Denver Radically Expanded Its Transit, So Why Are More People Driving Cars?
citylab.com
citylab.com
That seems critical, especially in a city that gets cold during the winter. Nobody wants to wait half an hour for the bus, when it's cold and dark out and you have things to do.
If you're waiting 30 minutes for an uninterrupted service you're doing it wrong....
Sometimes it comes 15 minutes late, sometimes it doesn't come entirely and then it's a 30 minute wait (or longer) until the next one. One time it actually came early AND left early. I have no idea what the people who expected it 10 minutes later did. I guess they had to wait 40 minutes.
And it's not a walkable distance either (5-6 miles), so I still have to wait.
Waiting for 30 minutes seemed about the average.
I'm also going to say that for the most part we want mass transit but in America we build incomplete mass transit and then complain that it sucks. it also doesn't help that (with enough frequency) it is not on time, slower than driving, not maintained well, and dirty. Its for the poor people who can't afford a car! But again this is due to the fact that we treat it as a second class transportation option.
We would need to commit to something like the "Interstate Highway System" if this sort of thing is going to work. That project is proof that it can happen and for the most part many people are glad it exists today. If we can build a national interstate system in 35 years we can certainly build a real mass transportation infrastructure.
In other words it should not take 40 years to build a light rail from Boulder to Denver lol
Whoa, what's their explanation for it to take 23+ more years? That seems unreasonable.
I see the future of transportation in autonomous electric or fuel cell automobiles, either publicly owned, privately owned, or corporate owned (ie Uber), probably of mix of all three.
Cars are better than mass transit in a low population density place. In a high population density place like Manhattan you wouldn't be able to get enough cars to fit on the streets if everyone was in a car. If you used buses you might make it work but not cars.
So you're right about Denver but you made too much of a blanket statement.
The reason the majority of people in cities favor investing in mass transit is in the hope that other people use it so they can continue to drive and enjoy less traffic and more parking.
In ten years I don't expect there to be many place I'm going to bother taking a train in. Tokyo's are good enough, but that's a high bar.
Uber already spoils me too much to want to take the subway on Manhattan (crossing the river is a different story).
A data point countering your assumptions - I sold my car because I don’t like driving. I want transit to be good so I can use it.
This might describe you, but I would be extremely surprised if it actually described a majority of people... Especially in cities with high ridership (NYC, for example)...
I only said that you were wrong in your assumption about people's motivations in supporting mass transit. If you're in a city (especially in one with high ridership, like I said) mass transit expansion can be hugely impactful and not because you'll ever be able to drive a car...
Obviously there are many additional costs associated with driving in NYC...
The rail is nearly as fast and much less hassle along the I-25 corridor, which is why I take it. My route is probably the most optimal of course as I both live and work near a light rail station.
I’ve commuted from south Denver to Boulder and that is about 30 minutes longer using Public Transit, but that’s largely due to transfer waits.
But transit systems can potentially blow away ride sharing or autonomous autos if they are truly fast and convenient. If you build express tracks so that transit trains do not need to stop at every station and use truly fast train technology (+100mph) - there is no way autonomous autos could compete on long enough trips.
Of course this costs money - so build it where the density supports it. Plan your cities so that you build sufficient density.
Just to explore this further, the distance from 1 Market, San Francisco to Apple Campus, Cupertino - is about 44 miles.
Using a car, the commute time via Highway 101 leaving SF at 8AM is about 1 to 2 hours.
Using a train going 60mph should get you there in 44 minutes. During rush hours this beats driving and is about the same or slower than a car traveling at or above the speed limit (65mph).
With a train going 100mph that travel time goes down to 26 minutes
150mph (capable by Amtrak Acela in US) travel time: 17 minutes
200mph (capable by ICE in Germany, Shinkansen aka bullet train in Japan, TGV France, etc.) travel time: 13 minutes!
And there are faster travel times out there. What about hyperloop?
With a fast well designed transit system, autonomous autos and ride sharing can not compete on the full trip in terms of time. However ride sharing would be great getting people to/from stations.
And it's hard to argue that cities should be designed for cars - longer commutes, more accidents, more pollution, worse pedestrian experience...
Cars are too cheap because we subsidize them too much, in terms of roads, parking lots and so on. It still strikes me as crazy that >$1B in land value (back of the envelope calculation) of Manhattan is dedicated to FREE street parking.
Likewise in most places population density is too low as a consequence of just how much land there is and as a matter of policy. It's crazy to me that in a city like Atlanta (for example) you can get 1-2 acre lots.
I find this argument increasingly tired. Car sales themselves are not directly subsidized. Yeah taxes build roads, but that's largely covered by fuel taxes. And roads are used by trucks and buses too. We could tax parking more than we do, but just because we could tax something and aren't doesn't mean that we're subsidizing it. I appreciate there are some exceptions where cash-strapped cities are leaving money on the table, but that's rare.
Better mass transit is certainly a good idea, but the excuse every time it doesn't work out is "cars are cheating." It looks more like a lot of transit systems are being designed, built and operated incompetently.
I lived on the front range for 4 years about 10 years ago. I only took the train in Denver a handful of times because driving in the city and especially parking was very easy and convenient.
I'm guessing over time Denver will become a less pleasant place to drive, but it's still decades behind many cities with solid public transportation.
At 34, I've just bought my first car. I live in a scandinavian country. Up to last year, my daily transit distance never exceeded about 6 km one way. IOW, I've lived all my life in a fairly compact urban environment, and public transport has been both more convenient and cheaper for my needs. The same has been true for the vast majority of my peers - most people I know do not own a car.
Now, I live about 12 km away from my office. There's a direct bus line, which is about as fast as a private car, so I've stuck to public transport. It's become a bit of a hassle though, what with having a kid, and some trips taking an hour due to having to change buses etc, but doable. Just don't go to certain places, it takes too long and the kid will remind you just how long it's taking all the way there.
And finallly, just now, I'm moving out of the city, and have concluded it's time yo cave in and buy a car. Wow. So much easier. Most people who live where I still do now, within very reasonable public transport distance of the city center, seem to have cars. I see why, now. But I managed to live over 30 years in areas where public transpory was, hands down, the best option, and I think it simply comes down to how far I needed to go each day. Over 6 km, it becomes a bit of a hassle. Over 12, at least one car in the family is probably in order. And once you have the car, you're more likely to use it.
I'm guessing a lot of people in Denver have cars and need to travel at least 6 km one way on a regular basis.
One way to solve this problem is to add significant tolls along major congested routes that drivers of vehicles have to pay. Naturally this would incentivize people to take the public transit to avoid the added toll tax, and cause traffic to decrease.
EDIT: I see people are downvoting my suggestion. As usual everyone is for more taxes until it affects them personally of course.
The company I work for is building a large new parking structure in my office because people have complained about parking for so long. Do they offer transit options? No. It seems shortsighted.
EDIT: I see you are being downvoted. I assume that's because of your "charge tolls" recommendation. Most folks I talk to think they "pay their fare share" with taxes and roads. They are surprised that road and gas taxes only pay for about half: https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/who-pays-roads
Your statement is completely false in a dense urban area with lots of traffic and a well designed transit system (look at London, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam, etc.).
Even in a not so dense urban area - transit could potentially be better - but it has to be faster, easy to get to and frequent - competing with other modes of transport. But in this use case it can get expensive and potentially be unsustainable.