TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Public transport - North America vs Europe - question
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Public transport - North America vs Europe - question

I'm not sure if this even belongs here but I think I'd get more answers to the general question here as I bet the reasons for the way things are the way they are are at least partly political, so here goes:

Why is public transportation, namely rail, so lacking in North America so lacking compared to Europe? How did we fall so far behind over the last 50 or so years that now it will take another 50 or so to catch up? I doubt the automobile can be the only factor as cars are common in Europe too. Was it just cheap fuel? Do you believe that geography is the reason? Perhaps population density differences? It seems that outside the northeast US, there is virtually no functioning passenger rail system (& of course no true high-speed rail system anywhere in NA).

Did no-one simply found developments such as the TGV interesting & valuable enough to implement here?

Finally, do you think it will always be this way in North America?

Trains suck. Cars rule. Seriously..Why would anyone want mass transit when they can drive? You need to wait for your transportation to arrive..rely on schedules to get around town and ride next to a bunch of smelly passengers..bleh. I do think the reason they are more popular in europe is because they tax the sh!t out of gasoline.. It costs 3-4X more per gallon there than it does in the USA. There is just no incentive for mass transit in America when cars and gas are very affordable for most people.

Unless you'r in New York, Chicago, Washington DC, LA, and a few other cities, the public transit is horrid.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Trains suck. Cars rule. Seriously..Why would anyone want mass transit when they can drive?

Let's see:

I don't have to pay for a car.
I don't have to pay for gas.
I don't have to pay for parking.
I don't have to pay for insurance.
I can work while in transit, thereby making money during my commute.

All told, for me it's probably a difference of about $10,000 per year or more. If I just stashed all those savings away, then with modest interest I'd have half a million dollars in 20 years--and that's ignoring the fact that those costs will almost surely inflate significantly within those 20 years.

Seems like the economic incentives are pretty clear to me.

Not to mention you're saving the world by going green!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Let's see: I don't have to pay for a car. I don't have to pay for gas. I don't have to pay for parking. I don't have to pay for insurance. I can work while in transit, thereby making money during my commute. All told, for me it's probably a difference of about $10,000 per year or more. If I just stashed all those savings away, then with modest interest I'd have half a million dollars in 20 years--and that's ignoring the fact that those costs will almost surely inflate significantly within those 20 years. Seems like the economic incentives are pretty clear to me.

aside from the economic incentives, commuting by train is more reliable (i.e., if i leave at the same time every day i am likely arriving at work the same time every day). By car, there is a greater chance for different levels of congestion based on construction, traffic volumn, police activity, accidents, etc... Also, your stress level on a train is quite low compared to the stress level while sitting in traffic.

Every day it takes me 50 minutes by train to commute to the city, and by car it could vary from 25 minutes to 1.5 hours. To add to that, the parking costs alone dwarf the public transportation costs (30 a day for parking compared to 8 a day for the trains).

east asia has some impressive public transport systems as well

yeah it really fucking sucks.
you take the bus in europe (relatively same price- cheap) but the buses are really clean & well air conditioned & the seats are comfortable & prlly not with the cloth material bc that just gets gross with dust.. its just FRESH and clean & everyone takes the bus..

trains.. even better..

HERE.. no fucking train, no metro (unless like kryp said u live in DC or something) & buses are for bums

i don't get it. the US should do a 'makeover' with their public transportation.

i remember where i lived there was no swimming pool.. well, a real shitty one. SO.. id take the military shuttle bus to parsburg.. then from there take the train (all day pass) to regensburg- theeen walk out from the platz walk across the street to the bus area & catch the bus- if you have the ticket from the train then u can use any bus u want as many times as u want.. so then the bus would take me to the regensburg schwimmbad and DONE. i mean.. it sounds long, it kinda was- but if you're with friends, it's fun. so i used to do that like every weekend in the summer.

i don't want to imagine doing the same thing HERE.

quote:

Originally posted by yukii yeah it really fucking sucks. you take the bus in europe (relatively same price- cheap) but the buses are really clean & well air conditioned & the seats are comfortable & prlly not with the cloth material bc that just gets gross with dust.. its just FRESH and clean & everyone takes the bus.. trains.. even better..

really? all the public transportation i took in europe was kind of grimmy. the tube has hard clothe sheets, no air conditioning, and it's really stuffy. the buses i've been on were equally unimpressive. Still, the reach of the public transportion is impressive.

the commuter trains were much nicer (e.g., the eurostar, etc...).

quote:

Originally posted by yukii HERE.. no fucking train, no metro (unless like kryp said u live in DC or something) & buses are for bums i don't get it. the US should do a 'makeover' with their public transportation.

it's pure economics. you need density in order to make public transportation efficient. it doesn't make much sense to have an expansive public transportation system when most people don't live in densely populated areas. places like NJ, NY, DC, and Chicago can support such systems because of the population densities. We don't have great supraregional rail systems either because the population centers are widely dispersed, such that air travel is not only faster, but also more economical. if people changed their living habits so that most people lived close together in cities our public transportation system would be better.

europe has such a good public transportation system because most people live in the same places their ancestors lived prior to automobiles. Thus, in almost all parts of europe, even in rural areas, people live closely together. Consequently, people live in walking distance of public transportation stops.

I've always laughed a little at how US systems are designed so that people can drive their cars to the train stops to catch a train. To me, that seems a little counter productive. I get why they do it (i.e., in most areas of the country the residential density doesn't support particular areas for a train stop, those areas need to be created artificially with a parking lot), but it's still a little ironic to me.

Once there is enough demand to put it into place, one can only hope that it is left to the private companies to get it done. Otherwise it won't get done right or even get done at all.

yeah, i agree with what you say about population and density- it makes sense.. it's just in europe in the smallest little town- there was a train station lol ..

as far as seeing crummy transportation in EU that's weird but i believe you bc i do remember the worst metro evar was in italy lol .. really fucking hot and dirty and graffiti... but when i think of it, all the crummy transportation was always in the HUGE cities like Rome, Paris****** lol but if you're in a regular city.. not too big or anything i think it will be obviously cleaner and nicer like the ones i used to ride on..

i think even if the US only has good p.transportation in populated areas- they should still increase it bc i think it will help the US in the long run.. americans could travel about alot easier, there would prlly be an increase in traveling, & it's alot more green

{sorry if my sentences are weird- im watching a documentary while typing }

quote:

Originally posted by yukii yeah, i agree with what you say about population and density- it makes sense.. it's just in europe in the smallest little town- there was a train station lol .. as far as seeing crummy transportation in EU that's weird but i believe you bc i do remember the worst metro evar was in italy lol .. really fucking hot and dirty and graffiti... but when i think of it, all the crummy transportation was always in the HUGE cities like Rome, Paris****** lol but if you're in a regular city.. not too big or anything i think it will be obviously cleaner and nicer like the ones i used to ride on.. i think even if the US only has good p.transportation in populated areas- they should still increase it bc i think it will help the US in the long run.. americans could travel about alot easier, there would prlly be an increase in traveling, & it's alot more green {sorry if my sentences are weird- im watching a documentary while typing }

while the stations pretty much suck, the trains for the NYC subway are the best subway trains i've ever been on, anywhere. The newest trains are clean, the air conditioning is cold, and the trains are designed for space maximization. They are certainly better than anything i've been on in any other US or european city.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Let's see: I don't have to pay for a car. I don't have to pay for gas. I don't have to pay for parking. I don't have to pay for insurance. I can work while in transit, thereby making money during my commute. All told, for me it's probably a difference of about $10,000 per year or more. If I just stashed all those savings away, then with modest interest I'd have half a million dollars in 20 years--and that's ignoring the fact that those costs will almost surely inflate significantly within those 20 years. Seems like the economic incentives are pretty clear to me.

I work in downtown Toronto. I would never, EVER,drive there. 2 lanes only, and nothing full idiotic drivers. Trust me, public transit has its uses.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Once there is enough demand to put it into place, one can only hope that it is left to the private companies to get it done. Otherwise it won't get done right or even get done at all.

Yeah, the privatization of British Rail is such a great example of this...

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Yeah, the privatization of British Rail is such a great example of this...

The state still has a big hand in British Rail. I was thinking more along the lines of what Japan has done.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT The state still has a big hand in British Rail.

It does now, yes, but the privatization before New Labour stepped back in nonetheless had severely detrimental effects on public transportation by rail as a whole.

Either way, I'm not arguing privatization vs nationalization here, that's another can of worms entirely. The point is, making blanket statements like "if private companies can't do it noone can" comes across as pretty shallow when the variables differ so much from region to region. It's just not that simple.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper It does now, yes, but the privatization before New Labour stepped back in nonetheless had severely detrimental effects on public transportation by rail as a whole. Either way, I'm not arguing privatization vs nationalization here, that's another can of worms entirely. The point is, making blanket statements like "if private companies can't do it noone can" comes across as pretty shallow when the variables differ so much from region to region. It's just not that simple.

I understand. I've made it clear in other threads why I believe central planning will always end in disaster and why I believe things like this should be left to the private sector. You may not have read those threads though, so I apologize for not expanding much more on my comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Trains suck. Cars rule. Seriously..Why would anyone want mass transit when they can drive? You need to wait for your transportation to arrive..rely on schedules to get around town and ride next to a bunch of smelly passengers..bleh. I do think the reason they are more popular in europe is because they tax the sh!t out of gasoline.. It costs 3-4X more per gallon there than it does in the USA. There is just no incentive for mass transit in America when cars and gas are very affordable for most people.

Epic fail.

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 Epic fail.

+1

In this day and age having a license is a bonus. Sure transit can be a bitch, but it has its positives too. Don't believe, gas today is at $1 per litre.

About 1�/litre here and i think that's still relatively cheap compared to some of the northern countries. Also, very cheap compared to a year ago, but those prices will come back sooner or later. Probably sooner.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Unless you'r in New York, Chicago, Washington DC, LA, and a few other cities, the public transit is horrid.

i would drop LA from that list, the public transportation system here is mediocre at best

having traveled quite extensively, as well as transportation being my field of expertise, I think the main reasons north amreica does not have the same mass transit infrastructure as Europe is a combination of poor long range planning by both the railways as well as the governement and the space factor. main transit hubs in north america are very spread out, compared to europe. The remainder of the north american rail network isnt suitable for highspeed train traffic. in order to adopt similar rail technology used in europe, all of the rail infrastructure would need to be upgraded to welded rail as well as some major re-alignment. The cost of doing this work would be prohibitively expensive. I dont know if anyone here understands the ecinomics of infrastructure construction but let me tell you from experience, it aint cheap. The City of ottawa tendered a contract two years ago to build a light rail expansion to the current O-Train system. this invovled the construction of 15 stations and about 20 km of new track.... price tag, well over 1B$ needless to say it got kyboshed. now expand that to the long sought after highspeed link from windsor to montreal........ thats about 900 to 1000 km of track taht needs to be re-aligned, and replaced since you cant run highspeed on bolted track sections. so now 1000 km of new welded track, the re alignment of sections, the EA that would need to be done.... we are looking at quite possibly the most expensive construction project canada has seen in 100 yrs. The next big problem is most north American cities are not planned properly to support mass transit initiatives. they are planned for cars. The ingrained mentality that everyone in north america needs a single family home on a half acre of property has pretty much raped us of any hope of efficient intercity travel.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JetTrain I think this might be realistic in Canada.. Here is my patent though... put an electric motor in the sucker... like accellla

how do you propose to power the electric motors..... that is the purpose of the turbofan, it runs a generator that powers 4 electric traction motors.....

quote:

--- and utilize wheel generators (each car would generate electricity when it was in motion and transfer it back to the generator to reduce energy costs.

im not sure how to explain this to you but generators dont produce free energy..... the generators would apply a load to the wheels making it harder for them to rotate, thus requiring more energy to get the train to speed. Thanks to this lovely thing called friction, you would use more energy overall if you put generators on the wheels. (note since you are proposing an all electric train, regenerative braking is a useless idea since you would never get a high speed train to run on battery power..... you couldnt put enough batteries in that train....)

quote:

Slap a wind vortex on the sucker also to generate electricity...

again with the sapping of input power.... your now proposing to add an apputance that will add a huge amount of drag..... on a train that your trying to operate in excess of 150 mph, i hope you plan for seeing parts of your fancy wind generator flying all over the place because they are not designed to operate in 150 mph wind conditions..... not to mention the drag factor.... thus reducing your efficiency yet again...

quote:

and protected solar panneling on the cars.

i will give you 1/2 of a point for this one....... solar cells only produce enough of a current to "trickle" charge a battery bank, so you would still need a whole pile of batteries to utilize this energy, not to mention that solar cells are rediculously expnesive to manufacture, have a massive carbon footprint to produce (debatably negates their "green ness") and are horrendously in efficient compared to other solar generation technologies....

quote:

Cost of operations could be reduced that way.

I think not, you have now succesfully added 3 more devices to break down and replace at regular preventative maintenance intervals

quote:

As far as a a need for welded track... exactly why is the track even needed?

how do you propose to control this jet train? steer it using conventional controls? good luck..... large heavy objects operating at these kinds of speeds require flat, level, and smooth run surfaces as well as the ability to apply enough lateral force to the ground to change velocity vectors. Tracks allow you to impart "hunting forces" (rail design lingo) which means you can apply horizontal forces to the track to change direction. welded track is required to prevent small elevation differences between the track sections from bouncing the train off the rails

quote:

I don't get this .. why not just use the rail area for a new ground based ultra high speed system? Better yet make the lane available for cars to ala autobahn unlimited speed limit.. with a must move for ultra highspeed bus requirement... I invision it as a raised double lane in the middle dividers ---- which is enclosed to keep out rain and snow. --- with the odd exit

let me put it this way..... in 2006 the average cost to build a 4 lane highway was about 10 million canadian dollars per km. that figure includes NO STRUCTURAL WORK ie bridges, culverts, overpasses etc... that cost can be up to 10,000$ per square meter of deck area..... a bridge can cost between 10 and 25 million for a standard highway overpass......

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN...... we are talking hundreds of billions of dollars

Hamilton, Ontario is thinking about getting the "turbo" rail system. Seriously.

http://www.thespec.com/article/440254

quote:

$50b transit plan targets Hamilton September 24, 2008 By Rob Faulkner The Hamilton Spectator (Sep 24, 2008) GO trains every five minutes during rush hour. Train rides from Hamilton to Union Station in Toronto that take 44, not 66 minutes like today. Two rapid transit lines by 2023, and a third in the years just after that. It's the kind of work that Burlington-mayor-turned-transportation-architect Rob MacIsaac calls "transformational." And it's a glimpse of the local future envisioned in The Big Move, a $50-billion, 25-year draft plan unveiled yesterday by provincial Crown agency Metrolinx aiming to ease gridlock and pollution in the Toronto-Hamilton region. It contained dozens of blockbuster projects across the region. Metrolinx board chair MacIsaac called the plan -- a mix of cycling, transit, integrated fares, mobility hubs and more -- the most significant transportation investment in a generation. But it leaves a few unanswered questions: such as will Hamilton get the light rail it has been hoping for or will it make do with bus rapid transit? The 84-page plan commits to building three rapid transit lines in Hamilton within 25 years, and two of these by 2023. One line will run east-west from McMaster University to Centennial Parkway -- what Hamilton has been calling its B line. A north-south line is planned to run along James Street up the Mountain. The east-west line is one of the top 15 priorities among the 40 projects Metrolinx wants completed in the next 15 years. A 2009 benefits analysis study will determine if that line will run with bus or rail, said John Howe, Metrolinx general manager for investment strategy and projects. "We are definitely very excited to see them include the (east-west) B line as one of the top 15 priorities," said Jill Stephen, city manager of strategic planning. "We could have it running in the next eight years. We are going to press forward with our studies, our consultation and make sure that Metrolinx knows we are ready." Howe said construction may start in 2010 and take four or five years. Capital costs will be covered, it appears, but operating costs will likely be paid by municipalities. Metrolinx plans more thorough financial details in the years ahead. MacIsaac said that each project in the draft plan's long list will be evaluated for ridership and environmental, social and economic benefits. A final plan is expected in November. He describes some work, like GO train electrification, as "transformational." Within 15 years, Lakeshore GO trains will run every 15 minutes at off-peak and every five minutes at peak times, he said. "They won't have to worry about a schedule, they can just show up at a station and have confidence that a train will be along relatively shortly," MacIsaac said. Howe said electrification will cost $4 billion and may be complete by 2016, if it starts in 2011. Metrolinx said two Hamilton stations will be used for the increased number of GO trains, the Hunter Street GO station and LIUNA Station. GO spokesperson Jessica Kosmack said details are not yet hammered out. "This regional transportation plan is the first step in a long journey for all of the transportation groups. The next step is establishing what the priorities are and looking at the logistics and the funding," she said. The Draft Regional Transportation Plan and Draft Investment Strategy will go to the Metrolinx board for discussion and approval Friday. Mayor Fred Eisenberger urges Hamilton residents to participate in the public consultations Metrolinx is planning for October. He said that, as Hamilton's voice on the agency's board, he will strive to make the plan a reality. "It's a good news day for Hamilton," Eisenberger said. "We believe in Hamilton that light rail transit is the right way to go. We're pushing for that. Light rail is the next generation of transit systems. We've already made our case and I'll continue to do that." Last year's $17.5-billion MoveOntario 2020 announcement -- which Metrolinx is implementing -- said $300 million was available for Hamilton rapid transit. More exact timing for capital projects will come in October's five-year rolling budget, MacIsaac said. Metrolinx said it will use the $11.5 billion in committed provincial money to fund the plan from 2009 to 2015, to accomplish quick wins and its 15 top priorities. It hopes for $6 billion from the federal government, to fund the plan to 2018. Metrolinx plans to report back to the Ontario government in 2013 on how to fund the rest of the plan, post-2015. Possible sources include tolls. But MacIsaac said the strategic thinking was to build a system that Ontario likes first, then find ways to generate new money. Hamilton estimates an east-west line and a north-south line of light rail will cost $1.1 billion, and $160 an hour per vehicle to run. Bus rapid transit would cost $480 million. "It's a major step along the way because Metrolinx has said that Hamilton will be in the first round of projects to get funded," said Nicholas Kevlahan, a McMaster University math professor and co-founder of Hamilton Light Rail, a citizens group formed to advocate for local light rail transit. "On the choice between light rail and bus rapid transit, we are very well positioned because the city is already answering the questions that Metrolinx will be asking."

Oh, in Hamilton, Ontario - not far from where I live - there's a serious plan in the making. I dont feel like annoying you with the details, you can read it yourself.

Rapid Transit

http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton...s/RapidTransit/

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 while the stations pretty much suck, the trains for the NYC subway are the best subway trains i've ever been on, anywhere. The newest trains are clean, the air conditioning is cold, and the trains are designed for space maximization. They are certainly better than anything i've been on in any other US or european city.

are you kidding !? the trains in NYC are horrible!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.