You're viewing a single thread.
How common/usable is subway in bigger cities? Here in Prague we have an amazing public transport, even with priority lanes for buses at some places and most importantly a pretty decent subway. I've never had an issue getting anywhere around the city in a short time (I can get anywhere in the city within 1.5 hour max (that is including suburbs around Prague), around 30 mins to places around the center), and the cost of an unlimited year-long ticket is just 150EUR.
Oil and automotive companies literally tore most of public transport out in US way back when.
They would invest into the local tram companies, buy them out, then close and tear out the lines.Public transportation in the US is at best, an afterthought. A lot of major cities have buses/trolleys but not many have trains/subways. Only the largest cities have a workable public trans system such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco.
And as someone who lives right outside SF, yes it's one of the best cities for public transit in the US, but it can still take 2 hours to go somewhere that would take 30mins in a car.
Not all the time - sometimes it's just as fast as a car, but often enough that it's a deterrent.
And mind you, I live literally across the street from a train stop, so public transit is way more convenient for me than for most in the area.
LA used to have one if the best trolley systems, then it got ripped out. It was the sub plot to who framed Roger Rabbit.
Portland is talking about eventually making its MAX Light Rail a cut-and-cover subway over the course of the next few decades. The system is suffering from the effects of decisions made in the 1970's when the system was being created. At that point, it was limited to a stretch from the suburb of Gresham to downtown. Since then, that line has been extended to go to a completely different set of suburbs. So where a train being slowed down by downtown traffic was acceptable when that was the terminus, now that is unacceptable because it will affect many more stops.
The light rail also has all four lines in the current system going over the Steel Bridge. In the event of the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, that aging bridge is predicted to crumble, crippling the system for years. It also acts as one of the chock points in the system. Currently that's not the biggest bottleneck - that's hiring drivers - but as system ridership recovers post-COVID it will become a problem for schedules again.
A few things need to happen before Portland's ready. First and foremost is simply having more people using the system. Right now the capital costs are prohibitive given the ridership. I think this will continue to improve over time. Portland has increasingly bad traffic and it's only getting worse. Transit is often faster than going by car, depending on the trip. The city hasn't had much stomach for expanding roads over the past few decades, so I think the main outlet will be transit.
In the US, public transportation is pretty much unusable in bigger cities except for NYC.
America has this weird, masochistic relationship with cars that just gridlocks everyone. But "FreEdoM."
One potential reason posited by The 1619 Project is due to white Americans moving out of metro areas after WW2 in order to "escape" black residents. Then, they restricted expansion of public transportation development to those areas because making them more accessible and usable would potentially result in a influx of poorer, black residents who can't afford a car to commute to the suburbs.
The specific example they used is Atlanta, which has staunch racial lines, horrible public transport, and some of the worst traffic in America. They make a very compelling case.
Here is the relevant New York Times article about it and it's Chapter 16 in the actual book
This must also happen in reverse. The hip expensive city center and the poorer suburbs?
I think definitely in downtown areas with a large night culture, but to a much lesser extent. The entire city center isn't expensive, just the "hip" areas where the money is being spent. There are tons of poorer areas inside city limits that definitely have a lower cost of living compared to owning a house and a car
Chicago?
Chicago is pretty expensive for public transportation. A monthly pass is $75 for the L and buses. A commute from the northern suburbs is $100 a month for Metra trains and an additional $30 per month for buses and the L. There are discounts for people that qualify.
The price and the poor schedule to northern suburbs makes it unusable for me. It's great for weekend trips to the city.
$130 is still a cost saving compared to gas, depreciation, and renting a parking space in town though, isn't it?
For many people that's true, especially if you don't need the Metra pass. I'd consider it if the stops to my station were scheduled more often. The bar car is gone from the Metra, but they still allow alcohol so you can relax, have a drink, and listen to music.
It's my freedom to sit stuck on hot asphalt for hours at a time. Gridlock is real American freedom.
It's insanely bad. Hell, Canada has shown that public transit is viable with the North American development model, but the US simply refuses to invest money into public works.
Vancouver SkyTrain and Montreal REM/Metro are both fast, highly efficient subway systems that are able to navigate single-family housing development. Why can't the US?
Come to Toronto/The GTA, the lack of investment in public transit is on par with the rest of North America.
When I was in Toronto, the transit wasn't great but it was at least better than Boston/Philadelphia...
Not many U.S. cities have a subway. I think the only substantial subway system is in NYC. The city I live in has a very short commuter rail line that doesn't go to/from anywhere people want to go. Buses are gridlocked in traffic like everyone else, and have to make frequent stops, so it can take something like 2 hours to travel 10 miles. The low-wage workers I know without vehicles just spend $40/day on Uber to commute to work and back (which is a significant percentage of their pay).
NYC is by far the best, but several other cities have fairly decent subways. Boston, DC, Chicago, and San Francisco have decent systems, although Chicago's is an elevated train and Boston's has had increasingly severe issues due to underfunding maintainence for decades.
Sounds like you live in Portland.
unfortunately it is not the case for most of countries. For example, here, in Azerbaijan, rural public transport basically doesn't exist, and in capital city - Baku - schedules, traffic, prices... They all suck. We only got underground metro, but as that is only sane transport, everyone uses it and on critic hours it also suck. Sadly.
Very few cities have any acceptable public transit. The only reasonable options are in the NYC area.
Building subterranean rail after the fact is just not feasible.
Japan probably has the best rail system with JR. To do that in the US, you would probably need to remove a lot of roads. I would welcome it, but I don't know how the public would feel about losing roads to trains.
Dont take it the wrong way but 1.5 hours doesn't sound great for every day travel.
That was an extreme, if I really need to get somwhere on the outskirts away from the subway. I don't think I've ever had to travel for longer than 40 minutes in a long time, an average not counting work (which I have literally two tram stations near home) would be around 30 minutes. Definitely way faster than by a car.
That's to the opposite side of the city, I'm guessing every day travel would be somewhere around those 30 mins