ok... so i thought it'd be fun to air issues with public transit (not just in seattle), other than the obvious, "i have to ride the 10 bus up cap hill with all the meth heads..." or "mine smells funny"
seattle:
1. the busses are never on time, either way too late, or way too early. look, i know i've got high standards, but 20 minutes late is just unacceptable. you can tell it is, because the bus that's supposed to be 30 minutes after you is actually running 9 minutes ahead of schedule, i can see him up the block.
2. bus stops every block are fine in the city center (even better if there was a friggin car-free zone for peds/taxis/busses) but outside of downtown, it is fairly assinine to have a stop every other block. limiting bus stops to 1/3 - 1/2 mile in between would reduce the overall trip time significantly (helping solve issue #1)
3. can the city stop purchasing busses with so many effing seats? i'd rather stand on my 20 minute ride than deal with the hassle of loading/unloading through packed aisles.
4. there aren't enough nodal routes
additionally, the state has spent millions for a light rail system that's projected to cost $8 for a 30 minute ride from downtown to the airport. nevermind there is an express bus that does it in 40 minutes and costs $1.50. yes, all this with the prediction that by 2020, 3.000 people a day will use it. (roughly 1/40 of seatac's annual passenger total) does that seem a little excessive to anyone?
good public transportation takes dollars and requires strong political commitment to sustain it. without these it will continue to get a bad rap and be an unpopular choice...and thus receive less money and attention...it's a downward spiral because it's not (yet) politically expedient to commit to public transit.
even a fraction of the dollars and support that are directed toward road maintenance and construction might do it.
Excellent topic, holz. I don't have time for a long comment, but two things: Look at Portland's light rail line (MAX) which has (last I heard) been successful beyond all predicted ridership projections. Part of the reason to build a lightrail to the airport is lightrail is seen (in the public eye) as cool and techie and reliable, whereas buses are seen as welfare.
Now in Philly, the bus system wasn't great, but there was such a huge mass of people using it that it was, in fact, usable as a way to get around town cheaply.
I don't know how to fix the problem that buses are never on time, but it seems like technologies such as GPS and live traffic updates could help.
I can totally relate, however, I've found that driving to work is more stressful, a waste of my money when work pays for my bus pass, and taking into account that the drive requires the same route and minutes it takes less time to wait for the damn bus to show up than it does for me to drive to the top of the parking deck.
I did almost punch the shit out of some kid last night for being loud and obnoxious but then I realized that he was probably 16 or 17. I'm pretty sure I could get in trouble for that.
Plus the last time I drove, someone broke into my car and stole my radio. It was, more than likely, someone that rides my bus.
no one likes buses. Hard infrastructure is the way. It shows an urban commitment and becomes part of the Urban fabric, forever tying the city together.
Here in Chi - Im convinced Buses ARE the traffic problem. 6 segmented buses going down an Ave is essentially a freight train.
As somebody with a strong interest in urban transit issues, this is a pet topic of mine.
I agree with evilplatypus: Hard infrastructure (preferably some form of rail transit) is by far the most viable option.
I find it ironic that holz.box complains about the many flaws of bus transit, but then decries the solution to those flaws: Light rail. After becoming heavily spoiled with the NYC subway and Portland's MAX system, I'd be happy to never ride a bus again.
Chicago is an interesting case, as we once had the largest light rail system in the world (quaintly refered to as "streetcars" in the days of yore), but General Motors convinced the CTA to scrap the entire system and replace it with a fleet of diesel busses. Most of Chicago's major streets still have streetcar tracks buried under the pavement, though.
The people mover in Detroit is a fantastic example of a public transportation project gone bad. It only takes you places within walking distance, and it's faster just to walk. The only time it ever sees much use is during an event, like a baseball game or a convention at Cobo Hall. And the bus system, from what I hear, isn't that great either.
For a good example of public transit, check out the bus system in Jakarta, Indonesia. They have a dedicated bus lane. By using the bus you avoid rush hour congestion, and you can cut your commute nearly in half. If that's not motivation to use public transit, I don't know what is!
LiG- can you prove that statement that Chitown had the largest streetcar system? I thought that LA's redcars had the most miles and biggest region served
as much as i was glad to move back to the chi after living in atlanta where there is no public transit to speak of and if there is no one uses it, i say screw the CTA. it always makes me late.
It's really fascinating to see how many younger people are realizing the benefits of public transportation and the downfalls that society has experienced because of the 20th century's failure in this area. I'm serving on the Cincinnati mayor's young professionals advisory group, and there were originally 8 committees (arts and entertainment, housing, econ development, civic engagement etc.) I've been serving on the health and environment committee, and in addition to recycling and brownfield redevelopment, we invariably ended up discussing transportation at every one of our meetings. We soon found that it wasn't just us enviros who saw the need for a transportation committee in the group.
We're now in the process of creating a sort of ad hoc transport committee made up mainly of members from housing, health and environment and econ dev. It's pretty exciting and daunting that the mayor is entrusting us with coming up with concepts and strategies for BRT, light rail and such.
Something tells me we won't be using the 2.2 miles of abandoned subway. . .
treekiller: At the moment I can't prove my statement, unfortunately. However, I may be able to once I've done some further research. Stay tuned.
evilplatyous: Metra is a public agency just like the CTA and Pace. All three transit agencies full under the umbrella of the Regional Transit Authority. Metra does, however, contract with freight railroads (Union Pacific, BNSF, etc.) to operate certain routes. Also, the RTA is dominated by suburban politicians who are happy to lavish money on Metra and Pace while the CTA goes begging.
archtopus: I doubt the abandoned Cincinnati subway will ever be used for transit purposes, at least not in its entirety. The route bypasses the most active part of downtown, and a huge water main was laid down the middle of the tunnel in the 1950's.
An urban legend persists that the Cincy subway was built with curves too tight for subway cars, but it was actually built to the same specifications as the Red Line in Boston, which handles fairly large subway cars. In fact, the layout and construction details of the Cincinnati subway stations closely resemble those of the original Red Line stations that still exist in Boston.
from the historic plaque memorializing the defunct trolley in LA:
For more than half a century the Pacific Electric Railway served Southern California. The system was established by Henry Huntington in 1865 and linked Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernadino counties with over 1,000 miles of service and up to 2,700 scheduled trolleys daily. Through the years, the trolleys were painted different colors, but the most famous and symbolic of the era were the "Big Red Cars". The electric trolley system carried commuters and sightseers through Southern California cities, fruit groves, beach areas, ranchland, and the Spanish Missions.
It wasn't the freeways that shaped los angeles, but the Pacific Electric Railway... now, I don't see chicago needing 1000 miles of light rail, since they were so well served by the interstate RRs - look into William Cronon's Nature's Metropolis for more info.
LiG, I wasn't suggesting we should use the old subway tunnels. I'm quite familiar with that damn water main. The utilities department prevented us from offering tours of the tunnel during Forum last year because they were worried that our attendees might have terrorist leanings. I went on one of the first official tours of the tunnel back in 2003, I think, and it's pretty incredible. I'm looking into the possibility of getting it listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Holz.box, Seattle's got a piece of my heart so I just had to chime in.
I feel your frustration over the monorail project in Seattle.
I think Seattle's got a pretty decent public transpo system compared to others. But then again I'm a public transpo gal and dig taking the bus when I can. Yeah, the cap hill lines are always impacted but you also bring up the $1.50 route from SEA-TAC to downtown which is just a great example of affordable, accessible, efficient, urban transpo options.
Have you heard about the historical mosquito fleet?
I sometimes have dreams that Seattle could have done a cost comparison between a good chunk of the monorail line and bringing back the mosquito fleet, a small passenger ferry system that could follow the Ballard locks canal all along Lake Union. There are really interesting hybrid fuel passenger ferry terminals out there these days, as well. The idea is to use the pre-existing water way infrastructure as opposed to building underground or overground with huge monetary and environmental impacts. It could have been a Venice-ification of the Ballard/Frement/Lake Union/Portage Bay area.
As a former Fremont neighborhood resident, I'd have to hop on the 28 to get across town but always looked out longingly over the Lake Union waters and thought too bad a mosquito fleet stop at Fremont didn't have a downtown route straight across the Lake to avoid rush hour traffic.
lb -
i've been to portland numerous times. i love that city, it's just too small. but the max works relatively well, and they're constantly expanding.
seattle (paul allen) is being fitted with light rail, one long n/s rail. anything to help, i have no qualms (other than it's kinda late), but it's going to take a comprehensive approach that utilizes light rail, bus, and the abilty to bring on bikes.
seattle was built around an early light rail, systematically bought up and dismantled by... ford?
Chili, that sounds cool about Jakarta. Paris has dedicated bus lines, too, and while everyone always talks about how efficient the metro is, many of the true residents of Paris actually prefer the bus--it's that dependable and efficient! The benefit is that you get to see what's going on outside, and get a little sunshine, something I much prefer to a subway.
I like parts of the CTA, but if a city has a good bus system I will always prefer that to a subway, given similar efficiencies. So I guess I'm a weirdo.
In Boston I lived on the above ground train line on purpose, and in Chicago I will be doing the same, nevermind that the brown line is slow as fuck. At least I can see out during my hour commute.
1) the light rail system (what there is of it) rocks. The stops are prominent, it would be nice if the ticket machines ate your money a bit less, but oh well. It's marked clearly where each route goes, it gets there quickly, and the trains come frequently. The only problem is....
2) there isn't enough light rail. You are invariably required to take both light rail and bus, and the busses just suck.
3) Why the busses suck: the drivers don't drive the published route, which occasionally leaves you lost in the middle of south central. The routes are published so infrequently, and they are so criptic, that it would take a genius to figure this system out, which means that you are constrained to figuring out your route at one certain time, and if you're late you're screwed because the bus coming 15 minutes later with the same number on it isn't going to the same place!
Oh, and the CTA is a really good network (unlike, for example, Boston MBTA). It's definitely classist, like in Boston, but at least it gets you where you need to go for the most part. I get kinda pissy when I hear so many Chicagoans complain about it constantly. Def. has its issues but it's a lot better than any American city I've lived in.
rationalist that sounds horrible. just curious--do they post a map of the route inside the bus?
I haven't found that in america yet, but they do that in Paris. Helps a TON. I have no idea why public transit systems in america hate maps so much. It took me so long to track down the ONE map of boston that has streets, train lines, AND buses on it (what an idea!)... it's really hard to get ahold of, and no one even knows it exists!
nope. They have little tri-fold brochures for each bus, but I haven't found one that has the whole system mapped out, so you've got to pour over them and make the connections yourself, or be a slave to the trip planner at www.mta.net Oh, and half of the time they're out of the specific brochure you need.
That's one of the reasons I like the light rail system, it has maps in the trains, not only of the line you're on, but of how all of them intersect as well.
busses in LA suck - they are noisier, smellier, and dirtier then busses in mpls. maybe it's the weather, maybe it's the demographic of people riding the busses. ok that is a very classist statement, but here in mpls taking public transit seems to attract a wider demographic then LA where riding the bus is limited to the poor who don't have wheels, kids too young to have wheels, and loosers who got their wheels taken away. the subway is a different matter and appeals to a broader demographic.
CTA is good compared to other American cities, but internationally its 3rd world system. Theres parts where the drivers get out to swithch the tracks!!!! Come on!!!
holz, i think the bus problems maybe area specific. i live in wallingford and my wife takes the bus to work everyday. you can set your watch to that thing. don't get me started on that lack of other forms of mass transit in seattle though.
Wait, there's an MBTA map that shows everything?...I've been living here for 2 years and can't find a decent system map. Please tell me where you found this Rosetta stone so I can get one. I'm lucky I live and work near the subway so I don't have to rely on the bus, but there are places I'd like to go but don't want to walk.
Half the time they are out? I've never been able to find the route pamphlet I need, and the employee in the box just refers me to the empty pamphlet stand.
I take the Green line to Park st. in the morning, and I love how they suddenly decide to "take this trolly out of service" and dump a full trolly of people at Copley or Kenmore, leaving us to try to get on any of the other packed trains coming. It'll feel that much better in January when the fare goes up 36%.
I used to live in Eugene, OR and the transit system was awesome. easy to read (and find) maps and schedules that they actually stuck to. How does Eugene, in the sticks, do it better than Boston? Granted it was smaller, but still...
treekiller, I think that's the difference between a setup where transit riders *choose* to take public transit whereas where they are *forced* to. As the system grows/gets better in LA and gas prices/smog/car insurance/traffic continues to suck, the demographic should shift... right? Also LA seems to be starting to densify a bit, perhaps parking will become more of an issue as it is in other cities where it is the main driver of public transit support.
evilp--don't they only do that when something's not going right? or are there places where they are *always* supposed to do that?
in Boston there are places where the driver has to do that frequently, but not all the time.
and yeah, internationally even NYC is a third world system. in fact I personally think it is anyhow. ugh.
Half the time they are out? I've never been able to find the route pamphlet I need, and the employee in the box just refers me to the empty pamphlet stand.
haha, yeah, I had the exact same problem. Curiously, it also took me precisely two years to find out about/track down the system map. I saw one hanging on someone's wall at a party or something I went to and I pounced on the host and demanded she tell me where she got it. After that it took weeks to actually get one in my own hot little hands.
It's actually *called* the "System Map", and you can either keep asking the T attendants wherever you find one in their little booths, or head up to the gov't center attendant booth where there's a better chance to be one. I did, I believe, once find a link on the mbta website for it, but now I can't seem to see one. Once you get it, GET MULTIPLE COPIES, because people will STEAL THEM FROM YOU. Plus they get torn easily and beat up. Trust me on this one. They are in hot demand once people find out you have one. They're beautiful and wondrous things.
I commuted on the C line for 2 years and loved it. One of the best transit commutes I've ever had in any city. Of course I came from Brookline and got off at Hynes, always had a seat, never waited more than--no joke--3 or 4 mins for a train, and only rarely had reason to be mad.
The B line, however, is a whole different story. Did that one for less than a year and it was enough to make me move.
When I was studying in Europe I realized very early that busses are a wild card. It was tough enough figuring out the stops in foreign languages, but more importantly I couldn't read schedules. A bus can change route at anytime. It can stop and end the line anywhere. This is all from experience. Suddenly you can end up off your map and completely disoriented. I don't trust the bus.
Back at home here in the States, outside of major commute times, busses are transportation for the dregs of society. Driving your own car and paying parking seems quite cheap compared to getting mugged, shot, stabbed, etc. Rail seems to have a much better police presence and a willingness of the more affluent citizens to ride. This again is from personal experience.
Although I love rail there isn't a system in the USA that really has any effect of reducing vehicle miles traveled in personal auto. If the reason we all love transit is to save the environment, building all the rail in the world wouldn't change much. Some people like it, but most do not. There is argument of taxing gasoline to a level that would force people onto transit. Look at the UK w/$6 gasoline. Most people there outside central London still drive while they have an excellent transit system in place.
Public transportation does suck, and it will suck until it's the only thing available and we're all forced to endure it. Maybe then we'll build systems that work better. In the meantime, so long as the oil is pumping, most people will be in private autos.
the cta is probably one of my favorite things about chicago. ive used nothing but its busses and trains for my almost 6 years here now and though yes, there have been many times they are late or messed up in some way... they get me where i need to go cheaply every day.
LIG is totally right on.
ive said this many times, on these boards i think too. But it gets very frustrating listening to the CTA constantly begging RTA and the state government for increased funding. Granted, i can understand suburbanites and down staters retisance to give their money to the city of chicago's urban transit, but it seems that as much as Chicagoans take downstate for granted, downstate takes chicago for granted.
CTA has to be, economically speaking, one of the most if not the most important piece of chicagos infrastructure (and there by illinois-the midwest-the country etc.) and it is desperately neglected. If there are billions and billions of dollars to add lanes to highways, how is there so little money to repair tracks, hire more drivers maintain cars and add service?
It seems insanely short sighted that the state wont fund public transit like it should. Can you even begin to imagine the magnitude of impact a collapsed CTA would have on the city of chicago? on the economy of the state? of the region? etc.
I dont believe we will ever get to that point... there seem to be enough powerful people who believe public transit is the key to sustainable urban living... i just wish the rest of the country would begin to understand its vital imporance
there isn't a system in the USA that really has any effect of reducing vehicle miles traveled in personal auto
I disagree, this is the case in Boston most *definitely* (hardly a single person I knew there even owned a car) and in Chicago it seems to be the case as well, although to a lesser extent than Boston as the city is more spread out and it is a bit (very slightly) easier to own a car.
i must be the dregs of society because ive spent days, probably months of my life riding halsted, state, pershing, 35th, north ave, ashland busses all over the city of chicago. in good neighborhoods, in bad neighborhoods, in every neighborhood.
in chicago at least, there is no seperating trains and busses. Almost every trainstation incorporates a node or connection between differen bus lines, and many who get off trains head to busses, and busses to trains. In my experience, its a well planned, safe, relatively reliable and well connected network
lletdownl - I'm not sure about the CTA exactly but nationally mass transit efforts receive a far greater percentage of funding based on passengers than highway funding. I think it's something like close to 15% for less than 3% of riders. Just playing devils advocate.
Personally, I think the current trend of building light rail in cities w/no rail is somewhat a waste. We're dealing with existing infastructure to work around. It's expensive and very very slow. I'd like to see a competent inter-state rail service. Something similar to a French TGV. Something reliable and fast and electric. It would mostly cut across rural areas where land is cheaper as would the construction. The sustainability of jet travel troubles me, so this seems like a logical progression.
Having met people that used electric vehicles in California I think that's a reasonable short to mid term solution for our suburbs and cities of present. Commutes, daily shopping and visits to friends can all be done with efficient and non-polluting electric personal transportation with ranges of approx 100 miles. If a good train can pick up for those long voyages we cover a lot of ground quickly.
We have proven sustainable ways to generate electricity. This would curb a huge amount of oil use and still give people the daily freedoms only personal transportation allows. In super high density areas, like manhattan, rail transit would work, but for most of America it just doesn't make sense at this time.
your right on the idea that light rail doesnt work for most american cities
there just isnt the density
it seems a common thread among cities today... there is significant investment in a light rail from the center of the city to the airport, or to the mall, and it goes largely unused.
i also agree that an intercity highspeed train system DEDICATED to moving people is crucial. There are not nearly enough rails available transportation and moving of cargo.
GO DAMEN BUS!!!
only ridden it maybe once...
i always loved the pershing bus... 39th street has to be the worst road on the planet... actually i think its recently lost is classifaction as street. I think its technically calld the 39th Pass... its 2 days bus ride from one end to the other
The rail system in this country is so oddly set up and managed that it would be very difficult to figure out a way to make cross-state high speed rail transit. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but I dont have a lot of hope. Getting cross-state projects of any kind is a political nightmare.
For example, Amtrak--the only federally supported rail company--doesn't own any actual rails. So you'd have to put down all new rails to begin with. (Guess you'd have to do that anyway if you want high-speed trains, but still.) Amtrak doesn't even currently have the infrastructure to build or maintain rail as it never has done it. And you'd have so much endless bickering over which state would get it first... ugh. Sometimes federalism really hurts this country.
how can we make american cities dense enough that light rail is a viable option?
I think this is actually happening, and will continue to happen. It is natural progression. We are seeing the european-ficiation of america. welcome to emergence from the dark ages, everyone.
Actually I think the NYC subway kicks the Chicago L's ass for a number of reasons:
1) It runs 24 hours a day with frequent headways. (Chicago's trains used to run 24 hours, but now only the Red Line and Blue Line do.)
2) Almost all lines in Manhattan are four tracks wide, with express and local service. Only one line in Chicago has express service, and it only runs during rush hours.
3) NYC subway trains are always 8-10 cars long, even during off-peak periods. The CTA reduces their train lengths down to 2-4 cars during off-peak periods, virtually guaranteeing that you won't find a seat even at 11 PM.
4) Much more of NYC is within easy walking distance to a subway stop compared to Chicago. Part of this is due to the sheer density of the city -- especially Manhattan -- but there are too many areas of Chicago that simply aren't convenient to rapid transit.
I will, however, grant Chicago two big advantages:
1) Riding a train above-ground is a hell of a lot more scenic than riding underground.
2) Both of Chicago's airports have direct access to the 'L'. None of NYC's three airports have direct access to the subway.
Both systems are fairly dirty and skanky, though... For beauty and cleanliness, I think the Washington Metro system gets the prize.
The only way a decent interstate high speed rail network will happen is when jet airline travel becomes too expensive for the common business traveler.
I see a future of ever increasing petroleum prices where jet air travel is basically limited heads of state and the ultra wealthy. Think of prices like a Virgin Atlantic 1st class ticket from NYC to London, but for a trip from NYC to DC in economy on a 737.
In a world like that it would become economically viable for big business to make rail work. Airplanes wouldn't go away because of its speed, but most business could operate slower to avoid those costs.
Of course the leisure traveler will have a lag time of probably decades before he/she can afford a trip to DisneyWorld or something. It would take a pretty hefty price to get businesses to drop air travel.
Regarding intercity high-speed rail, I don't think it's technically unfeasible at all in the US. There are plenty of under-used and redundant intercity freight lines that could be upgraded to high-speed service for pennies on the dollar compared to building freeways.
And speaking of freeways, the US managed to build a nationwide system of limited-access highways in less than a generation. I don't think building a high-speed rail system would be any more of a challenge. In fact, the median strips of many rural interstate highways could be used for high-speed rail tracks, in much the same way that some Chicago 'L' lines utilize the medians of urban freeways for transit service.
None of this could happen under Amtrak's current structure, but Amtrak was designed to fail from the beginning. Any high-speed rail system would have to happen in conjunction with a major re-structuring of Amtrak. It could happen, but it would require some leadership and vision first.
If it were up to me, I would nationalize the entire railroad system... So much of the current infrastructure and ownership structure dates back to the robber baron era and is completely obsolete. But then, I'm a pinko socialist that way.
aqua, i dont think air travel prices need to rise exponentially get intercity business rail travel to work.
especially for businesspeople who work in a city center and are travelling to another city center, all you gotta do it make it nice and comfortable, and nearly as fast as flying - which would be totally possible (if you add up wait til at the airport) on shorter stretches like chicago-detroit, LA-SanFran, New York-Boston
I honestly think that rather than more developed rail travel, we will see more fuel-efficent jetliners and a changing structure for air travel in order to combat the rising price of fuel.
The airlines and the airplane manufacturers are already thinking of ways to deal with decreasing amounts of fuel, and already beginning to make structural changes to deal with the looming problem.
As for the CTA vs. NYC subway, I agree on all your positive points, LiG. My only complaint about NYC is the extreme run-down condition of the subway itself. It honestly looks like everything's about to fall apart at any moment. Comparitively, the CTA is in much better infrastructural shape! I take it back, though, based on that one problem alone I shouldn't have called their system 3rd world. It isn't.
as for: There are plenty of under-used and redundant intercity freight lines that could be upgraded to high-speed service for pennies on the dollar compared to building freeways.
What makes you say that?
Also, although I'm a pinko socialist as well, I've learned recently that nationalizing the rail system would probably only destroy it, in all reality.
The freeway system is *much* easier to build and maintain than high-speed rail would be. It doesn't require sources of power to be operated (the power source is passed onto the consumer--via gasoline); it doesn't require vehicles to be designed and built--the consumer took care of that, too; and track and vehicle maintenance are both more difficult than road maintenance.
The only thing easier about rail is the safety enforcement.
i hate the bus... or why public transport sucks a**
ok... so i thought it'd be fun to air issues with public transit (not just in seattle), other than the obvious, "i have to ride the 10 bus up cap hill with all the meth heads..." or "mine smells funny"
seattle:
1. the busses are never on time, either way too late, or way too early. look, i know i've got high standards, but 20 minutes late is just unacceptable. you can tell it is, because the bus that's supposed to be 30 minutes after you is actually running 9 minutes ahead of schedule, i can see him up the block.
2. bus stops every block are fine in the city center (even better if there was a friggin car-free zone for peds/taxis/busses) but outside of downtown, it is fairly assinine to have a stop every other block. limiting bus stops to 1/3 - 1/2 mile in between would reduce the overall trip time significantly (helping solve issue #1)
3. can the city stop purchasing busses with so many effing seats? i'd rather stand on my 20 minute ride than deal with the hassle of loading/unloading through packed aisles.
4. there aren't enough nodal routes
additionally, the state has spent millions for a light rail system that's projected to cost $8 for a 30 minute ride from downtown to the airport. nevermind there is an express bus that does it in 40 minutes and costs $1.50. yes, all this with the prediction that by 2020, 3.000 people a day will use it. (roughly 1/40 of seatac's annual passenger total) does that seem a little excessive to anyone?
thanks, i'm done
good public transportation takes dollars and requires strong political commitment to sustain it. without these it will continue to get a bad rap and be an unpopular choice...and thus receive less money and attention...it's a downward spiral because it's not (yet) politically expedient to commit to public transit.
even a fraction of the dollars and support that are directed toward road maintenance and construction might do it.
Excellent topic, holz. I don't have time for a long comment, but two things: Look at Portland's light rail line (MAX) which has (last I heard) been successful beyond all predicted ridership projections. Part of the reason to build a lightrail to the airport is lightrail is seen (in the public eye) as cool and techie and reliable, whereas buses are seen as welfare.
Now in Philly, the bus system wasn't great, but there was such a huge mass of people using it that it was, in fact, usable as a way to get around town cheaply.
I don't know how to fix the problem that buses are never on time, but it seems like technologies such as GPS and live traffic updates could help.
I'm so happy with Mpls's bus system that I have a bus pass, not a parking spot. since I'm at the first stop of the route, that bus is like clockwork.
I can totally relate, however, I've found that driving to work is more stressful, a waste of my money when work pays for my bus pass, and taking into account that the drive requires the same route and minutes it takes less time to wait for the damn bus to show up than it does for me to drive to the top of the parking deck.
I did almost punch the shit out of some kid last night for being loud and obnoxious but then I realized that he was probably 16 or 17. I'm pretty sure I could get in trouble for that.
Plus the last time I drove, someone broke into my car and stole my radio. It was, more than likely, someone that rides my bus.
no one likes buses. Hard infrastructure is the way. It shows an urban commitment and becomes part of the Urban fabric, forever tying the city together.
Here in Chi - Im convinced Buses ARE the traffic problem. 6 segmented buses going down an Ave is essentially a freight train.
As somebody with a strong interest in urban transit issues, this is a pet topic of mine.
I agree with evilplatypus: Hard infrastructure (preferably some form of rail transit) is by far the most viable option.
I find it ironic that holz.box complains about the many flaws of bus transit, but then decries the solution to those flaws: Light rail. After becoming heavily spoiled with the NYC subway and Portland's MAX system, I'd be happy to never ride a bus again.
Chicago is an interesting case, as we once had the largest light rail system in the world (quaintly refered to as "streetcars" in the days of yore), but General Motors convinced the CTA to scrap the entire system and replace it with a fleet of diesel busses. Most of Chicago's major streets still have streetcar tracks buried under the pavement, though.
The people mover in Detroit is a fantastic example of a public transportation project gone bad. It only takes you places within walking distance, and it's faster just to walk. The only time it ever sees much use is during an event, like a baseball game or a convention at Cobo Hall. And the bus system, from what I hear, isn't that great either.
For a good example of public transit, check out the bus system in Jakarta, Indonesia. They have a dedicated bus lane. By using the bus you avoid rush hour congestion, and you can cut your commute nearly in half. If that's not motivation to use public transit, I don't know what is!
In the news:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6618320
Treekiller, you may be interested.
LiG- can you prove that statement that Chitown had the largest streetcar system? I thought that LA's redcars had the most miles and biggest region served
as much as i was glad to move back to the chi after living in atlanta where there is no public transit to speak of and if there is no one uses it, i say screw the CTA. it always makes me late.
buy a bike
Whats truely sad is that after NYC Chicago has the second largest rail system - and its pathetic compared to European and Japanese systems.
The tri-state commuter Metra system is top notch however, but its also for-profit business. Hmmm.....
It's really fascinating to see how many younger people are realizing the benefits of public transportation and the downfalls that society has experienced because of the 20th century's failure in this area. I'm serving on the Cincinnati mayor's young professionals advisory group, and there were originally 8 committees (arts and entertainment, housing, econ development, civic engagement etc.) I've been serving on the health and environment committee, and in addition to recycling and brownfield redevelopment, we invariably ended up discussing transportation at every one of our meetings. We soon found that it wasn't just us enviros who saw the need for a transportation committee in the group.
We're now in the process of creating a sort of ad hoc transport committee made up mainly of members from housing, health and environment and econ dev. It's pretty exciting and daunting that the mayor is entrusting us with coming up with concepts and strategies for BRT, light rail and such.
Something tells me we won't be using the 2.2 miles of abandoned subway. . .
treekiller: At the moment I can't prove my statement, unfortunately. However, I may be able to once I've done some further research. Stay tuned.
evilplatyous: Metra is a public agency just like the CTA and Pace. All three transit agencies full under the umbrella of the Regional Transit Authority. Metra does, however, contract with freight railroads (Union Pacific, BNSF, etc.) to operate certain routes. Also, the RTA is dominated by suburban politicians who are happy to lavish money on Metra and Pace while the CTA goes begging.
archtopus: I doubt the abandoned Cincinnati subway will ever be used for transit purposes, at least not in its entirety. The route bypasses the most active part of downtown, and a huge water main was laid down the middle of the tunnel in the 1950's.
An urban legend persists that the Cincy subway was built with curves too tight for subway cars, but it was actually built to the same specifications as the Red Line in Boston, which handles fairly large subway cars. In fact, the layout and construction details of the Cincinnati subway stations closely resemble those of the original Red Line stations that still exist in Boston.
from the historic plaque memorializing the defunct trolley in LA:
For more than half a century the Pacific Electric Railway served Southern California. The system was established by Henry Huntington in 1865 and linked Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernadino counties with over 1,000 miles of service and up to 2,700 scheduled trolleys daily. Through the years, the trolleys were painted different colors, but the most famous and symbolic of the era were the "Big Red Cars". The electric trolley system carried commuters and sightseers through Southern California cities, fruit groves, beach areas, ranchland, and the Spanish Missions.
It wasn't the freeways that shaped los angeles, but the Pacific Electric Railway... now, I don't see chicago needing 1000 miles of light rail, since they were so well served by the interstate RRs - look into William Cronon's Nature's Metropolis for more info.
Found this:
kind of ironic since there is this particular topic:
What do you guys think?
Brilliant, no?
LiG, I wasn't suggesting we should use the old subway tunnels. I'm quite familiar with that damn water main. The utilities department prevented us from offering tours of the tunnel during Forum last year because they were worried that our attendees might have terrorist leanings. I went on one of the first official tours of the tunnel back in 2003, I think, and it's pretty incredible. I'm looking into the possibility of getting it listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Hi, long time lurker, first time poster.
Holz.box, Seattle's got a piece of my heart so I just had to chime in.
I feel your frustration over the monorail project in Seattle.
I think Seattle's got a pretty decent public transpo system compared to others. But then again I'm a public transpo gal and dig taking the bus when I can. Yeah, the cap hill lines are always impacted but you also bring up the $1.50 route from SEA-TAC to downtown which is just a great example of affordable, accessible, efficient, urban transpo options.
Have you heard about the historical mosquito fleet?
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=869
I sometimes have dreams that Seattle could have done a cost comparison between a good chunk of the monorail line and bringing back the mosquito fleet, a small passenger ferry system that could follow the Ballard locks canal all along Lake Union. There are really interesting hybrid fuel passenger ferry terminals out there these days, as well. The idea is to use the pre-existing water way infrastructure as opposed to building underground or overground with huge monetary and environmental impacts. It could have been a Venice-ification of the Ballard/Frement/Lake Union/Portage Bay area.
As a former Fremont neighborhood resident, I'd have to hop on the 28 to get across town but always looked out longingly over the Lake Union waters and thought too bad a mosquito fleet stop at Fremont didn't have a downtown route straight across the Lake to avoid rush hour traffic.
Just some thoughts, thanks for the good post!
Cheers,
lb -
i've been to portland numerous times. i love that city, it's just too small. but the max works relatively well, and they're constantly expanding.
seattle (paul allen) is being fitted with light rail, one long n/s rail. anything to help, i have no qualms (other than it's kinda late), but it's going to take a comprehensive approach that utilizes light rail, bus, and the abilty to bring on bikes.
seattle was built around an early light rail, systematically bought up and dismantled by... ford?
and i currently reside in fremont. i love it.
Chili, that sounds cool about Jakarta. Paris has dedicated bus lines, too, and while everyone always talks about how efficient the metro is, many of the true residents of Paris actually prefer the bus--it's that dependable and efficient! The benefit is that you get to see what's going on outside, and get a little sunshine, something I much prefer to a subway.
I like parts of the CTA, but if a city has a good bus system I will always prefer that to a subway, given similar efficiencies. So I guess I'm a weirdo.
In Boston I lived on the above ground train line on purpose, and in Chicago I will be doing the same, nevermind that the brown line is slow as fuck. At least I can see out during my hour commute.
LA issues:
1) the light rail system (what there is of it) rocks. The stops are prominent, it would be nice if the ticket machines ate your money a bit less, but oh well. It's marked clearly where each route goes, it gets there quickly, and the trains come frequently. The only problem is....
2) there isn't enough light rail. You are invariably required to take both light rail and bus, and the busses just suck.
3) Why the busses suck: the drivers don't drive the published route, which occasionally leaves you lost in the middle of south central. The routes are published so infrequently, and they are so criptic, that it would take a genius to figure this system out, which means that you are constrained to figuring out your route at one certain time, and if you're late you're screwed because the bus coming 15 minutes later with the same number on it isn't going to the same place!
Oh, and the CTA is a really good network (unlike, for example, Boston MBTA). It's definitely classist, like in Boston, but at least it gets you where you need to go for the most part. I get kinda pissy when I hear so many Chicagoans complain about it constantly. Def. has its issues but it's a lot better than any American city I've lived in.
rationalist that sounds horrible. just curious--do they post a map of the route inside the bus?
I haven't found that in america yet, but they do that in Paris. Helps a TON. I have no idea why public transit systems in america hate maps so much. It took me so long to track down the ONE map of boston that has streets, train lines, AND buses on it (what an idea!)... it's really hard to get ahold of, and no one even knows it exists!
nope. They have little tri-fold brochures for each bus, but I haven't found one that has the whole system mapped out, so you've got to pour over them and make the connections yourself, or be a slave to the trip planner at www.mta.net Oh, and half of the time they're out of the specific brochure you need.
That's one of the reasons I like the light rail system, it has maps in the trains, not only of the line you're on, but of how all of them intersect as well.
busses in LA suck - they are noisier, smellier, and dirtier then busses in mpls. maybe it's the weather, maybe it's the demographic of people riding the busses. ok that is a very classist statement, but here in mpls taking public transit seems to attract a wider demographic then LA where riding the bus is limited to the poor who don't have wheels, kids too young to have wheels, and loosers who got their wheels taken away. the subway is a different matter and appeals to a broader demographic.
Myriam -
CTA is good compared to other American cities, but internationally its 3rd world system. Theres parts where the drivers get out to swithch the tracks!!!! Come on!!!
holz, i think the bus problems maybe area specific. i live in wallingford and my wife takes the bus to work everyday. you can set your watch to that thing. don't get me started on that lack of other forms of mass transit in seattle though.
the smelly people demographic...
Wait, there's an MBTA map that shows everything?...I've been living here for 2 years and can't find a decent system map. Please tell me where you found this Rosetta stone so I can get one. I'm lucky I live and work near the subway so I don't have to rely on the bus, but there are places I'd like to go but don't want to walk.
Half the time they are out? I've never been able to find the route pamphlet I need, and the employee in the box just refers me to the empty pamphlet stand.
I take the Green line to Park st. in the morning, and I love how they suddenly decide to "take this trolly out of service" and dump a full trolly of people at Copley or Kenmore, leaving us to try to get on any of the other packed trains coming. It'll feel that much better in January when the fare goes up 36%.
I used to live in Eugene, OR and the transit system was awesome. easy to read (and find) maps and schedules that they actually stuck to. How does Eugene, in the sticks, do it better than Boston? Granted it was smaller, but still...
treekiller, I think that's the difference between a setup where transit riders *choose* to take public transit whereas where they are *forced* to. As the system grows/gets better in LA and gas prices/smog/car insurance/traffic continues to suck, the demographic should shift... right? Also LA seems to be starting to densify a bit, perhaps parking will become more of an issue as it is in other cities where it is the main driver of public transit support.
evilp--don't they only do that when something's not going right? or are there places where they are *always* supposed to do that?
in Boston there are places where the driver has to do that frequently, but not all the time.
and yeah, internationally even NYC is a third world system. in fact I personally think it is anyhow. ugh.
haha, yeah, I had the exact same problem. Curiously, it also took me precisely two years to find out about/track down the system map. I saw one hanging on someone's wall at a party or something I went to and I pounced on the host and demanded she tell me where she got it. After that it took weeks to actually get one in my own hot little hands.
It's actually *called* the "System Map", and you can either keep asking the T attendants wherever you find one in their little booths, or head up to the gov't center attendant booth where there's a better chance to be one. I did, I believe, once find a link on the mbta website for it, but now I can't seem to see one. Once you get it, GET MULTIPLE COPIES, because people will STEAL THEM FROM YOU. Plus they get torn easily and beat up. Trust me on this one. They are in hot demand once people find out you have one. They're beautiful and wondrous things.
I commuted on the C line for 2 years and loved it. One of the best transit commutes I've ever had in any city. Of course I came from Brookline and got off at Hynes, always had a seat, never waited more than--no joke--3 or 4 mins for a train, and only rarely had reason to be mad.
The B line, however, is a whole different story. Did that one for less than a year and it was enough to make me move.
When I was studying in Europe I realized very early that busses are a wild card. It was tough enough figuring out the stops in foreign languages, but more importantly I couldn't read schedules. A bus can change route at anytime. It can stop and end the line anywhere. This is all from experience. Suddenly you can end up off your map and completely disoriented. I don't trust the bus.
Back at home here in the States, outside of major commute times, busses are transportation for the dregs of society. Driving your own car and paying parking seems quite cheap compared to getting mugged, shot, stabbed, etc. Rail seems to have a much better police presence and a willingness of the more affluent citizens to ride. This again is from personal experience.
Although I love rail there isn't a system in the USA that really has any effect of reducing vehicle miles traveled in personal auto. If the reason we all love transit is to save the environment, building all the rail in the world wouldn't change much. Some people like it, but most do not. There is argument of taxing gasoline to a level that would force people onto transit. Look at the UK w/$6 gasoline. Most people there outside central London still drive while they have an excellent transit system in place.
Public transportation does suck, and it will suck until it's the only thing available and we're all forced to endure it. Maybe then we'll build systems that work better. In the meantime, so long as the oil is pumping, most people will be in private autos.
I take the FlyAway to LAX as often as I can... can walk from my house to Gold Line...Gold Line to Union Station...Union Station FlyAway to LAX
the cta is probably one of my favorite things about chicago. ive used nothing but its busses and trains for my almost 6 years here now and though yes, there have been many times they are late or messed up in some way... they get me where i need to go cheaply every day.
LIG is totally right on.
ive said this many times, on these boards i think too. But it gets very frustrating listening to the CTA constantly begging RTA and the state government for increased funding. Granted, i can understand suburbanites and down staters retisance to give their money to the city of chicago's urban transit, but it seems that as much as Chicagoans take downstate for granted, downstate takes chicago for granted.
CTA has to be, economically speaking, one of the most if not the most important piece of chicagos infrastructure (and there by illinois-the midwest-the country etc.) and it is desperately neglected. If there are billions and billions of dollars to add lanes to highways, how is there so little money to repair tracks, hire more drivers maintain cars and add service?
It seems insanely short sighted that the state wont fund public transit like it should. Can you even begin to imagine the magnitude of impact a collapsed CTA would have on the city of chicago? on the economy of the state? of the region? etc.
I dont believe we will ever get to that point... there seem to be enough powerful people who believe public transit is the key to sustainable urban living... i just wish the rest of the country would begin to understand its vital imporance
those new subway cars they have in munich are enough to give me wet dreams
I disagree, this is the case in Boston most *definitely* (hardly a single person I knew there even owned a car) and in Chicago it seems to be the case as well, although to a lesser extent than Boston as the city is more spread out and it is a bit (very slightly) easier to own a car.
oh and ps
aquapura
i must be the dregs of society because ive spent days, probably months of my life riding halsted, state, pershing, 35th, north ave, ashland busses all over the city of chicago. in good neighborhoods, in bad neighborhoods, in every neighborhood.
in chicago at least, there is no seperating trains and busses. Almost every trainstation incorporates a node or connection between differen bus lines, and many who get off trains head to busses, and busses to trains. In my experience, its a well planned, safe, relatively reliable and well connected network
lletdownl - I'm not sure about the CTA exactly but nationally mass transit efforts receive a far greater percentage of funding based on passengers than highway funding. I think it's something like close to 15% for less than 3% of riders. Just playing devils advocate.
Personally, I think the current trend of building light rail in cities w/no rail is somewhat a waste. We're dealing with existing infastructure to work around. It's expensive and very very slow. I'd like to see a competent inter-state rail service. Something similar to a French TGV. Something reliable and fast and electric. It would mostly cut across rural areas where land is cheaper as would the construction. The sustainability of jet travel troubles me, so this seems like a logical progression.
Having met people that used electric vehicles in California I think that's a reasonable short to mid term solution for our suburbs and cities of present. Commutes, daily shopping and visits to friends can all be done with efficient and non-polluting electric personal transportation with ranges of approx 100 miles. If a good train can pick up for those long voyages we cover a lot of ground quickly.
We have proven sustainable ways to generate electricity. This would curb a huge amount of oil use and still give people the daily freedoms only personal transportation allows. In super high density areas, like manhattan, rail transit would work, but for most of America it just doesn't make sense at this time.
aqua- well said. i want an electric car for kwanzaa!
don't forget the damen bus!
aqua
your right on the idea that light rail doesnt work for most american cities
there just isnt the density
it seems a common thread among cities today... there is significant investment in a light rail from the center of the city to the airport, or to the mall, and it goes largely unused.
i also agree that an intercity highspeed train system DEDICATED to moving people is crucial. There are not nearly enough rails available transportation and moving of cargo.
GO DAMEN BUS!!!
only ridden it maybe once...
i always loved the pershing bus... 39th street has to be the worst road on the planet... actually i think its recently lost is classifaction as street. I think its technically calld the 39th Pass... its 2 days bus ride from one end to the other
at any rate, i think the important thing we all take from this discussion is that chicago is the king of the world
in my humble oppinion
in the immortal words of james murphy
yr citys a sucker
my citys a creep
dont know why or how i got to this point but its happened
someone save this thread
so let's think the other way around: how can we make american cities dense enough that light rail is a viable option?
The rail system in this country is so oddly set up and managed that it would be very difficult to figure out a way to make cross-state high speed rail transit. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but I dont have a lot of hope. Getting cross-state projects of any kind is a political nightmare.
For example, Amtrak--the only federally supported rail company--doesn't own any actual rails. So you'd have to put down all new rails to begin with. (Guess you'd have to do that anyway if you want high-speed trains, but still.) Amtrak doesn't even currently have the infrastructure to build or maintain rail as it never has done it. And you'd have so much endless bickering over which state would get it first... ugh. Sometimes federalism really hurts this country.
I think this is actually happening, and will continue to happen. It is natural progression. We are seeing the european-ficiation of america. welcome to emergence from the dark ages, everyone.
Actually I think the NYC subway kicks the Chicago L's ass for a number of reasons:
1) It runs 24 hours a day with frequent headways. (Chicago's trains used to run 24 hours, but now only the Red Line and Blue Line do.)
2) Almost all lines in Manhattan are four tracks wide, with express and local service. Only one line in Chicago has express service, and it only runs during rush hours.
3) NYC subway trains are always 8-10 cars long, even during off-peak periods. The CTA reduces their train lengths down to 2-4 cars during off-peak periods, virtually guaranteeing that you won't find a seat even at 11 PM.
4) Much more of NYC is within easy walking distance to a subway stop compared to Chicago. Part of this is due to the sheer density of the city -- especially Manhattan -- but there are too many areas of Chicago that simply aren't convenient to rapid transit.
I will, however, grant Chicago two big advantages:
1) Riding a train above-ground is a hell of a lot more scenic than riding underground.
2) Both of Chicago's airports have direct access to the 'L'. None of NYC's three airports have direct access to the subway.
Both systems are fairly dirty and skanky, though... For beauty and cleanliness, I think the Washington Metro system gets the prize.
The only way a decent interstate high speed rail network will happen is when jet airline travel becomes too expensive for the common business traveler.
I see a future of ever increasing petroleum prices where jet air travel is basically limited heads of state and the ultra wealthy. Think of prices like a Virgin Atlantic 1st class ticket from NYC to London, but for a trip from NYC to DC in economy on a 737.
In a world like that it would become economically viable for big business to make rail work. Airplanes wouldn't go away because of its speed, but most business could operate slower to avoid those costs.
Of course the leisure traveler will have a lag time of probably decades before he/she can afford a trip to DisneyWorld or something. It would take a pretty hefty price to get businesses to drop air travel.
Regarding intercity high-speed rail, I don't think it's technically unfeasible at all in the US. There are plenty of under-used and redundant intercity freight lines that could be upgraded to high-speed service for pennies on the dollar compared to building freeways.
And speaking of freeways, the US managed to build a nationwide system of limited-access highways in less than a generation. I don't think building a high-speed rail system would be any more of a challenge. In fact, the median strips of many rural interstate highways could be used for high-speed rail tracks, in much the same way that some Chicago 'L' lines utilize the medians of urban freeways for transit service.
None of this could happen under Amtrak's current structure, but Amtrak was designed to fail from the beginning. Any high-speed rail system would have to happen in conjunction with a major re-structuring of Amtrak. It could happen, but it would require some leadership and vision first.
If it were up to me, I would nationalize the entire railroad system... So much of the current infrastructure and ownership structure dates back to the robber baron era and is completely obsolete. But then, I'm a pinko socialist that way.
aqua, i dont think air travel prices need to rise exponentially get intercity business rail travel to work.
especially for businesspeople who work in a city center and are travelling to another city center, all you gotta do it make it nice and comfortable, and nearly as fast as flying - which would be totally possible (if you add up wait til at the airport) on shorter stretches like chicago-detroit, LA-SanFran, New York-Boston
I honestly think that rather than more developed rail travel, we will see more fuel-efficent jetliners and a changing structure for air travel in order to combat the rising price of fuel.
The airlines and the airplane manufacturers are already thinking of ways to deal with decreasing amounts of fuel, and already beginning to make structural changes to deal with the looming problem.
As for the CTA vs. NYC subway, I agree on all your positive points, LiG. My only complaint about NYC is the extreme run-down condition of the subway itself. It honestly looks like everything's about to fall apart at any moment. Comparitively, the CTA is in much better infrastructural shape! I take it back, though, based on that one problem alone I shouldn't have called their system 3rd world. It isn't.
as for: There are plenty of under-used and redundant intercity freight lines that could be upgraded to high-speed service for pennies on the dollar compared to building freeways.
What makes you say that?
Also, although I'm a pinko socialist as well, I've learned recently that nationalizing the rail system would probably only destroy it, in all reality.
The freeway system is *much* easier to build and maintain than high-speed rail would be. It doesn't require sources of power to be operated (the power source is passed onto the consumer--via gasoline); it doesn't require vehicles to be designed and built--the consumer took care of that, too; and track and vehicle maintenance are both more difficult than road maintenance.
The only thing easier about rail is the safety enforcement.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.