Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How America Killed Transit

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: How America Killed Transit

#81

Post by gok »

edaemon wrote: post #49
kgermino wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This effectively excludes every bus line, because there is no reason for bus lines to run the same route all day long. This is one of the major advantages of buses. I can't think of a single bus line in my city that actually changes it's route throughout the day. Sure there's some that don't go as far into the suburbs after a certain time, but the part in the city would still qualify as "all day" by that definition.…

GP doesn't mean that some bus lines change routes. In American cities most bus routes stop running or run less frequently as it gets later in the day. This article is excluding any that stop or become less frequent before midnight.

And many bus routes run only at night

Re: How America Killed Transit

#82

Post by ant6n »

cryptonector wrote: post #17

The public transit system used to be privately owned and operated. Then the cities took over and kicked out the private sector. Now we have terrible public transit. Yes, even the subways in NYC were built and operated by private companies (there were two, and they competed).

The NYC subways were built via public-private-partnerships, in what would nowadays be called a DBF(O)M (design-build-finance-operate-maintain) model.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#83

Post by burfog »

adrianN wrote: post #65
burfog wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roads do. Compare the size of the gap between vehicles. Fixed rail is a really inefficient use of land. Most of the time, the rail is just sitting there without a train anywhere in sight. It is normal for the rail to be idle for long periods of time. The density of a packed-full train does not make up for this. Of course, many systems are running trains that are far from being packed full.

You're comparing roads that run at full capacity to rails that are basically unused. Heavily used lines have intervals of less than two minutes between trains and the trains are absolutely packed during rush hour. No road can compete with that. Imagine these people would each occupy a car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZhQLhcB08 Take note of the intervals between trains.

Yes, I am comparing roads that run at full capacity to rails that are basically unused, because that is normal.

Realistic trains in the USA are perhaps 20% full. Including the stops, they average 35 MPH, which is about 56 km/hour. They run once or twice an hour in the morning and in the evening. They shut down for many hours each day, for example from 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM and also from 8 PM to 5 AM.

I'll pick several examples I've seen. These are thus not perfectly random, but they are not chosen to be unusually bad. Typical railway right-of-way is 100 feet, which is enough for a highway.

Caltrain example: It's every 90 minutes, though sometimes better if you are at the right stop (express service) or at the right time of day (rush hour). On weekdays, 62190 people ride it. It goes for 77.4 mi (124.6 km) in 143 minutes, so about 32 MPH or 52 km/hour. The land usage per person is 657 square feet.

Tri-Rail example: Trains normally run an hour apart. It is 38 miles per hour (61 km/h) overall average, which is pretty awful compared to a car on the nearby interstate 95. It carries 14000 per day over 71 miles, but of course most people don't go the full distance. The land usage per person is 2678 square feet.

MBTA Lowell example: Today they ran 8 trains. On weekdays they run up to 26 trains, with a shutdown for 6.5 hours each night. The line does 11965 people per weekday, with maximum distance 25.4 miles (40.9 km). It takes 47 minutes, so about 32 MPH or 52 km/hour. The land usage per person is 1121 square feet.

Look at the square footage. Without subsidies, ticket prices would need to be like a day of renting a townhouse.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#84

Post by adrianN »

njarboe wrote: post #73
adrianN wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can scale a lot better if you put trains in those tunnels.

How about trains of vehicles that are automatically driven, can spit apart and only pieces with people in that that want to stop, stop, and the rest of the train just keeps moving? You could even let people pay extra to have a train car just to themselves and their friends. It would never have to stop for other people and go directly to where the group of people wanted to go. These train cars could even be designed t…

That's a nice idea. However, it requires a lot of technology that we currently don't have. Given that building new underground lines in cities is already a project that takes more at least a decade from planning to finishing, I don't think waiting for a) self driving technology to mature (this includes regulatory approval!), and b) self driving technology becoming cheap enough to compete with rail, is a good idea if you want to prevent total traffic breakdown in the face of continuing urbanization.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#85

Post by dnautics »

jmiserez wrote: post #50
dnautics wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore has privatized transit. Quality of service is exceptionally high and it's one of the cheapest rail services in the world, precisely because the economic pressure encourages the lines to favor QOS and volume.

The MRT and LRT are owned by the Land Transport Authority, Ministry of Transport, i.e. the government. What transit are you referring to?

Mrt was private until last year, so jury's out on where the quality goes. Comfortdelgro runs three subway lines, IIRC.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#86

Post by jashkenas »

njarboe wrote: post #39
adrianN wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Motorist" is commonly used for people in motor vehicles. The problem with cars is that they use so much space. Not only while in transit, but especially when parked. Look at how much prime real estate is devoted to parking in typical American cities. That reduces density and makes cars more important, a vicious circle. The most liveable cities are those where little transport is needed because most things one wants…

A single passenger vehicle could have a parking footprint about 1/10th of what they currently have. My hope is that we could have electric bikes that are like a mountain bike, can go in bike lanes (at slow speed) or on the street but can go fast enough to take on a freeway.

Could have, can go, and most certainly do! It's spelled m-o-t-o-r-c-y-c-l-e.

And it's a wonderful way to get around both city and country. Motorbikes reduce overall traffic, can fit about 8-10 vehicles into a car parking footprint, have generally low fuel emissions (and can be even lower — lots of new small bikes get ~80 mpg in real world use), and never have trouble finding parking.

Speaking for myself, it makes commuting from the East Bay into San Francisco, not just tolerable, but something to look forward to. 21-25 minutes door to door at peak rush hour; park for free; the view from the bridge is superb.

Of course, the danger of cruising through a flood of slow-moving, angry, distracted, stop-and-go car traffic is considerable — but there's good reason to think (CA CHP motorcycle cop accident statistics) that it doesn't have to be much more dangerous than driving in the first place.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#87

Post by cryptonector »

cryptonector wrote: post #17

The public transit system used to be privately owned and operated. Then the cities took over and kicked out the private sector. Now we have terrible public transit. Yes, even the subways in NYC were built and operated by private companies (there were two, and they competed).

I like the comments about how public ownership and operation of public transit works in Europe. I'm curious as to why, and I have some ideas:

  - private ownership of automobiles in the U.S. took off
    much more than in Europe
  - the States did not put much emphasis on public transit
  - the States invested in roads
  - so Americans have long had an alternative to bad
    public transit: just drive
  - European countries put up a lot of impediments to
    private automobile usage: high taxes, limited road
    investment(? guessing on this one)
  - so the cities had reduced incentives to providing
    decent public transit, unlike Europe, where bad public
    transit would have been fatal to many political careers
    just due to the lack of alternatives
There's also the fact that geography meant that private automobile usage in the U.S. had to be higher than in Europe...

Maybe that's all wrong. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#88

Post by nine_k »

cryptonector wrote: post #87
cryptonector wrote: post #17

The public transit system used to be privately owned and operated. Then the cities took over and kicked out the private sector. Now we have terrible public transit. Yes, even the subways in NYC were built and operated by private companies (there were two, and they competed).

I like the comments about how public ownership and operation of public transit works in Europe. I'm curious as to why, and I have some ideas: - private ownership of automobiles in the U.S. took off much more than in Europe - the States did not put much emphasis on public transit - the States invested in roads - so Americans have long had an alternative to bad public transit: just drive - European countries put up a l…

Most of Europe is way denser than most of the US.

Parts of the US where density is high, like the Northeast, or areas around Chicago or Seattle, did and do have rather decent mass transit, much / most of it initially privately started, that is, seen as lucrative, in high demand.

Most of US railroads were, and are, cargo-oriented. They haul a lot, but passenger trains are few, except in metro areas. Again, in dense areas like those around Philadelphia / NYC / Boston, commuter trains are a norm.

But once density lowers, keeping up train infrastructure becomes unprofitable, and can only be sustained bu subsidies. Even countries with very high train penetration and very high average popular density, like Japan, sometimes have to stop subsidizing lines to some stations where ridership is too small, and close them.

In US in particular, land is abundant in most of the territory, and home ownership is seen as a status symbol and an investment, so "proper cities" with sufficient density do not form, or form partially, with a lot of city territory being effectively suburbs. This makes investment-heavy public transit not a great option; buses suffice, since roads are already present.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#89

Post by nine_k »

lylecubed wrote: post #63
etiennemarcel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very American point of view. Here in Paris, public transit is run by the state since the war and works really well. It's going to be open to private concessions in a few years (buses first, subway in 20 or 30 years) because of European regulations, I'm not sure it will change for the better...

Yes, the topic of the thread is US transit. Saying "this works fine in Europe" is at best a non-starter. Governments are different. What works in France may not work in NYC for all sorts of reasons. For better or worse, the US federal government and most state and local governments are not good at running anything in an efficient manner.

In NYC in particular, the subway is run by the New York State-owned corporation, MTA. It's not that bad, but it's known for slowness and huge cost of any projects it undertakes. Half of its budget is subsidies.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#90

Post by nine_k »

WalterBright wrote: post #37
techsupporter wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My armchair perspective of this is that rails-to-trails is a federally-sanctioned move and adding transit use to those rails is both difficult and politically hard. It is difficult because leaving the rails as-is means small rail operators like Ballard Terminal will insist on still being able to run one freight train a week so that means transit has to compete for time slots and the operating agency has to buy FRA mi…

> adding transit use to those rails is both difficult I can't imagine how boring tunnels under Bellevue is easier.

Tunnels are invisible, so NIMBYism is less triggered?

It may be technically more involved, but politically much more palatable.

Post reply on HN