We Americans often think we have a well developed public infrastructure until we visit almost any other developed nation in the world, from Korea to France, to even China, they all have 'expected' rail systems.
Why is America so far behind in a developed transit and public infrastructure?
In most of the US, building densely is illegal. We have massive public subsidies and implicit taxes to support car ownership (in the form of mandatory parking requirements and absurdly underpriced municipal parking just for starters). Public transportation cost effectiveness is highly dependent on density which we've outlawed.
Would love to read a paper on this. If its not already written maybe we can build a google doc with a list if related resources so that one of u could write a paper.
Ed Glaeser at Harvard has written extensively about this, including in his recent book. Ryan Avent also covers this on his blog and I think in his book The Gated City as well.
The growth of the suburbs in the middle of the last century and the subsequent flight from the inner city. These two factors contributed to the death of railway transit systems in all but a few of the large and medium-sized cities. From that point one, most of the transportation investment is in expanding highways from the suburbs to the city and maybe bus services as well.
It is only in the last 10-15 years that serious efforts are being made to rebuild the inner system rail ways system. In the face of public apathy (and sometimes outright opposition) as well as interests depended heavily in highway transportation, it is been slow going.
It's really a myth that public transit is cheaper, more convenient, and more efficient than people driving their own cars when and where they want to go. Public transit appears to be cheaper only because of massive government subsidies. If passengers had to pay fares commensurate with the true cost of the service, it would not be competitive.
There are many factors at play, other than just generalizing 'public transit'. In many American cities you may be correct. But have you ever been to Seoul, Shanghai, Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, etc? Do you really think driving would be more practical and cost effective in those cities?
One of America's greatest problems is the lack of any development into great city infrastructure. Our American society lacks the idea of planning for the future since post WWII, and only focuses on the 'now'. Where are the great cities in America? NYC, Boston, DC, maybe San Fran, rather a few for a country as large as ours, with a population of 300 million.
We need to start thinking about our infrastructure more. And thinking of the future, with integrated design through out our public systems.
It's hard to take seriously an argument that the only great US cities are NYC, Boston, DC, and SF. NYC is the most populous city in the US, and the spread between it and the next most populous city on your list includes the twelve next largest cities in the US.
Seattle, one of our greatest cities, is all the way down at #23, meaning you have to disqualify almost 20 other bigger cities to add it-and-only-it to that list. Sure, I'm no fan of Houston, and that list includes Detroit, but dismissing Austin? San Diego? Philly?
I'm not saying those are the only great cities in America. But I'm considering it on an international scale, considering good public transit, and city planning. (I've never been to, or read much, about Seattle, so I can't comment on that, and same with Detroit, but both are relatively small cities on an international scale in terms of population, and/or general political/cultural influence)
I'm talking about well designed cities. San Diego is awesome, but it's kind of an urban sprawl, not well planned. But any infrastructure would be great in that climate, right? Cool laid back culture in San Diego, but how would the city's deign, aesthetic, beauty, and public infrastructure hold up on an international level? Maybe really well, but it could be so much better. (And don't get me wrong, I love SD, and their beaches)
Austin is really cool, but again, is also a classic example of a good city gone wrong with suburbs. Many American developers, and American's just don't understand the purpose of a grid system. In Austin there is 'downtown', but where are the people living there. Downtown in Austin seems to merely represent the 'soul' of the city, while the majority of the 'residents' live in poorly planned suburbs with 1.5 Walmarts, and 3 starbucks for every 5 miles you drive in your SUV. So Austin is not a great city in my book, because of it's poor surrounding suburb infrastructure, and 'fo' downtown. Austin downtown acts more of an amusement park, than an actual great city.
But that does not mean Austin is not 'great', it's just not a 'great city' on an international scale, in terms of public infrastructure and the such. But relative to other American cities, it's cool, but it's be strangled by the surrounding suburbs.
I live in Atlanta, actual Atlanta, not a suburb. And it's an example of a city infrastructure gone horribly wrong. Little public design going on in Atlanta, which is a shame, because there is so much potential, like many American cities. I think Georgia needs to rethink how we tax, residential tax makes no sense to me. Living in another area from where you work, is a strange concept. I think we should take away the tax incentives for living in the suburbs, as I find them morally wrong in the first place.
If passengers had to pay fares commensurate with the true cost of the service, it would not be competitive.
The same can be said about driving. I read a few months ago that all 50 states now receive more in highway funding than they pay out in user fees/taxes.
Once the massive externalities of private motor and road subsidies are accounted for, private motor is much more expensive per km/mi travelled than public transport (and obviously orders of magnitude more than bike)
Because we haven't made it a priority. We've spent our resources fighting abroad and cutting taxes at home, leaving little money left over to repair our current infrastructure, let alone fund any ambitious public works projects.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that the nation faces a $2.2 trillion infrastructure backlog. One of every eight bridges is "structurally deficient," and 85 percent of public transit systems are struggling to carry the growing number of riders. As ASCE President Blaine D. Leonard puts it, "We are still driving on Eisenhower's roads and sending our kids to Roosevelt's schools."
We also have one half of our two-party democracy steadfastly against public transit. Despite the fact that trains and rail were a central theme in their cultural touchstone, Atlas Shrugged.
Why did President George W. Bush try to zero out Amtrak funding in 2005? Why is the conservative Republican Study Committee suggesting that we do so now? Why does George Will think "the real reason for progressives' passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism"?
"You need to distinguish between Republicans and conservatives and libertarians when you look at this," says William Lind, the director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. "It's the libertarians who push this crap."
The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies.
I like the Acela, a lot, and I disagree philosophically with the GOP's take on public infrastructure, but I think it's a bad idea to pretend that they don't have a valid point regarding Amtrak.
Would Amtrak be cost effective if Congress didn't force it to run lots of unprofitable routes that it was desperately trying to shed? This is a fun game! Congress forces Amtrak to lose money and then lambastes it for not being profitable.
Who are you arguing with? Me? I like the Acela, and wish we had one running STL->Chi->Memphis. I could care less about the availability of a 2-day sleeper car route from Chicago to the west coast.
I'm not arguing with anyone. I just don't think Congressman "have a valid point regarding Amtrak" when they complain about a problem they're largely responsible for. Don't you agree? Or do you think they do "have a valid point regarding Amtrak"?
I think they have a valid point even if you narrow the whole thing down to the Acela. I do not have a hard time believing that the Northeast Rail Corridor is less cost-effective than air.
I'm pretty sure they have a valid point when you consider Amtrak nationwide.
I do not think that their point is dispositive. The Acela can be inefficient and still worth retaining and (as I've argued elsewhere here) extended.
But I object to the notion that they have no valid argument at all.
>The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies.
Do you think that toll roads wouldn't go bankrupt, if not for the gas tax subsidy that they receive? It's a false equivalence because one subsidy is directly authorized by congress and is a political football that each side uses for fundraising, while the other (the gas tax) can't be used as a political football because voters would revolt.
Also, The jury is still out on your basic assertation that Amtrak is not cost effective.
David C. of the blog GreaterGreaterWashington published a classic in this genre late last month. "When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak's total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm," he argues. "Motoring's subsidy rises up to almost 45¢ ppm."
This is another poor basis for public tax policy - the classic "I don't use it so I don't want to pay for it."
First - part of living in a society is paying for things that others use that you may not, but which improves society for all.
Second - I live in Philadelphia and rarely use roads, and yet my tax dollars to the government of Pennsylvania are used, in combination with gas tax proceeds, to repair roads that others drive on, and that I don't directly benefit from. That's the price of living in a society, and I support it.
You're answering a resource allocation argument with a moral argument. Non sequitur. If you reject the premise that we should allocate resources to the modes of transport that move the most people at the least expense including external costs, you're opting out of the whole debate.
Also, unlike most of Amtrak, you benefit directly from Penn's roads even when you don't use them yourself; for instance, virtually everything you eat is brought to you over them.
I would argue that is an indirect beneift - the fact that my food arrives fresh and to my grocer. When I said direct benefit, I meant more along the lines of driving my car on those roads, which I do rarely. Still, excellent point.
Assume we didn't have the road system we have now, and that an entire food delivery system was organized around local sources (yay!). What would the result be?
Lots of root vegetables and drastically higher food prices.
First, you're making an argument I didn't make. I didn't say, "the GOP thinks Amtrak is bad because it is subsidized more than roads" (though clearly some do think that, like the Cato libertarians). I said "the GOP thinks Amtrak is bad because it operates on the brink of insolvency mitigated by direct cash subsidies".
Secondly, go read the actual source cited by that Economist blog post. It's another blog post:
The cost breakdown in this blog post is ad hoc, and the biggest "wins" for Amtrak come from parking and "resource consumption".
Parking is taxed, not directly subsidized. The blog post dips into studies that (rightly) excoriate free parking, and scales the external cost of free parking across all parking, thus conflating the total cost of driving with the subsidized cost of driving.
For "resource consumption", the blogger found a study that attributed the entire cost of our military presence in the gulf to oil prices, simply averaging the military budget across oil prices per barrel.
This just isn't credible.
I am not anti-Amtrak, but I am anti-oversimplified-arguments and anti-demonizing-viewpoints. A counterpoint from Cato, which I also do not buy outright:
Secondly, go read the actual source cited by that Economist blog post. It's another blog post:
Yes - I'm quite aware of the original source, I went and found the Economist piece after finding the GreaterGreatWashington post, because I felt it added more interesting reading and discussion.
For "resource consumption", the blogger found a study that attributed the entire cost of our military presence in the gulf to oil prices, simply averaging the military budget across oil prices per barrel.
We are there as part of the Carter Doctrine, which states that our security depends on access to cheap oil. This is not just dug up by a pro-Amtrak blog post to make a point. This is a stated national policy.
I am not anti-Amtrak, but I am anti-oversimplified-arguments and anti-demonizing-viewpoints. A counterpoint from Cato, which I also do not buy outright
Agreed. My hat goes off to you for the Cato link, even though they drive me up the wall.
My take right now is that even if you accept the idea that we should cost whole Iraq war in terms of price-per-mile (which I think is crazy but will stipulate), the parking cost he's cited is simply erroneous, and when you lose it, his blog post says that rail is more expensive than car.
I live on the west coast. Amtrak is so lame here it takes 12 hours to take the train from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and there's only one each day. It's an amusement park ride for train buffs instead of a way to travel.
Why am I paying for Amtrak? Outside a very small area on the east coast, it's useless. Either expand it into a true national rail system or get rid of it.
First, I think it's easy to ignore the fact that the US Interstate System is a monumental public infrastructure achievement. You can learn this the way I did: cross over from rural Montana to Alberta. Even the bleakest, most desolate part of the US has roads better than the TCH, and you don't get to the TCH for several hours from the southern border of Alberta.
Second, for its core purpose --- not moving people from home to vacation, but for moving products between manufacturing centers, ports, and consumers --- the US has a powerful and reasonably effective rail infrastructure. Read Buffett's shareholder note after buying Burlington Northern.
Third, if (say) 80-90% of public transit is commuter transit, keep in mind that most US major metros have tolerably effective public transit, and many (NYC, Chicago, DC, &c) have extremely good public transit.
While you think about that remember also that the real estate bubble and artificially low commuter costs (cheap gas, &c) distorted public transit in our metro areas by encouraging the development of exurb suburbs that can't cost-effectively be addressed by rail. It's possible that within the next 20 years, they won't be cost-effective for cars either, and that problem will self-correct as housing values in exurbs plummet and families move back into the public transit rings around the cities.
Put differently, because maybe that point seems banal ("suburbs bad!"), consider that in complaining about transit, we may effectively be complaining that it is hard to link a city with what should be a corn field in the middle of nowhere. Well, yeah?
Then read everything everyone else writes about long distance high speed rail.
I'd love to have it. People made fun of STL->CHI high speed rail, hoping instead for coast-to-coast or Chicago->Detroit->Cleveland->NYC, but STL->CHI would link two major metros and allow companies to expand between the cities; for instance, it would allow us to hire out of STL and serve STL companies as house accounts.
But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way.
It's easy for Europe to have effective rail, because Europe is comparatively tiny; the distance from Berlin to Rome is just a little more than twice the distance the Acela runs; Acela's got nowhere to go north of Boston, and extending it to Atlanta would make Acela longer than Berlin-Rome.
>>But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way.
The longer we wait, the more expensive it will become. I say we should act now and swift. Instead of bailing out failing financial systems, we should have solely put that money to our infrastructure. That would have put deserving people to real work. Imagine how much harder it will become in another 20 years, and this is the future of America we are talking about.
Also, I believe cities ordinances should start outlawing the development of the traditional suburb. It should not be legal for these developers to build suburbs with out having a library, hospital, and school in walking distance. Having grown up in a suburb, and traveled the world a bit, I want nothing to do with suburbs. The reason why many in our government likes suburbs is because it encourages consumerism. Some have even argued that the reason why we solely have an almost auto based public transit system is because of auto lobbyist in congress during the 20th century. Although of course there have been many other social economic factors as well, such as 'white flight', as you touched upon.
City ordinances can't outlaw the development of suburbs.
Counties can, but it'd be suicidal, because the people it would push out of the county are the wealthiest and most important part of the tax base.
Cities can tax suburbs by imposing commuter costs, but that tactic is in tension with the city's need to keep businesses, which will move out of the city if it penalizes the workforce.
I think parking is generally too cheap, and tolls are generally to low. But apart from that, I think the "white flight" stag hunt will eventually be counteracted by a "suburban decay" stag hunt that'll contract populations back into the cities.
The only thing I can see that would prevent that would be cost-effective personal transportation (say, hydrogen fuel cell), which would be a vindication of the suburbs.
Be careful when comparing population density between Montana and Canada. Out of all the Canadian provinces and territories, only Ontario, Nova Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick have higher density than Montana. Alberta /is/ next highest on the list, but has around a full person less per km than Montana. Next-door Saskatchewan has barely more than a person per km.
If you already marvel at there being an interstate into Alberta, marvel even more at the Transcanada Highway :D.
America doesn't have a well developed public transportation infrastructure because of the auto lobby. You can't build a train without annoying GM and ford.
Agreed, do we have any documentation on this? (I know the lobby industry conveniently has little documentation in general, but I'd love to see any papers written on the subject)
That Wikipedia article doesn't make that claim, and normalized by GDP actually contradicts it by pointing out that 5 of the top 10 of those cities actually have well-developed rail (I'd add DC and Atlanta to that list, bringing us up to 7 --- in other words, leaving out only LA, Houston, and Dallas).
And notably, in the last 15 years, they got a fairly effective rail back up up and running (the MTA rails) as well as Metrolink.
I am surprised that Atlanta is on the list. In terms of public transit, it is not only abysmal, it seems that the current GA legislature is going out of their way to kill it.
Some of it has to do with the sheer size and low population density of most of the United States. Oregon (a medium-sized western state) is larger than the UK. Texas is larger than France. Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe. You mention South Korea. It's slightly larger than Indiana, but has close to 49 million people, while Indiana has only about 6.5 million. Overall, the population density of the United States is 1/7 that of Germany and 1/15 that of South Korea.
Canada is in a similar situation, only more so. Lots of land, not many people living on it. Just as in the U.S., you find public transit in large, dense cities like Toronto, not so much in the smaller and more rural areas. Same with Russia -- good subways in Moscow, etc. by all reports, but you aren't going to find subways or buses in the middle of Siberia.
II think it's actually pretty easy to understand just by comparing the US to a country with a useful passenger rail system. I'll use Germany because I've spent some time there and taken a few trips by train.
Two things are required for a regional or national train service to be useful enough that it can be self-sustaining: population density and local public transportation. Local public transportation also requires population density to be effective; someone considering taking a train to Tallahassee FL might decide to drive instead after looking up the bus schedules online. Busses run about once an hour during the hours people normally commute to day jobs and do not go to many useful locations, like the airport.
Germany has a population of about 80 million people. Germany is smaller than Montana. The US as a whole has 26 times the land area but less than 4 times the population.
There are useful train services in population-dense areas of the US such as the SF bay area and the NYC/northern New Jersey region. The population density of these areas is such that it's often easier to travel by train, subway and bus than by car.
The same is not true of Billings, MT, the largest city in a state bigger than Germany. The population of Billings is about 100,000, and the closest city in the state with a population over 10,000 is Bozeman, about 150 miles away. The population of the whole state is about the same as the city I live in, Jacksonville FL, and that city can barely sustain a barely useful bus system.
If the US is to have a decent nationwide public transportation system, it needs about a billion more people. I'm not sure we actually want that.
"The decline in driving by younger Americans is fed by many factors: the high cost of gas and insurance at a time of economic insecurity; tighter restrictions on teen drivers in many states; and roads that are more congested than ever, making driving less fun than ever."
But I'd add that cars used to be cool, and right now there aren't any cars I seriously want to drive. My dad and his brothers could afford muscle cars and they loved driving them, it was cool as hell. I can't relate to that at all.
If you buy used and can handle doing maintenance yourself, you can buy an older e.g. BMW convertible for less than $10k. That's somewhat cool, if you're into the whole drop top thing.
My main daily driver is a 1983 Mercedes diesel. It's likely not a car many people would consider to be "cool" but I paid less than $2000 for it, maintain it myself, enjoy doing so, and it's the most reliable car I've ever owned.
I understand that not everyone likes working on their own cars. I don't enjoy gardening. It's a diversion, a hobby for me. Like anything else, it's not "scary" once you start to understand it. It's just a machine, and in particular the older Mercedes are very overbuilt, designed to be repairable, and are generally easy to work on.
Honestly, while it's "cool" conceptually (because of the electric thing), I find the Tesla styling pretty repulsive compared to a Mini or Smart Car, both of which I consider pretty adorable (and I hate cars).
Yep, I live in a neighborhood where all the teenage boys worship at the altar of Fast and Furious, and I didn't totally believe the article's thesis.
They have not only muscle cars, as you mention, but hacked together roadsters, freaky modded VWs bugs, tuned Hondas, lowered El Caminos, and raised 4WDs. Not to mention the motorcycles.
The idea of moving to Copenhagen and pedaling a bicycle to the tram stop does not seem to have seized their imagination in quite the same way that Vin Diesel has. ;-)
As much as I appreciate the look of muscle cars, I can't imagine myself driving an impractical gas guzzling behemoth. So I settle for an occasional econobox groceries run on the weekend, which still feels somewhat unnecessary, and a subway pass for the work week.
Nowdays we are all too aware of environmental impact of cars, so the whole concept beyond basic utilitarian use is a whole lot less appealing.
"Furthermore, some young people feel that driving interferes with texting and other electronic communication."
I totally don't understand this. I am 17, and a normal teenager. But I know for a fact that TV and the stereotypical "teen" doesn't walk around texting 24/7 nor do we fashion our day around whether or not we will be able to text. I.e. a car.
I associate cars with constant paranoia. Will I run out of gas, will my tire explode because I forgot to put enough air in it (or put too much), will I lose focus for a second and kill a family of four? If I leave my car somewhere, will it still be there when I come back? If it isn't, was it stolen? Was it towed? How will I find out, and what will I do if I'm able to find out? Will it disappear when I am sleeping, or will parts of it disappear along with a broken window?
Or... I could put a card in my wallet. I could tap my wallet on a turnstile[1], a gate slides open, a train arrives every 5 minutes or so, and I ride anywhere in the city for a flat rate. This seems a lot "cooler" than dealing with maintaining my own personal transport pod.
[1] in Boston, in New York you still have to take it out and swipe.
Is this really the case? Most non-technical people I talk to don't seem to care about security or maintenance, unless it prevents them from performing their daily computer-activities.
haha, this is interesting because I feel like I'm much more paranoid now that I'm pretty deep into security. I run a ton of Firefox privacy extensions and it still freaks me out.
For the curious:
- AdBlock+, because public Wi-Fi is slow and I don't like using more bandwidth than necessary
- NoScript in "allow global" mode (still catches some XSS and other nastiness)
- RequestPolicy (like noscript but for cross-site requests; also great for only looking at text as most big sites now host CSS/JS/images on a CDN)
- Priv3 (blocks most opt-in social media integration while still letting it function if you want)
- Ghostery (blocks tracking cookies/pixels/other methods)
- Certificate Patrol (alerts you to any changes to SSL certs on sites -- it's surprising how often many sites change SSL up. Protects you from spoofing if you pay attention)
- HTTPS Everywhere
- MAFIAAFire (Gee! No Evil! to un-filter Google autocomplete, Pirate Bay Dancing, and Redirector to circumvent Department of Homeland Security DNS hijacking)
- Header Spy because I do lots of debugging web apps and it lets me quickly robtex a server.
- Wappalyzer to see what CMS or common software the site is running on
That makes us two. I run with the first three and a couple more of those you mentioned (although NoScript isn't in global mode, if you can bother with RequestPolicy, why not NoScript as well?). I know about most of the others you mentioned but don't feel the need for them (yet), however I'll look into Certificate Patrol.
To provide a counterpoint, I've lived my entire life in smaller cities with little to no public transit, so all the things you've mentioned are just second nature to me. Never run out of gas because there's always a gas station nearby (and I don't let it get that low anyways). I check my tires about 4 times a year, and I pay attention while driving.
On the other hand, when I visit a city with public transit it usually makes me very uncomfortable. Is the station open when I need to go? Do I need tokens or a card? Will the vending machine take credit cards? Will I just miss barely the train and be late to my meeting? Will the train be late because some dude got stuck in the door (this happened to me in London)? Is that shady looking fellow at the other end of the car going to mug or knife me? What if the engineer is texting, misses a crucial signal and plows into the back of a stopped train?
Each mode of transit has its plusses and minuses. Public transit is great if it's convenient, quick and safe. Cars also have a cost as well as the article illustrates.
For me, I like the flexibility and feeling of control I have from having a car. And, frankly, I like driving. :)
The big difference between the two forms of paranoia are that the parent's paranoia is an exaggerated response to a real threat. Getting your car broken into in a major city is a relatively common experience. Car accidents are one of the leading causes of death.
Your paranoia can be lumped into two categories -- minor inconveniences to you or threats with a very very low probability of happening.
I'm not trying to dismiss your paranoia. I completely sympathize that the shady looking fellow can make anyone afraid, and the only "cure" is habituation and rationalization. And you can't habituate if you're not a regular transit user.
On the other hand, one of the major problems with driving is habituation. If you're not paying attention, it's quite easy to kill a family of four. But people do it so often without having a problem that they let themselves get distracted. That's when accidents happen.
Driver training really needs to be more like the firearms training I received as a kid. Loaded firearms can be easily handled safely, but you always have to remember that they are deadly weapons and treat them with care and attention. A multi-ton vehicle moving at velocities well in excess of those evolution trained us to deal with is also a deadly weapon. Safe when used properly by yourself and everyone else on the roads, but always a deadly weapon.
I totally agree with you about the need for better drivers' training, especially in the United States. Quite frankly, my "driving exam" was a joke - a 5 minute drive around the courthouse square (again, I lived in a small town - cows outnumbered people where I grew up). Fortunately, my parents spent a lot of time teaching me how to handle the responsibility of driving a car.
Driving is a responsibility, just like owning a firearm or having root on all your company's servers. With great power comes great responsibility.
However, many of the items the parent mentioned, short of having an accident, are not even concerns for me and I would classify as minor inconveniences. Running out of gas is a minor inconvenience. A flat tire is a minor inconvenience (assuming you know how to change a flat, and even more minor if you don't). The others, again short of an accident, are things that are not likely to happen assuming you are aware of your surroundings. Don't park where you aren't supposed to. Don't leave valuables in plain sight - pretty much the same precautions you would take on public transit to avoid becoming a victim of crime.
I don't want to seem as though I'm opposed to public transit. I think it's great where it works and, if it were an option where I lived, I would probably use it when it made sense to. I was thinking about this last night and I've noticed I tend to use it more on the west coast than on the east coast. I actually like TriMet in Portland, and I've used Caltrain, VTA and BART when I'm in the Bay Area with little to no issues. But I would probably avoid the subway in NYC again and MARTA in Atlanta was one of the more terrifying experiences I've ever had as far as feeling unsafe.
The thing is, a large percentage of the population of the US lives in areas that have no public transit at all. Articles heralding the death of the car (like the link) tend to focus on cities, and suburban areas near them, that have adequate public transit while completely ignoring the remaining segments of the population that live in areas where public transit is not, and probably never will be, a viable option. For these areas there are simply no other options other than cars.
I took my driver's examination in a rural Saskatchewan. The hardest part was you sort of had to pretend you were driving in the city. You had to pretend that wide streets had two lanes in each direction even though really they were only single lanes in each direction but wide enough for farm equipment. We also had to parallel park using proper technique even though everybody left lots of room to just drive into the spot.
But now I'm a city boy, and glad to live in an area with viable public transit. Let someone else do the driving -- I'll read or entertain my kids.
Driving has definitely "lost its cool" for me. My permanent residence is in a small suburb of a small city that is right on the border of Randolph County (i.e. Redneck Central), and before I went to university, I drove everywhere.
But I didn't take my car with me to university. Instead, I use the thrice-daily Piedmont train to get back and forth from Raleigh and home every couple of weeks, and while I'm in Raleigh I either walk or ride the bus to get around. And now that I'm at home on Christmas break, I have realized how much of a bother driving really is. Sure, you can just get up and go whenever and wherever you want, but you have to deal with traffic, buy gas, pay for maintenance on your car... It's a pain even in High Point (a small city of only about 100,000), and I have no doubt that it would be even more of a pain in Raleigh, to say nothing of Charlotte, Atlanta, or New York.
Driving sure has lost its cool for me. The traffic and wasted time. The fuel and insurance costs. Making time for car services, oil changes, smog checks. Dealing with the DMV.
Yuck. I hope our relationship with the car changes.
Self driving cars. Cars-as-a-service. Improved public transit. Bike-friendly cities. Remote work. Etc. I'll be watching with interest.
I live on the western edge of Oak Park and our office is on top of the Jackson blue line stop; that stretch of the blue line is one of the better, faster public transit runs in the US.
Meanwhile, my driving connection to my office is I-290, the Ike, one of the most congested highways in the US.
I'm pretty optimally situated to take advantage of public transit.
And yet a commute on the blue line, in addition to being much less pleasant than the freeway (the trains at peak time are packed) takes roughly an hour. Even in rush hour, driving to the office is so much faster it makes a meaningful difference in my morning logistics. After hours, the train still carves an hour out of my life, and the drive is practically like teleportation.
I've done the blue line for months at a time (car trouble, &c) and I don't mind it and I'm happy I have the option, but there's a litany of car unpleasantness on this thread, and I want to contribute an honest counterpoint.
The overall cost of car ownership and driving (gas, insurance, maintenance/repairs, YOUR TIME to wash/re-fuel/maintain your car, parking fees, stress, environmental factors that not many seem to care about) vs. some of those same factors in public transit do it for me.
A bike is also a small fraction of the cost of a car, and great for pretty much everything if you live in a city. I'm moving to SF in a few months and I'll only take a job within a few miles of where I'll be living (SOMA area) because I'd like to commute via bike year-round (and ideally telecommute at least some of the time.)
Really, with how much "work from outside the office" tech we have, it's crazy to me that millions of Americans are risking their lives every day /just to get to work/. Can we stop this unnecessary, costly, dangerous, polluting madness please?
You also have to deal with the segment of the homeless population that seeks shelter on the trains, and the ones that aggressively panhandle. I have rarely ridden a CTA train without being accosted with demands for money from people who "just got out of prison and am trying to get on the right path" etc.
That's not unique to CTA. That is the nature of public transportation - you will always deal with those characters.
Its no big deal. The usual response is to ignore them and generally they will go away (unless you are up very late at night). Nothing too different from ignoring the beggars coming up to you during a traffic stop. I am not sure why the OTP is making an issue out of it.
There's plenty of cases where transit beats driving, especially during rushhour, though admittedly there are many more where it doesn't. For example, getting from Midtown Atlanta to the airport during rushhour takes about 40-45 minutes driving, or 30 minutes by metro. The 20-minute light-rail trip from downtown LA to Pasadena can also easily take 2x as long by car. And the 30-minute Pacific Surfliner trip from downtown LA to Orange County beats even the off-peak driving times on I-5, easily crushing the rushhour trip times.
The variance is also typically less; I've gotten stuck in 2-hour commutes home due to a freeway accident much more often than I've been waylaid for over an hour by a train delays, though that probably varies based on the freeway and transit system.
>> I'm pretty optimally situated to take advantage of public transit.
I don't doubt that public transit is the worse choice for you, but I wanted to comment on an attitude this line reminds me of. People expect that public transportation will, when it "works," be better than having their own vehicle. If driving to a destination is faster and more pleasant, then the system has failed.
In general, there are two problems with this. First, the system was not designed for your trip - your car is. You car will (almost) always be better than any general purpose transport system. The measure of a transport system is how many places you can get to in an acceptable time frame with acceptable reliability. Obviously, as reliability increases and the time frame shrinks, the system improves. Think about the cost of your vehicle (both up front and continuing) and multiply that by the population of your city. We pay quite a lot for the quality afforded by a private vehicle.
Second, I think that many people judge trips from a point of view that's heavily conditioned by experiences in private vehicles. I like taking the subway to work because it lets me read for 25-30 minutes. I like it because I don't have to pay attention and can safely think about other things while I'm traveling. Many people aren't used to the different texture of traveling with a crowd of strangers, and I think that effects their assessments of the overall system.
I want to avoid giving the impression that I'm arguing against public transit, even in my case. Public transit is by far the more cost-effective option, even if you factor the cost of my time. It's also more responsible, and less error-prone.
What I was responding to was a series of comments along the lines of "cars suck, I can't imagine why anybody uses them". Well, I use them to save a couple hours of my day every day. I have a 12 year old whose middle school bus doesn't come by until 8.30; if I took the train, I'd get in to work every day at 10:00AM.
I'm actually a huge car fan too. My friend and I drove around the south-western US during a summer in a way that would be impossible without a car. Though I take BART to work, my girlfriend drives (and it makes sense for her).
I guess I was trying to point out the differences in philosophy between private ownership and a public system - your post seemed agreeable enough that I wouldn't incite an argument :).
Speaking as someone who has chosen a life of public transit and walking over driving (I did have a drivers licence at one point), there are considerations more important to me and society as a whole than "pleasantness", like the air we all breathe, rediculous car insurance costs, my sanity and my time.
P.S. Everyone who voted the parent comment up is a lazy bastard. Get off your fat arses and walk once in a while.
I'm a fan of the idea of public transit, but, like tptacek, I don't end up using it much. Mainly the trouble is this:
- In many situations, even with good public transit available, you're going to want to own a car.
- If you do own a car, it's a sunk cost.
- The cost is substantial.
- Due to a substantial sunk cost, you might as well get your money's worth, and drive. (i.e., Loss aversion)
So basically, I am stuck driving because I can't "not have a car" and if I'm going to pay into having a car, I might as well realize the benefits of owning one.
Taking it a step further, unless I can live in an area with good enough transit sufficient to not own a car at all, I'm better off economically in the suburbs, where rent is cheaper.
American youth may have fallen out of love with automobiles, but they are as hopelessly attracted as ever to convenience and the ability to change their minds at a whim, neither of which jive well with public transportation in its current state.
I recommend stick shifts to everyone. It should take all four limbs to drive a car.
When "driving a car" means turning a key and then pointing it in the right direction, it's no surprise the experience has lost its luster. If your life is about constantly being online, then I see the article's point—public transit is your best option. If you enjoy driving, then get a car that's fun to drive.
Unfortunately the appeal of manuals is lost on most Americans.
Stick sucks in stop-and-go traffic. I wouldn't say it's impractical for commute drives (I drove a stick in a daily commute from SF to Santa Clara for a year and a half), but it's not particularly pleasant.
I've found that a manual forces you to pay more attention to the task of driving. I wasn't the most responsible and focused driver before, because automatics make it easy to be distracted. When someone gets in the car with you, you have a moral and ethical responsibility to /protect their life/, which is in your hands. That's about the best argument I can make in favour of manuals.
If I end up having kids, they won't have their own cars until they are proficient with a stick.
For me, the luster is lost because driving is typically high stress. Having to drive a manual would only increase the number of things I need to concern myself with and make it more stressful. I realize I'm probably in the minority. Particularly because about the only place I don't mind driving is on the highway, probably because I usually just cruise in one lane without having to make many decisions except when I need to exit or the occasional lane change.
No, you're not in the minority. I think the majority of Americans don't actually like driving. They might see the car as a status symbol, or as freedom or as necessary. They might prefer to be a driver than a passenger due to issues of power, control or trust but few actually get much out of the act of driving.
I love driving a good sports car with a manual transmission. I'm the minority, not you.
I long for the day when I can leave my somewhat sporty car in the garage and only take it out when I intend to have a blast driving, and use public transit, bicycles, and my feet for everything else. When I drive, my primary focus is on "not dying". Driving near Detroit every day, this is actually pretty hard. Can't wait to move to a city where car ownership isn't necessary.,
I'm 17, and drive a manual. My parents thought I was crazy when I said I wanted to only drive manual, and I've noticed that at my school my vehicle is one of probably 5 cars (out of >100) in our lot that's a stick. When I ask friends why they don't drive stick, they say they simply don't want to deal with the hassle of it. Enthusiasts are few and far between…
I tried to learn to drive on a manual transmission. My mom has always driven manual so it made sense since that was the car available to me at the time. I hated it though. I'm sure it's fun if you're already a driver, but after years and years of riding my bicycle and becoming accustomed to dealing with traffic, pedestrians, etc at the speed of a bicycle, driving was a huge mental shift for me. The fact that I also had to worry about the transmission and that the car would violently let me know that I was doing it wrong turned it into a nightmare. Driving an automatic meant that I could focus completely on the road and not killing myself or anyone else.
An interesting analogy that I thought of at the time was manual memory management. Stalling the car felt an awful lot like throwing a seg fault. I haven't followed the analogy very far so it might break down, but it's certainly true that in the right hands (race car drivers, kernel programmers?), C and stick shifts can be wielded with devastating effect.
I never actually finished learning to drive though, as I live in NYC now, so YMMV (literally).
In Europe (or at least in Belgium) driving on a manual transmission is default, automatic is rare. When you learn to drive with automatic and pass the exam, you are not even allowed to drive manual.
It is something you pick up after a couple of hours of driving and becomes second nature.
That said, I would prefer automatic, especially in traffic jams. Unfortunately it is not always an option when driving a company car.
Less than 10% of cars in America are stick shift now[0]. I've also read studies that claim they are less than 5%.
I took my car to Grease Monkey to get the oil changed and I had to drive it into and out of the bay, because no worker there knew how to drive a stick.
It also very much saddens me that when it's time to get a new car, I may be forced to not get a stick because so many models simply don't come in a manual now.
That's no longer necessarily the case, especially for highway driving. Modern automatic transmissions are often more fuel efficient than the standard transmission option on the same car.
A stick is also only more fuel efficient if you're always in the right gear. It's much more natural to drive aggressively when driving a stick, so I suspect that many drivers negate any fuel efficiency savings.
I don't get the appeal of a stick shift. I've had one for four years and, if I could, I would go back and get an automatic instead.
To me, a stick shift doesn't give a feeling of control. It gives a feeling of subservience. I have to do more busy work to accomplish the same tasks. I must appease the car gods by choosing the appropriate gears and releasing the clutch properly, lest they stall me.
As an analogy, I would not code in assembly unless I needed its performance or flexibility. But some people, such as one of the hosts of 'Security Now!', like to do everything in assembly.
Cars are expensive, maintenance is expensive, insurance is expensive, traffic is a pain and giant waste of time, tolls on bridges add to the costs.
There are maybe a couple of activities that I still cannot do without a car, such as getting tons of groceries (say, going to Costco), transporting anything heavy, and doing road trips. Something like ZipCar already addresses most of those.
Also, I always feel bad for driving, it feels lazy from both a physical exertion standpoint (I live in a highly urbanized area, it's not like I have miles of cornfields to cross), and burning gas does nobody a favor.
Can't wait for some sort of personal automated pods to be developed.
> When we worry about driving and texting, we assume that the most important thing the person is doing is piloting the car. But what if the most important thing they're doing is texting?
I can't even imagine the thought process that would even consider this question.
I don't see it myself, but I just looked at my cell phone bill a few weeks ago, and my sibling (junior to me) had sent some 5,000 text messages that month. Seeing that makes me understand just a little bit better.
Good heavens. I had no idea. So many replies here on HN so far seem to concur as well!
I am young, and I love motoring. I guess I am out of touch. But, I suppose it wouldn't be the first time.
Though there is one major problem encroaching on my enjoyment- the decline of the sports car. The number of true-blue sports cars coming out of car makers is steadily declining. I can only pray it does not grow worse in the future.
I have felt this way myself, currently I live in a city with terrible public transportation where you have to drive everywhere, I drive pretty far to and from work and it just wears on me. I'd like to move somewhere where I don't have to drive as much, however I also don't much like living in really high density areas so its a bit of a dilemma.
I'm 32. I've never been interested in driving; I didn't get a driving license until I was about 28. I used to cycle everywhere in my small town, and take buses after that. For a year, I used to commute by train to college; a distance of about 54 miles took about 1 hour total.
Now that I can drive, I still have no interest in a car. Mind you, I live in London, where driving a car is very expensive; just congestion charges and parking alone would make it more expensive than public transport, never mind fuel costs, insurance and depreciation.
But scooters in the city: that's another game altogether, almost literally. In the UK, filtering / lane splitting is legal, and nowhere is it as gleefully taken advantage of as in London. Getting from A to B is such a joy I frequently go out into the evening rush hour (I work from home) merely to entertain myself, cutting through the traffic.
Two wheels: no congestion charge, much better fuel consumption, significantly cheaper insurance, parking is cheap or usually free outside of Westminster, and the weather is almost always mild. It's very hard to beat. And overall, the cost is less than public transportation if you're not living in central London (where you'll take the hit in rent prices or living circumstances instead).
I think the decline of younger Americans driving is because of the overall economic climate in the US, not because it's uncool. Talk to any 18-25 year old and ask if they would like to have a car if they could financially swing it, and the majority of the time they would say yes.
As a young adult myself I'd love to own a car, but it's almost impossible to have enough capital to pay for insurance, maintenance, petrol, the auto, and my student loans. I'd be digging myself into a financial ditch I wouldn't be able to get out for over 20 years.
It's a great situation for the millions of young people living in suburbs, where the lack of a car basically means that they need to bum rides or stay home.
I completely agree. I own a 12yo car which is good enough for buying groceries with, occasionally, and use public transportation for everything else. I'd love a fancy car, but I will never finance something that's not a real necessity. I'd much rather sleep well at night, than have to pay off debt for the next decade.
I am 26, and when I was living in Europe (Poland) I didn't even bother to get a driver's license - getting around by public transportation was cheaper and faster (especially if you take in account the time you need to find a parking spot and walk from it to your destination). However, moving to the Bay Area made me reconsider. Not being able to drive is a serious handicap. Not only there's no public transportation, but also everything seems to be optimized for cars (no sidewalks in some places, traffic lights giving a low priority to pedestrians, highways all over the place). I tried biking, but the cars seem unfriendly in a way that scares me.
I think its for two reasons - cars are way more expensive and less exciting. Growing up I knew two kids with paper routes that bought Corvettes by their 18th birthday. Try spend six years working at the mall and doing that today.
My first car in college a '69 Mustang fastback is by far the most exciting ride I've ever had.
I too lament that fact, but there are a few non-boring cars under $30k. The Subaru WRX, Mazda Miata and (soon) the Toyota GT-86/Subaru BRZ strike me as not boring, but it seems to me that the market for these cars has shrunk. People actually seem to want boring cars now.
Yup, everyone in Michigan here has SUVs and trucks and these new "crossover" things which are secretly just station wagons designed by the people who did art direction for TRON. Seriously, look at this thing: http://www.dieselstation.com/pics/Ford-Edge-Sport-2011-car-p...
I am way more excited about bikes than I am about fancy cars. Nice bikes are within the financial reach of almost anyone, and cycling skill makes a big difference because you can actually push yourself and your machine to the limits in the city.
Depends. I'm European and I'm not that young anymore so I'm not exactly the subject demography here but I think driving is tremendously enjoyable and cars can have an unexplainable personal connection to some people, including myself.
However, what isn't and what certainly isn't cool is if I had to spend a half an hour on the road, driving to/from work each day. Going to the office, I just take the tram if weather doesn't suit cycling. I'd never move to a place where I'd need a car to go to work or do my chores. A few times a year I end up driving in rush hour traffic and each time just enforces that opinion of mine.
I think that as soon as the car becomes a commodity, it loses much of its appeal.
For me, it's still somewhat of a luxury: I could do without it. I keep a car because I love to go on long trips driving myself, instead of taking the train or bus. And I love to occasionally drive to some place where I have chores to do but I can't easily reach by public transit, such as shops and spare parts stores in industrial zones, or picking somebody up in downtown or airport. Or just drive to go swim in a neighbouring city where I know they have an especially nice pool. I clock maybe 15,000km per year doing that. And there are weeks I don't start my car once.
But then again, I don't text much either. I don't even always take my mobile phone with me when I go out. So, go figure.
Well, on the bright side there is no "car piracy" that can be blamed for the decline. (Since you can't download a car)
Seriously, though, I think there are just a lot of things competing for people's attention, young or otherwise. There are many activities you can do at home / online nowadays, and these naturally displace some activities that would have involved driving somewhere.
Born and raised in the Bay Area, mostly living in the suburbs until I went to college in Santa Cruz. Biking and the bus, there are pretty optimal. The rest of the suburban Bay Area, not so much -- unless you are near BART and want to get to the city or Berkeley.
I have driven since I was 16. Over 20 years later, I still enjoy it. What I don't like? Commuting. Unfortunately, if one wants to rely on public transit in Silicon Valley, you will either make compromises in time or cost of living (or location to live). Bay Area roads and freeways are pretty bad. Thankfully, for me, I commute off hours twice a week and am at home other times.
Back to the joy of driving though -- the road trip is quintiscential Americana. The open road, radio blasting, and just letting the miles go by. If one can get out of the major metro areas (or vacation time traffic routes), you can just go...Highway 395 from the Canadian border, down through the high desert and into the Sierras; or getting out during the low season and driving down the Pacific Coast Highway; or taking it a bit slower and experiencing the gold country with Highway 49 and Highway 20...I could go on...
Unfortunately, this enjoyment means getting away from people, density, and traffic...
This really makes me miss California. What a privilege to have the scenic views AND the world centre for tech innovation in the same place (bay area). I seriously cannot wait to move there.
I can say that driving was vastly cooler 40 years ago, where I lived then, than it is here and now. There were limited access highways and even side roads where one could drive recklessly (usually) without fatal consequences. Some of the things I saw done during the commute to and from high school would lead to a wreck in a block or two under the conditions of traffic now.
But really it is pointless to compare the US to Denmark. Does New Jersey have a population density comparable to Denmark's? New Jersey north of the Raritan, even?
123 comments
[ 734 ms ] story [ 525 ms ] threadWhy is America so far behind in a developed transit and public infrastructure?
It is only in the last 10-15 years that serious efforts are being made to rebuild the inner system rail ways system. In the face of public apathy (and sometimes outright opposition) as well as interests depended heavily in highway transportation, it is been slow going.
One of America's greatest problems is the lack of any development into great city infrastructure. Our American society lacks the idea of planning for the future since post WWII, and only focuses on the 'now'. Where are the great cities in America? NYC, Boston, DC, maybe San Fran, rather a few for a country as large as ours, with a population of 300 million.
We need to start thinking about our infrastructure more. And thinking of the future, with integrated design through out our public systems.
Seattle, one of our greatest cities, is all the way down at #23, meaning you have to disqualify almost 20 other bigger cities to add it-and-only-it to that list. Sure, I'm no fan of Houston, and that list includes Detroit, but dismissing Austin? San Diego? Philly?
Come on.
I'm talking about well designed cities. San Diego is awesome, but it's kind of an urban sprawl, not well planned. But any infrastructure would be great in that climate, right? Cool laid back culture in San Diego, but how would the city's deign, aesthetic, beauty, and public infrastructure hold up on an international level? Maybe really well, but it could be so much better. (And don't get me wrong, I love SD, and their beaches)
Austin is really cool, but again, is also a classic example of a good city gone wrong with suburbs. Many American developers, and American's just don't understand the purpose of a grid system. In Austin there is 'downtown', but where are the people living there. Downtown in Austin seems to merely represent the 'soul' of the city, while the majority of the 'residents' live in poorly planned suburbs with 1.5 Walmarts, and 3 starbucks for every 5 miles you drive in your SUV. So Austin is not a great city in my book, because of it's poor surrounding suburb infrastructure, and 'fo' downtown. Austin downtown acts more of an amusement park, than an actual great city.
But that does not mean Austin is not 'great', it's just not a 'great city' on an international scale, in terms of public infrastructure and the such. But relative to other American cities, it's cool, but it's be strangled by the surrounding suburbs.
I live in Atlanta, actual Atlanta, not a suburb. And it's an example of a city infrastructure gone horribly wrong. Little public design going on in Atlanta, which is a shame, because there is so much potential, like many American cities. I think Georgia needs to rethink how we tax, residential tax makes no sense to me. Living in another area from where you work, is a strange concept. I think we should take away the tax incentives for living in the suburbs, as I find them morally wrong in the first place.
The same can be said about driving. I read a few months ago that all 50 states now receive more in highway funding than they pay out in user fees/taxes.
Once the massive externalities of private motor and road subsidies are accounted for, private motor is much more expensive per km/mi travelled than public transport (and obviously orders of magnitude more than bike)
In Sydney, AU for example driving costs $0.86/passengerKm while trains are only $0.48 (http://melbourneurbanist.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/glazebr...)
If motorists had to pay the true cost of the service, everyone would be riding bikes.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that the nation faces a $2.2 trillion infrastructure backlog. One of every eight bridges is "structurally deficient," and 85 percent of public transit systems are struggling to carry the growing number of riders. As ASCE President Blaine D. Leonard puts it, "We are still driving on Eisenhower's roads and sending our kids to Roosevelt's schools."
http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Loomi...
We also have one half of our two-party democracy steadfastly against public transit. Despite the fact that trains and rail were a central theme in their cultural touchstone, Atlas Shrugged.
Why did President George W. Bush try to zero out Amtrak funding in 2005? Why is the conservative Republican Study Committee suggesting that we do so now? Why does George Will think "the real reason for progressives' passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism"?
"You need to distinguish between Republicans and conservatives and libertarians when you look at this," says William Lind, the director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. "It's the libertarians who push this crap."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
I like the Acela, a lot, and I disagree philosophically with the GOP's take on public infrastructure, but I think it's a bad idea to pretend that they don't have a valid point regarding Amtrak.
I think they have a valid point even if you narrow the whole thing down to the Acela. I do not have a hard time believing that the Northeast Rail Corridor is less cost-effective than air.
I'm pretty sure they have a valid point when you consider Amtrak nationwide.
I do not think that their point is dispositive. The Acela can be inefficient and still worth retaining and (as I've argued elsewhere here) extended.
But I object to the notion that they have no valid argument at all.
Do you think that toll roads wouldn't go bankrupt, if not for the gas tax subsidy that they receive? It's a false equivalence because one subsidy is directly authorized by congress and is a political football that each side uses for fundraising, while the other (the gas tax) can't be used as a political football because voters would revolt.
Also, The jury is still out on your basic assertation that Amtrak is not cost effective.
David C. of the blog GreaterGreaterWashington published a classic in this genre late last month. "When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak's total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm," he argues. "Motoring's subsidy rises up to almost 45¢ ppm."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/11/road-v-rail
First - part of living in a society is paying for things that others use that you may not, but which improves society for all.
Second - I live in Philadelphia and rarely use roads, and yet my tax dollars to the government of Pennsylvania are used, in combination with gas tax proceeds, to repair roads that others drive on, and that I don't directly benefit from. That's the price of living in a society, and I support it.
Also, unlike most of Amtrak, you benefit directly from Penn's roads even when you don't use them yourself; for instance, virtually everything you eat is brought to you over them.
Lots of root vegetables and drastically higher food prices.
Secondly, go read the actual source cited by that Economist blog post. It's another blog post:
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12208/funding-amtra...
The cost breakdown in this blog post is ad hoc, and the biggest "wins" for Amtrak come from parking and "resource consumption".
Parking is taxed, not directly subsidized. The blog post dips into studies that (rightly) excoriate free parking, and scales the external cost of free parking across all parking, thus conflating the total cost of driving with the subsidized cost of driving.
For "resource consumption", the blogger found a study that attributed the entire cost of our military presence in the gulf to oil prices, simply averaging the military budget across oil prices per barrel.
This just isn't credible.
I am not anti-Amtrak, but I am anti-oversimplified-arguments and anti-demonizing-viewpoints. A counterpoint from Cato, which I also do not buy outright:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp107.pdf
Yes - I'm quite aware of the original source, I went and found the Economist piece after finding the GreaterGreatWashington post, because I felt it added more interesting reading and discussion.
For "resource consumption", the blogger found a study that attributed the entire cost of our military presence in the gulf to oil prices, simply averaging the military budget across oil prices per barrel.
We are there as part of the Carter Doctrine, which states that our security depends on access to cheap oil. This is not just dug up by a pro-Amtrak blog post to make a point. This is a stated national policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine
I am not anti-Amtrak, but I am anti-oversimplified-arguments and anti-demonizing-viewpoints. A counterpoint from Cato, which I also do not buy outright
Agreed. My hat goes off to you for the Cato link, even though they drive me up the wall.
Bonus link "Help Passenger Rail by Privatizing Amtrak - Cato Institute" - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa419.pdf
Why am I paying for Amtrak? Outside a very small area on the east coast, it's useless. Either expand it into a true national rail system or get rid of it.
Second, for its core purpose --- not moving people from home to vacation, but for moving products between manufacturing centers, ports, and consumers --- the US has a powerful and reasonably effective rail infrastructure. Read Buffett's shareholder note after buying Burlington Northern.
Third, if (say) 80-90% of public transit is commuter transit, keep in mind that most US major metros have tolerably effective public transit, and many (NYC, Chicago, DC, &c) have extremely good public transit.
While you think about that remember also that the real estate bubble and artificially low commuter costs (cheap gas, &c) distorted public transit in our metro areas by encouraging the development of exurb suburbs that can't cost-effectively be addressed by rail. It's possible that within the next 20 years, they won't be cost-effective for cars either, and that problem will self-correct as housing values in exurbs plummet and families move back into the public transit rings around the cities.
Put differently, because maybe that point seems banal ("suburbs bad!"), consider that in complaining about transit, we may effectively be complaining that it is hard to link a city with what should be a corn field in the middle of nowhere. Well, yeah?
Then read everything everyone else writes about long distance high speed rail.
I'd love to have it. People made fun of STL->CHI high speed rail, hoping instead for coast-to-coast or Chicago->Detroit->Cleveland->NYC, but STL->CHI would link two major metros and allow companies to expand between the cities; for instance, it would allow us to hire out of STL and serve STL companies as house accounts.
But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way.
It's easy for Europe to have effective rail, because Europe is comparatively tiny; the distance from Berlin to Rome is just a little more than twice the distance the Acela runs; Acela's got nowhere to go north of Boston, and extending it to Atlanta would make Acela longer than Berlin-Rome.
>>But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way.
The longer we wait, the more expensive it will become. I say we should act now and swift. Instead of bailing out failing financial systems, we should have solely put that money to our infrastructure. That would have put deserving people to real work. Imagine how much harder it will become in another 20 years, and this is the future of America we are talking about.
Also, I believe cities ordinances should start outlawing the development of the traditional suburb. It should not be legal for these developers to build suburbs with out having a library, hospital, and school in walking distance. Having grown up in a suburb, and traveled the world a bit, I want nothing to do with suburbs. The reason why many in our government likes suburbs is because it encourages consumerism. Some have even argued that the reason why we solely have an almost auto based public transit system is because of auto lobbyist in congress during the 20th century. Although of course there have been many other social economic factors as well, such as 'white flight', as you touched upon.
Counties can, but it'd be suicidal, because the people it would push out of the county are the wealthiest and most important part of the tax base.
Cities can tax suburbs by imposing commuter costs, but that tactic is in tension with the city's need to keep businesses, which will move out of the city if it penalizes the workforce.
I think parking is generally too cheap, and tolls are generally to low. But apart from that, I think the "white flight" stag hunt will eventually be counteracted by a "suburban decay" stag hunt that'll contract populations back into the cities.
The only thing I can see that would prevent that would be cost-effective personal transportation (say, hydrogen fuel cell), which would be a vindication of the suburbs.
If you already marvel at there being an interstate into Alberta, marvel even more at the Transcanada Highway :D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...
* NYC
* LA
* Chicago
* DC
* Houston
* Dallas
* Philly
* SF
* Boston
* Atlanta
Most of these cities have effective public transit. LA is the notable exception (and the one the "auto lobby" narrative seems to pick out).
http://www.metro.net/news/pages/ridership-statistics/
I am surprised that Atlanta is on the list. In terms of public transit, it is not only abysmal, it seems that the current GA legislature is going out of their way to kill it.
Canada is in a similar situation, only more so. Lots of land, not many people living on it. Just as in the U.S., you find public transit in large, dense cities like Toronto, not so much in the smaller and more rural areas. Same with Russia -- good subways in Moscow, etc. by all reports, but you aren't going to find subways or buses in the middle of Siberia.
Two things are required for a regional or national train service to be useful enough that it can be self-sustaining: population density and local public transportation. Local public transportation also requires population density to be effective; someone considering taking a train to Tallahassee FL might decide to drive instead after looking up the bus schedules online. Busses run about once an hour during the hours people normally commute to day jobs and do not go to many useful locations, like the airport.
Germany has a population of about 80 million people. Germany is smaller than Montana. The US as a whole has 26 times the land area but less than 4 times the population.
There are useful train services in population-dense areas of the US such as the SF bay area and the NYC/northern New Jersey region. The population density of these areas is such that it's often easier to travel by train, subway and bus than by car.
The same is not true of Billings, MT, the largest city in a state bigger than Germany. The population of Billings is about 100,000, and the closest city in the state with a population over 10,000 is Bozeman, about 150 miles away. The population of the whole state is about the same as the city I live in, Jacksonville FL, and that city can barely sustain a barely useful bus system.
If the US is to have a decent nationwide public transportation system, it needs about a billion more people. I'm not sure we actually want that.
"The decline in driving by younger Americans is fed by many factors: the high cost of gas and insurance at a time of economic insecurity; tighter restrictions on teen drivers in many states; and roads that are more congested than ever, making driving less fun than ever."
But I'd add that cars used to be cool, and right now there aren't any cars I seriously want to drive. My dad and his brothers could afford muscle cars and they loved driving them, it was cool as hell. I can't relate to that at all.
I understand that not everyone likes working on their own cars. I don't enjoy gardening. It's a diversion, a hobby for me. Like anything else, it's not "scary" once you start to understand it. It's just a machine, and in particular the older Mercedes are very overbuilt, designed to be repairable, and are generally easy to work on.
http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/
I'd love to create a modern electric conversion of a 2cv, but while I don't hate cars, I don't want to become that much of a car guy.
They have not only muscle cars, as you mention, but hacked together roadsters, freaky modded VWs bugs, tuned Hondas, lowered El Caminos, and raised 4WDs. Not to mention the motorcycles.
The idea of moving to Copenhagen and pedaling a bicycle to the tram stop does not seem to have seized their imagination in quite the same way that Vin Diesel has. ;-)
Nowdays we are all too aware of environmental impact of cars, so the whole concept beyond basic utilitarian use is a whole lot less appealing.
I totally don't understand this. I am 17, and a normal teenager. But I know for a fact that TV and the stereotypical "teen" doesn't walk around texting 24/7 nor do we fashion our day around whether or not we will be able to text. I.e. a car.
Or... I could put a card in my wallet. I could tap my wallet on a turnstile[1], a gate slides open, a train arrives every 5 minutes or so, and I ride anywhere in the city for a flat rate. This seems a lot "cooler" than dealing with maintaining my own personal transport pod.
[1] in Boston, in New York you still have to take it out and swipe.
Now you know how many people feel about their computers...
For the curious: - AdBlock+, because public Wi-Fi is slow and I don't like using more bandwidth than necessary - NoScript in "allow global" mode (still catches some XSS and other nastiness) - RequestPolicy (like noscript but for cross-site requests; also great for only looking at text as most big sites now host CSS/JS/images on a CDN) - Priv3 (blocks most opt-in social media integration while still letting it function if you want) - Ghostery (blocks tracking cookies/pixels/other methods) - Certificate Patrol (alerts you to any changes to SSL certs on sites -- it's surprising how often many sites change SSL up. Protects you from spoofing if you pay attention) - HTTPS Everywhere - MAFIAAFire (Gee! No Evil! to un-filter Google autocomplete, Pirate Bay Dancing, and Redirector to circumvent Department of Homeland Security DNS hijacking) - Header Spy because I do lots of debugging web apps and it lets me quickly robtex a server. - Wappalyzer to see what CMS or common software the site is running on
I'm pretty tinfoil'd up and still paranoid.
You may want to check out: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy - BetterPrivacy, if you haven't taken care of it's features in other ways.
On the other hand, when I visit a city with public transit it usually makes me very uncomfortable. Is the station open when I need to go? Do I need tokens or a card? Will the vending machine take credit cards? Will I just miss barely the train and be late to my meeting? Will the train be late because some dude got stuck in the door (this happened to me in London)? Is that shady looking fellow at the other end of the car going to mug or knife me? What if the engineer is texting, misses a crucial signal and plows into the back of a stopped train?
Each mode of transit has its plusses and minuses. Public transit is great if it's convenient, quick and safe. Cars also have a cost as well as the article illustrates.
For me, I like the flexibility and feeling of control I have from having a car. And, frankly, I like driving. :)
Your paranoia can be lumped into two categories -- minor inconveniences to you or threats with a very very low probability of happening.
I'm not trying to dismiss your paranoia. I completely sympathize that the shady looking fellow can make anyone afraid, and the only "cure" is habituation and rationalization. And you can't habituate if you're not a regular transit user.
On the other hand, one of the major problems with driving is habituation. If you're not paying attention, it's quite easy to kill a family of four. But people do it so often without having a problem that they let themselves get distracted. That's when accidents happen.
Driver training really needs to be more like the firearms training I received as a kid. Loaded firearms can be easily handled safely, but you always have to remember that they are deadly weapons and treat them with care and attention. A multi-ton vehicle moving at velocities well in excess of those evolution trained us to deal with is also a deadly weapon. Safe when used properly by yourself and everyone else on the roads, but always a deadly weapon.
Driving is a responsibility, just like owning a firearm or having root on all your company's servers. With great power comes great responsibility.
However, many of the items the parent mentioned, short of having an accident, are not even concerns for me and I would classify as minor inconveniences. Running out of gas is a minor inconvenience. A flat tire is a minor inconvenience (assuming you know how to change a flat, and even more minor if you don't). The others, again short of an accident, are things that are not likely to happen assuming you are aware of your surroundings. Don't park where you aren't supposed to. Don't leave valuables in plain sight - pretty much the same precautions you would take on public transit to avoid becoming a victim of crime.
I don't want to seem as though I'm opposed to public transit. I think it's great where it works and, if it were an option where I lived, I would probably use it when it made sense to. I was thinking about this last night and I've noticed I tend to use it more on the west coast than on the east coast. I actually like TriMet in Portland, and I've used Caltrain, VTA and BART when I'm in the Bay Area with little to no issues. But I would probably avoid the subway in NYC again and MARTA in Atlanta was one of the more terrifying experiences I've ever had as far as feeling unsafe.
The thing is, a large percentage of the population of the US lives in areas that have no public transit at all. Articles heralding the death of the car (like the link) tend to focus on cities, and suburban areas near them, that have adequate public transit while completely ignoring the remaining segments of the population that live in areas where public transit is not, and probably never will be, a viable option. For these areas there are simply no other options other than cars.
But now I'm a city boy, and glad to live in an area with viable public transit. Let someone else do the driving -- I'll read or entertain my kids.
But I didn't take my car with me to university. Instead, I use the thrice-daily Piedmont train to get back and forth from Raleigh and home every couple of weeks, and while I'm in Raleigh I either walk or ride the bus to get around. And now that I'm at home on Christmas break, I have realized how much of a bother driving really is. Sure, you can just get up and go whenever and wherever you want, but you have to deal with traffic, buy gas, pay for maintenance on your car... It's a pain even in High Point (a small city of only about 100,000), and I have no doubt that it would be even more of a pain in Raleigh, to say nothing of Charlotte, Atlanta, or New York.
Yuck. I hope our relationship with the car changes.
Self driving cars. Cars-as-a-service. Improved public transit. Bike-friendly cities. Remote work. Etc. I'll be watching with interest.
Meanwhile, my driving connection to my office is I-290, the Ike, one of the most congested highways in the US.
I'm pretty optimally situated to take advantage of public transit.
And yet a commute on the blue line, in addition to being much less pleasant than the freeway (the trains at peak time are packed) takes roughly an hour. Even in rush hour, driving to the office is so much faster it makes a meaningful difference in my morning logistics. After hours, the train still carves an hour out of my life, and the drive is practically like teleportation.
I've done the blue line for months at a time (car trouble, &c) and I don't mind it and I'm happy I have the option, but there's a litany of car unpleasantness on this thread, and I want to contribute an honest counterpoint.
A bike is also a small fraction of the cost of a car, and great for pretty much everything if you live in a city. I'm moving to SF in a few months and I'll only take a job within a few miles of where I'll be living (SOMA area) because I'd like to commute via bike year-round (and ideally telecommute at least some of the time.)
Really, with how much "work from outside the office" tech we have, it's crazy to me that millions of Americans are risking their lives every day /just to get to work/. Can we stop this unnecessary, costly, dangerous, polluting madness please?
Its no big deal. The usual response is to ignore them and generally they will go away (unless you are up very late at night). Nothing too different from ignoring the beggars coming up to you during a traffic stop. I am not sure why the OTP is making an issue out of it.
The variance is also typically less; I've gotten stuck in 2-hour commutes home due to a freeway accident much more often than I've been waylaid for over an hour by a train delays, though that probably varies based on the freeway and transit system.
I don't doubt that public transit is the worse choice for you, but I wanted to comment on an attitude this line reminds me of. People expect that public transportation will, when it "works," be better than having their own vehicle. If driving to a destination is faster and more pleasant, then the system has failed.
In general, there are two problems with this. First, the system was not designed for your trip - your car is. You car will (almost) always be better than any general purpose transport system. The measure of a transport system is how many places you can get to in an acceptable time frame with acceptable reliability. Obviously, as reliability increases and the time frame shrinks, the system improves. Think about the cost of your vehicle (both up front and continuing) and multiply that by the population of your city. We pay quite a lot for the quality afforded by a private vehicle.
Second, I think that many people judge trips from a point of view that's heavily conditioned by experiences in private vehicles. I like taking the subway to work because it lets me read for 25-30 minutes. I like it because I don't have to pay attention and can safely think about other things while I'm traveling. Many people aren't used to the different texture of traveling with a crowd of strangers, and I think that effects their assessments of the overall system.
I want to avoid giving the impression that I'm arguing against public transit, even in my case. Public transit is by far the more cost-effective option, even if you factor the cost of my time. It's also more responsible, and less error-prone.
What I was responding to was a series of comments along the lines of "cars suck, I can't imagine why anybody uses them". Well, I use them to save a couple hours of my day every day. I have a 12 year old whose middle school bus doesn't come by until 8.30; if I took the train, I'd get in to work every day at 10:00AM.
I guess I was trying to point out the differences in philosophy between private ownership and a public system - your post seemed agreeable enough that I wouldn't incite an argument :).
P.S. Everyone who voted the parent comment up is a lazy bastard. Get off your fat arses and walk once in a while.
- In many situations, even with good public transit available, you're going to want to own a car.
- If you do own a car, it's a sunk cost.
- The cost is substantial.
- Due to a substantial sunk cost, you might as well get your money's worth, and drive. (i.e., Loss aversion)
So basically, I am stuck driving because I can't "not have a car" and if I'm going to pay into having a car, I might as well realize the benefits of owning one.
Taking it a step further, unless I can live in an area with good enough transit sufficient to not own a car at all, I'm better off economically in the suburbs, where rent is cheaper.
When "driving a car" means turning a key and then pointing it in the right direction, it's no surprise the experience has lost its luster. If your life is about constantly being online, then I see the article's point—public transit is your best option. If you enjoy driving, then get a car that's fun to drive.
Unfortunately the appeal of manuals is lost on most Americans.
If I end up having kids, they won't have their own cars until they are proficient with a stick.
Dual-clutch automatic for me.
I love driving a good sports car with a manual transmission. I'm the minority, not you.
I have my fingers crossed for the new Subaru model. We're starting to run out of options.
An interesting analogy that I thought of at the time was manual memory management. Stalling the car felt an awful lot like throwing a seg fault. I haven't followed the analogy very far so it might break down, but it's certainly true that in the right hands (race car drivers, kernel programmers?), C and stick shifts can be wielded with devastating effect.
I never actually finished learning to drive though, as I live in NYC now, so YMMV (literally).
It is something you pick up after a couple of hours of driving and becomes second nature.
That said, I would prefer automatic, especially in traffic jams. Unfortunately it is not always an option when driving a company car.
I took my car to Grease Monkey to get the oil changed and I had to drive it into and out of the bay, because no worker there knew how to drive a stick.
It also very much saddens me that when it's time to get a new car, I may be forced to not get a stick because so many models simply don't come in a manual now.
[0] http://autos.aol.com/article/stick-shift-love-affair/
The other very cheap and very fast option is a used street bike, since all of those have manuals.
Supposedly, automatics incur a few percent more gas usage. And gas is really expensive here.
A stick is also only more fuel efficient if you're always in the right gear. It's much more natural to drive aggressively when driving a stick, so I suspect that many drivers negate any fuel efficiency savings.
To me, a stick shift doesn't give a feeling of control. It gives a feeling of subservience. I have to do more busy work to accomplish the same tasks. I must appease the car gods by choosing the appropriate gears and releasing the clutch properly, lest they stall me.
As an analogy, I would not code in assembly unless I needed its performance or flexibility. But some people, such as one of the hosts of 'Security Now!', like to do everything in assembly.
There are maybe a couple of activities that I still cannot do without a car, such as getting tons of groceries (say, going to Costco), transporting anything heavy, and doing road trips. Something like ZipCar already addresses most of those.
Also, I always feel bad for driving, it feels lazy from both a physical exertion standpoint (I live in a highly urbanized area, it's not like I have miles of cornfields to cross), and burning gas does nobody a favor.
Can't wait for some sort of personal automated pods to be developed.
I can't even imagine the thought process that would even consider this question.
Then it's a matter of readjusting said driver's priorities.
I am young, and I love motoring. I guess I am out of touch. But, I suppose it wouldn't be the first time.
Though there is one major problem encroaching on my enjoyment- the decline of the sports car. The number of true-blue sports cars coming out of car makers is steadily declining. I can only pray it does not grow worse in the future.
Now that I can drive, I still have no interest in a car. Mind you, I live in London, where driving a car is very expensive; just congestion charges and parking alone would make it more expensive than public transport, never mind fuel costs, insurance and depreciation.
But scooters in the city: that's another game altogether, almost literally. In the UK, filtering / lane splitting is legal, and nowhere is it as gleefully taken advantage of as in London. Getting from A to B is such a joy I frequently go out into the evening rush hour (I work from home) merely to entertain myself, cutting through the traffic.
Two wheels: no congestion charge, much better fuel consumption, significantly cheaper insurance, parking is cheap or usually free outside of Westminster, and the weather is almost always mild. It's very hard to beat. And overall, the cost is less than public transportation if you're not living in central London (where you'll take the hit in rent prices or living circumstances instead).
As a young adult myself I'd love to own a car, but it's almost impossible to have enough capital to pay for insurance, maintenance, petrol, the auto, and my student loans. I'd be digging myself into a financial ditch I wouldn't be able to get out for over 20 years.
Sprawl sucks.
My first car in college a '69 Mustang fastback is by far the most exciting ride I've ever had.
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/4/282/941/3820297...
Cars under $50K today are mostly boring. Most of my younger friends see cars as transportation and nothing more.
I too lament that fact, but there are a few non-boring cars under $30k. The Subaru WRX, Mazda Miata and (soon) the Toyota GT-86/Subaru BRZ strike me as not boring, but it seems to me that the market for these cars has shrunk. People actually seem to want boring cars now.
I am way more excited about bikes than I am about fancy cars. Nice bikes are within the financial reach of almost anyone, and cycling skill makes a big difference because you can actually push yourself and your machine to the limits in the city.
Save the sports cars for the track.
However, what isn't and what certainly isn't cool is if I had to spend a half an hour on the road, driving to/from work each day. Going to the office, I just take the tram if weather doesn't suit cycling. I'd never move to a place where I'd need a car to go to work or do my chores. A few times a year I end up driving in rush hour traffic and each time just enforces that opinion of mine.
I think that as soon as the car becomes a commodity, it loses much of its appeal.
For me, it's still somewhat of a luxury: I could do without it. I keep a car because I love to go on long trips driving myself, instead of taking the train or bus. And I love to occasionally drive to some place where I have chores to do but I can't easily reach by public transit, such as shops and spare parts stores in industrial zones, or picking somebody up in downtown or airport. Or just drive to go swim in a neighbouring city where I know they have an especially nice pool. I clock maybe 15,000km per year doing that. And there are weeks I don't start my car once.
But then again, I don't text much either. I don't even always take my mobile phone with me when I go out. So, go figure.
Seriously, though, I think there are just a lot of things competing for people's attention, young or otherwise. There are many activities you can do at home / online nowadays, and these naturally displace some activities that would have involved driving somewhere.
I have driven since I was 16. Over 20 years later, I still enjoy it. What I don't like? Commuting. Unfortunately, if one wants to rely on public transit in Silicon Valley, you will either make compromises in time or cost of living (or location to live). Bay Area roads and freeways are pretty bad. Thankfully, for me, I commute off hours twice a week and am at home other times.
Back to the joy of driving though -- the road trip is quintiscential Americana. The open road, radio blasting, and just letting the miles go by. If one can get out of the major metro areas (or vacation time traffic routes), you can just go...Highway 395 from the Canadian border, down through the high desert and into the Sierras; or getting out during the low season and driving down the Pacific Coast Highway; or taking it a bit slower and experiencing the gold country with Highway 49 and Highway 20...I could go on...
Unfortunately, this enjoyment means getting away from people, density, and traffic...
But really it is pointless to compare the US to Denmark. Does New Jersey have a population density comparable to Denmark's? New Jersey north of the Raritan, even?