenger rail nationally. But what do you expect when some of the highest paid lobbyists in DC are from big oil, auto manufacturers and highway? Ever since Amtrak was founded in the early 70's it has always been treated as a redheaded stepchild, forced to make do with what ever crumbs congress felt like giving it. It is also the only form of transit in the US that has direct oversight from Congress, which is not a good thing.

Aaron:)

Looks like mass transit advocates have taken their licks.. Commerce is transit. Commerce creates jobs. An efficient means to get to work promotes commerce. So, those critics of the stimulus bill have had their way.. .. Little of the current infrastructure spending will go to rapid transit. Instead, tax cuts for those who don't need it , to purchase products from China.. We could have employed engineers and construction crews to bring us new transit systems, instead more crap from China. ..

Maybe it's because China will one day own the USA. Then again, maybe it already does.

Maybe it's because China will one day own the USA. Then again, maybe it already does.


Probably too late (http://www.discursivemonologue.com/2008/09/27/redux-who-owns-america-how-is-foreign-ownership-of-us-treasuries-and-other-securities-trending/)...and the new secretary of state was over schmoozing with Chinese leaders in the last few days, promising them that we are partners in finance...

Aaron:)

The Chinese owe as much to us as we owe to them. We are the biggest market for their manufactured goods. They are facing massive unemployment within a fragile economy, and the possibility of ensuing starvation and civil unrest.

The Chinese owe as much to us as we owe to them. We are the biggest market for their manufactured goods. They are facing massive unemployment within a fragile economy, and the possibility of ensuing starvation and civil unrest.

Hmmmm...is this what we ourselves have to look towards????

Hmmmm...is this what we ourselves have to look towards????

To a much lesser extent, yes. Even as we now slip into a true Depression, we Michigander can tell the rest of the country what eight years of recession looks like.

So for this state, Michigan, from what I've read recently....

The Sorry State Mass Transit Is Slipping Into.....dirt roads.

So for this state, Michigan, from what I've read recently....

The Sorry State Mass Transit Is Slipping Into.....dirt roads.
Dirt would probably be an improvement over the potholes. ;)

Still, one Michigan city (Lansing) has an internationally recognized public transit system. Last November, in the midst of an economic depression, the voters of Lansing approved (almost by a 2-1 margin) an additional tax for that system. I think other communities across the country should study this in order to learn how to garner public support for mass transit. Here are the key points in my analysis:


Good service attracts committed users, and these users are likely to approve taxation for the system.
Business leaders (mostly conservatives) will support good public transit because they know it's good for commerce.
Community activists (mostly liberals) will support good transit because it's good for their constituents--labor, the handicapped, and low income people.
Senior citizens (people who are likelier to vote on local issues) support public transit only if it improves the quality of their lives.
If the transit system is frugal, efficient and economically sound, people will be more willing to risk their tax dollars on it's continued success.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-transit-crunch27-2009jan27,0,5385552.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-transit-crunch27-2009jan27,0,5385552.story)
How many times must this horse be beaten?

Public transit systems always require government subsidies, because the people in charge of them know that riders likely wouldn't pay the full ticket price.

Public transit is a service, when government has no money, services get cut.

Why build more roads instead of more trains?
Towns and cities need roads anyway, they have multiple uses--as firebreaks, for emergency vehicles, for maintenance and construction. Passenger rail lines have one use--as passenger rail lines.

How many towns in the US have no passenger rail service?
Lots and lots.
How many towns have rail service but no roads or cars?
Very very few. Maybe not even one.

-----

The efficiency of commuter rail is largely a myth, except in those circumstances where urban real estate has been allowed to develop into hi-rises to the extent that no other common form of transportation is practical.

If you want to live in those circumstances, fine, go ahead and have fun--but it sounds silly to wonder out loud why everyone else doesn't think overpaying for overcrowded living conditions isn't a dream come true.
~

How many times must this horse be beaten?

Public transit systems always require government subsidies, because the people in charge of them know that riders likely wouldn't pay the full ticket price.


Unsubsidized public transit will never compete against subsidized automobile transportation.

By setting aside land for parking and roads, and by paying for road construction, the government encourages people to use roads. This goes above and beyond the "users fees" road users pay in gas taxes and license/registration fees.

The fact that public transit is also subsidized makes perfect sense in that world.

From an economic efficiency standpoint, I suspect it is actually better in the long run to gradually remove all subsidies from public transit AND roads by instituting user fees (fuel taxes, in the case of roads) that pay for the cost of "rent" on the land used as well as all the other costs of roads and of public transit. Yes, roads and transportation are essential, but that doesn't mean they need to be subsidized, at least not to any greater degree than other essentials like water/food/homes/clean air.

And yes, people who die from car accidents* and pollution-related illness are also subsidizing our car users; another cost that should be charged to users of motor vehicle fuels.

End automobile subsidies.

*note that sometimes the costs of car accidents are fully paid for by the person who caused the accident and sometimes they are not

You could be in Detroit !! We have ZERO bike paths and almost NO mass transit and what we do have really goes no place useful busses run almost empty all the time .

The efficiency of commuter rail is largely a myth, except in those circumstances where urban real estate has been allowed to develop into hi-rises to the extent that no other common form of transportation is practical.

If you want to live in those circumstances, fine, go ahead and have fun--but it sounds silly to wonder out loud why everyone else doesn't think overpaying for overcrowded living conditions isn't a dream come true.
~

Huh. If nobody wants to live there, how come it's overcrowded?

You could be in Detroit !! We have ZERO bike paths and almost NO mass transit and what we do have really goes no place useful busses run almost empty all the time .

Detroit...my hometown...a city that was built and then destroyed by automobiles.

A lot of these issues around public transportation would probably melt away if people's attitudes would change. I mentioned to a colleague the other day that I had taken the bus to work. I could see from his expression that this was something completely outside his experience. I think when the use of public transportation reaches a level of critical mass, acceptance of any necessary subsidies will happen. People will see it as an alternative -- a plan B -- and will eventually admit that subsidies might be a bad thing, but it sure would be nice to have the bus there when my car breaks down.

A lot of these issues around public transportation would probably melt away if people's attitudes would change. I mentioned to a colleague the other day that I had taken the bus to work. I could see from his expression that this was something completely outside his experience. I think when the use of public transportation reaches a level of critical mass, acceptance of any necessary subsidies will happen. People will see it as an alternative -- a plan B -- and will eventually admit that subsidies might be a bad thing, but it sure would be nice to have the bus there when my car breaks down.

I know what you mean. To me, riding the bus is a lot like riding a bike in the winter. It seems like it would be a terrible experience if you've never done it, or if you've only done it a few times. But when you actually try it a few times, it's tolerable. And with more experience, it even becomes enjoyable.

The last few months I've taken the bus a lot because I was unable to ride my bike. I grew to like the convenience, the economy, and the fellowship with the drivers and passengers. I don't like the waiting, but I learned to combine trips and plan my routes efficiently, just like I'm sure most people do with their cycling errands.

I know a lot of people on this forum are carfree or carlite without adequate public transit. I give you all a lot of credit, because it must be more difficult.

Huh. If nobody wants to live there, how come it's overcrowded?
Because the cost is regressive; the people who would benefit most are the ones who can least afford to move--except for people with housing that is itself subsidized with government money.

(-it could be debated if someone utilizing subsidized urban housing is poor or not. In my experience, they are poor most of the time, but sometimes very much not-)

Why do we have this thing called "urban sprawl" if everyone wants to live in hi-rise apartments?.... The people who participate in urban sprawl are at the level of family income where they can choose where they live. It's those beneath them economically who cannot afford to choose.

--------

I think it would be an excellent idea to stop cross-subsidizing everything too--not allowing taking the money from any one thing to help pay for anything other than it. User-fees all the way, 100%--the only source of road funding is fuel taxes, only source of train funding is train ticket prices, ect... but I still think in that country there'd be almost no commuter trains.

I think that if the US does collapse economically (eventually) it will at least be a rare opportunity to re-evaluate what means really are the most efficient. ALL government funds are going to stop for a while, and we'll get to see what keeps running and what doesn't.....
~

Huh. If nobody wants to live there, how come it's overcrowded?

Urban haters seem to believe that the law of supply and demand doesn't hold true for the city- "No one wants to live within walking distance of the metro because those neighborhoods are so crowded and expensive that is why we have car dependent suburbs." I hear versions of this statement over and over again from my suburban friends. It usually occurs in their same conversations when they complain about driving, traffic, roads and their commute. The funny thing is I'm typing this a couple blocks from a subway station in a neighborhood with no high rises and little traffic right now. At this time of day in the suburbs the traffic is nasty. The people in the low rise one to four story office buildings around here, walk at lunch time if they go out, in the suburban office buildings they drive around. I've worked in the suburbs and downtown and here at the edge of downtown, the lunch time scene is much worse in Tyson's corner- suburban paradise to some of my friends.

One thing that shocks me when I bike out 20 miles or so into the suburbs are these housing tracts where the real estate people put up signs that say things like "Urban Living at its Best!". This happens in unwalkable nasty car dependent places. People who buy into those tracts think they're living the urban experience, think its "the best" and assume life must be hell in my neighborhood where I can walk everywhere.

(-it could be debated if someone utilizing subsidized urban housing is poor or not. In my experience, they are poor most of the time, but sometimes very much not-)

Why do we have this thing called "urban sprawl" if everyone wants to live in hi-rise apartments?.... The people who participate in urban sprawl are at the level of family income where they can choose where they live. It's those beneath them economically who cannot afford to choose.


~

Hey you are making false assumptions here. I'm looking out my window in the densest neighborhood in DC and I see single family homes with yard and garages. I can't see any mid rise apartments let alone high rises. Right now, the suburbs of DC have subsidized housing programs. I know someone trying to get into a subsidized home in Fairfax county. It looks like the county is helping the banks out by buying foreclosed homes and putting them in this program. All of the people I know in the city can choose to live outside and commute, they choose the city. I know people in the suburbs who are city haters but also some who would love to live in the city. Your post doesn't make any sense when I compare it with the physical and financial realities in my city. Prices are high and it is crowded in my neighborhood because its a wonderful, desirable place to live not because of the subsidized homes. My neighbors who got help from the government to buy their places did so by allowing the government some control of their property. The government is a part owner, and not a silent partner either. The one suburban program I'm familiar with is similar, the restrictions make it like a hybrid between buying and renting. Since I've lived in the city I haven't known anyone to move out to the suburbs, but several people have followed me in from the suburbs.

Many of our perceptions will have to change but some things influence peoples decisions. Public transportation should address those decisions. :(

If we are talking honesty here much of this has little to do with public transportation. But there is a reason some people traditionally have resisted living in the city and that is crime. The people don’t tend to want to raise their children in higher crime areas. The poster living in DC may truly enjoy the advantages to city living. But the murder rate in DC is 5.75 times the national average. The **** rate is only 1.33 times the national average but robbery is 3.11 times the national average. Aggravated assault is 2.19 and all other violent crime is 2.63 times the national average. Any real-estate site can give you this information so it isn’t hard for a buyer to find. If you compare that with Virginia Beach you will see they are only at .71 of the national average for murder .75 for ****, .42 for robbery, .24 for aggravated assault and .35 for all other violent crimes. Now in my area LA isn’t as bad as DC but still Murder is 1.75 times as high as the national average and the rest of the rates are about like DC. Go a bit north of LA in Calabasas and it makes Virginia Beach look like a high crime area even if it isn’t. Simi Valley is like a Nunnery compared to the National Average. We won’t even go into the quality of schools. :innocent: But that isn’t the issue. The issue is how bad public transportation is for a good part of the United States. Moving to a big city may have some advantages but that isn’t a solution for most Americans. IMHO. :o

The poster living in DC may truly enjoy the advantages to city living.

I do, but it's certainly dependent on the fact that my little neighborhood is one of the most secure, crime-free parts of town. When I went looking for an apartment, I turned down one place because, "We don't need a 24-hour security guard anymore because the Jamaican gun gangs were run out of here a couple years ago." Where I am now, though, just a block away from the Dirksen building (Senate offices), is under the jurisdiction of several security forces (mostly federal, associated with the Capitol, House and Senate), and the residents themselves just aren't prone to violent crime -- there are far more dog walkers than drug dealers.

It's also part of why housing in my neighborhood is so much more expensive. The going rate for a condo in my building will buy you a full-fledged two-story house with a yard outside of town. I'm really lucky that I moved in when I did, because prices were still going up and I wouldn't have been able to afford it if I moved three years later.

Many of our perceptions will have to change but some things influence peoples decisions. Public transportation should address those decisions. :(

If we are talking honesty here much of this has little to do with public transportation. But there is a reason some people traditionally have resisted living in the city and that is crime. The people don’t tend to want to raise their children in higher crime areas. The poster living in DC may truly enjoy the advantages to city living. But the murder rate in DC is 5.75 times the national average. The **** rate is only 1.33 times the national average but robbery is 3.11 times the national average. Aggravated assault is 2.19 and all other violent crime is 2.63 times the national average. Any real-estate site can give you this information so it isn’t hard for a buyer to find. If you compare that with Virginia Beach you will see they are only at .71 of the national average for murder .75 for ****, .42 for robbery, .24 for aggravated assault and .35 for all other violent crimes. Now in my area LA isn’t as bad as DC but still Murder is 1.75 times as high as the national average and the rest of the rates are about like DC. Go a bit north of LA in Calabasas and it makes Virginia Beach look like a high crime area even if it isn’t. Simi Valley is like a Nunnery compared to the National Average. We won’t even go into the quality of schools. :innocent: But that isn’t the issue. The issue is how bad public transportation is for a good part of the United States. Moving to a big city may have some advantages but that isn’t a solution for most Americans. IMHO. :o
One thing that opened my eyes to the crime situation before I moved to the city was a map showing the locations of the murders. This was for the year that DC was the murder capital of the world. They didn't occur in the neighborhoods where I would hang out. About a year ago I served a month on the violent crimes grand jury. Two of about 80 incidents that I heard occurred in my ward and that was a beef between latino teenage gangs and an altercation between drug dealers. The city has 8 wards about evenly divided by population your reasoning would expect 8 incidents to occur in my neighborhood. This corroborates the crime map I saw. Just like suburbanites learn not to walk to the store for fear of getting hit by a car, urbanites learn not to join gangs or hang with drug dealers. Being car free keeps me from worrying about my car being busted into or stolen. Schools here are just like the suburbs, parents need to be aware and investigate the options or your kid will get short changed. I'm not saying there aren't problems, I'm saying that urban haters and suburban real estate agents lie about life in the city. Anyone can go to google earth and see that we don't have many high rise apartment buildings, do have many parks and nice homes. And you can see the sidewalks and metro stations. The idea that good mass transit creates a bad living environment is just plain wrong.

Checkout....

www.scanamerica.us in regards to crime. Most incidents never reach the headlines, or the general news media.

One thing that opened my eyes to the crime situation before I moved to the city was a map showing the locations of the murders. This was for the year that DC was the murder capital of the world. They didn't occur in the neighborhoods where I would hang out.
I'm saying that urban haters and suburban real estate agents lie about life in the city. Anyone can go to google earth and see that we don't have many high rise apartment buildings, do have many parks and nice homes. And you can see the sidewalks and metro stations. The idea that good mass transit creates a bad living environment is just plain wrong.

Please don’t get me wrong. I am not an urban hater. I was just raised in places like Orange County and whatever advantages the city might offer it was never an advantage for my family or me. I never said public transportation is a cause I was saying it needs to be a solution. Public transportation is never going to work and is never going to be funded if urban dwellers and suburban dwellers are expected to have the same living requirements. Public transportation will only be a success if it addresses the differences in what people value in a living space. In much of America and in a very large part of the West people have absolutely no reason to go into the large cities let alone live in them. Manufacturing jobs are not in most cities on the west coast. Finance and some retail is done down town but little else. So there is no reason to leave the Suburban area to go anywhere. The traffic congestion is cause because people are traveling from one suburban bedroom area to another suburban industrial area. That may be different on the East coast and North East but not in the west.

It does no good to suggest that the public transportation problem can be solved if people simply come back t the cities. The reasons people do or don’t live in the city are all valid. But to put the public into public transportation something will have to be done to increase the infrastructure to support where people live not where they should live.

The reason I have mentioned the Metro link in LA at times is to point out that an effort can be made to reach out to the Suburbs and Urban sprawl and it can be successful and profitable. The ones in our area are well serviced even if not as practical for working commuters as they could be. But the places the go are few and far between. Until public transportation reaches into the places were people live, for whatever reason they live there, the voters will not support it. And as long as there is a divide between city and suburban dwellers the car will have a very long future as the major form of transportation in the US.

I don’t know if agreeing with Roody is good or bad but if the government wants to achieve it’s stated goal of reducing dependence on oil one thing that they will have to do is increase the stimulus for public transportation. If it isn’t as easy as driving a car people simply aren’t interested in giving up their car. Once again IMHO.