How One's Perceptions are Shaped by Where One Lives

[Flint1979]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

Like what regions?

I'd say it's more about population density than how good the roads are. Dense urban areas like NYC, SF, DC, and Chicago all support public transit because driving in those urban areas is usually more difficult than hopping on a subway or other transit. A lot of people think most of the US needs to drive while forgetting the sheer mass of people living in urban areas. The NYC metro area alone is almost 19M people. Driving was near impossible the one time I visited NYC in the late 70's. It hasn't gotten better. I didn't mind the subway, though it's not as pretty or clean as the DC Metro or BART. These metro areas have transit comparable to those found in Europe or Japan.

Less dense urban areas tend to revolve around the car. Dallas, LA, and Kansas City are all good examples of less dense metros. All have minimal transit systems for their size, especially compared to similar-sized cities in Europe and East Asia.

Those areas support public transport because the roads are awful to start with and because so many people are too broke to afford a car anyway.

That isn't the reason at all.

[SkyPesos]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

Like what regions?

I'd say it's more about population density than how good the roads are. Dense urban areas like NYC, SF, DC, and Chicago all support public transit because driving in those urban areas is usually more difficult than hopping on a subway or other transit. A lot of people think most of the US needs to drive while forgetting the sheer mass of people living in urban areas. The NYC metro area alone is almost 19M people. Driving was near impossible the one time I visited NYC in the late 70's. It hasn't gotten better. I didn't mind the subway, though it's not as pretty or clean as the DC Metro or BART. These metro areas have transit comparable to those found in Europe or Japan.

Less dense urban areas tend to revolve around the car. Dallas, LA, and Kansas City are all good examples of less dense metros. All have minimal transit systems for their size, especially compared to similar-sized cities in Europe and East Asia.

Those areas support public transport because the roads are awful to start with and because so many people are too broke to afford a car anyway.

More like some people don't want to be stuck in traffic, and spend $10-15 per hour on parking every day, and rather take the train when it's convenient.

Though if you prefer to drive 100% of the time, that's your choice.

I'll gladly switch places with you if it's an option. You can have the car-centric Cincinnati, while I'll take Philadelphia's rail system, which imo is solid compared to most other American systems (though definitely still fall flat when comparing to rail transit in European cities).

[sprjus4]

^ New York and DC seem better compared to Philadelphia in terms of transit.

[US 89]

Another facet of growing up in Chicagoland: tollways are accepted as normal.  They might not be considered anything besides aggravating to some, but they're at least recognized as a part of normal life.

And, I might add, a convenient way to get rid of unwanted spare change!  That is, before they stopped taking cash...

I do that at self checkouts at grocery stores.

[kphoger]

I'd say it's more about population density than how good the roads are. Dense urban areas like NYC, SF, DC, and Chicago all support public transit because driving in those urban areas is usually more difficult than hopping on a subway or other transit. A lot of people think most of the US needs to drive while forgetting the sheer mass of people living in urban areas. The NYC metro area alone is almost 19M people. Driving was near impossible the one time I visited NYC in the late 70's. It hasn't gotten better. I didn't mind the subway, though it's not as pretty or clean as the DC Metro or BART. These metro areas have transit comparable to those found in Europe or Japan.

Less dense urban areas tend to revolve around the car. Dallas, LA, and Kansas City are all good examples of less dense metros. All have minimal transit systems for their size, especially compared to similar-sized cities in Europe and East Asia.

This is even apparent within transit systems.  It's why Pace (Chicago RTA's suburban bus network) has good coverage in Cook County but mediocre service in DuPage County.

The less dense the population is, the farther spread out the transit arteries are going to be, and the more sinuous/convoluted the routes are going to be in order to serve as many needs as possible.  It's why suburban bus routes so often go out of their way to serve clusters of apartment complexes and factories and shopping malls, at the expense of Joe Schmoe in a neighborhood of single-family homes who just needs to commute to and from his office job every day.

[TXtoNJ]

One thing that's a bit counterintuitive is that it's infrastructure that creates density, not the other way around. Pedestrian and animal-powered infrastructure leads to small villages and dense cities. Trains and canals lead to larger dense cities. Roads lead to sprawl in a market system (because minimally improving open land and externalizing transportation costs is much more profitable than dense development, if you have modest capital).

[SkyPesos]

^ New York and DC seem better compared to Philadelphia in terms of transit.

I don't think any other US city can compare to NYC for transit.

I'm not going to debate about Philly vs DC transit, as DC relies on the metro for most of its rail transit, while Philly have a variety (metro, trams, commuter rail), but what I like about Philly's rail system is that all commuter rail lines are electrified, unlike those in Chicago and Boston.

[Flint1979]

Another facet of growing up in Chicagoland: tollways are accepted as normal.  They might not be considered anything besides aggravating to some, but they're at least recognized as a part of normal life.

And, I might add, a convenient way to get rid of unwanted spare change!  That is, before they stopped taking cash...

I do that at self checkouts at grocery stores.

Haha so do I.

[kphoger]

I used to get rid of pennies at the toll booths, and nickels on the bus.

[HighwayStar]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

Like what regions?

I'd say it's more about population density than how good the roads are. Dense urban areas like NYC, SF, DC, and Chicago all support public transit because driving in those urban areas is usually more difficult than hopping on a subway or other transit. A lot of people think most of the US needs to drive while forgetting the sheer mass of people living in urban areas. The NYC metro area alone is almost 19M people. Driving was near impossible the one time I visited NYC in the late 70's. It hasn't gotten better. I didn't mind the subway, though it's not as pretty or clean as the DC Metro or BART. These metro areas have transit comparable to those found in Europe or Japan.

Less dense urban areas tend to revolve around the car. Dallas, LA, and Kansas City are all good examples of less dense metros. All have minimal transit systems for their size, especially compared to similar-sized cities in Europe and East Asia.

Those areas support public transport because the roads are awful to start with and because so many people are too broke to afford a car anyway.

More like some people don't want to be stuck in traffic, and spend $10-15 per hour on parking every day, and rather take the train when it's convenient.

Though if you prefer to drive 100% of the time, that's your choice.

I'll gladly switch places with you if it's an option. You can have the car-centric Cincinnati, while I'll take Philadelphia's rail system, which imo is solid compared to most other American systems (though definitely still fall flat when comparing to rail transit in European cities).

With adequate infrastructure there is no reason for them to be stuck in traffic or paying too much for parking, both, the former especially, reflect a failure to construct adequate infrastructure. However no amount of construction can remedy the fundamental flaws of public transit.

Philadelphia's rail system only looks good on a map, in real life it is extremely unpleasant to ride around in other people's filth, next to someone that has not bathed in days, across from some homeless guy panhandling the train for money, only to get off in a downpour 4 blocks from where you actually need to be trying to carry two sacks of groceries.
Rarely is it even faster than driving, and often then not by enough to matter. Much more enjoyable to drive in the rain in a big Lincoln Town Car and get out right where you need to be without lying in other people's filth (oh and you can smoke/eat/drink/listen to music in the car, all are theoretically banned on the Subway, but that law seems selectively enforced).

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Me in every other city I visit: "Why are there fewer freeways, but their interchanges are all bigger and better than ours?"

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

More like some people don't want to be stuck in traffic, and spend $10-15 per hour on parking every day, and rather take the train when it's convenient.

Though if you prefer to drive 100% of the time, that's your choice.

I'll gladly switch places with you if it's an option. You can have the car-centric Cincinnati, while I'll take Philadelphia's rail system, which imo is solid compared to most other American systems (though definitely still fall flat when comparing to rail transit in European cities).

That's exactly what it should be, a choice. However in the case where roads and transit are actually given the proper priority and people have a true choice, driving in my opinion is clearly superior, because you are never bound to a schedule, you can go wherever you want, whenever, and don't have to be stuck in a box with a bunch of miserable people and nutjobs. Politicians know this so they choose not to provide the proper funding for roads or to deliberately reduce capacity to force people to take public transit even though it's largely obsolete. Look at NYC, I have to drive there for work sometimes and the shear amount of lanes they have taken away to make bike lanes or bus lanes, in many cases that hardly anyone uses, is a major disincentive to drive into the city when it would otherwise be possible, and is starting to drive business away.

And looking into the future, the two big "problems" with road infrastructure (carbon emissions and the task of driving) will be almost nonexistent in a few decades due to the introduction of electric and driverless cars. So now politicians and transit advocates have to work even harder to convince people of transit's "superiority" as people wake up to the fact that driving is possible, more convenient, and in fact liberating. Just look at the volume of used car sales since corona. Dealerships can't keep cars on the lot anymore

[SkyPesos]

However in the case where roads and transit are actually given the proper priority and people have a true choice, driving in my opinion is clearly superior, because you are never bound to a schedule, you can go wherever you want, whenever, and don't have to be stuck in a box with a bunch of miserable people and nutjobs.

Ehh, for me, it depends still. I would still choose transit in certain situations, and more so in an European or East Asian city. In cities I've been in where buses and intracity trains are frequent enough that you don't have to rely on a schedule (very rare in the US), and the sidewalk infrastructure is adequate to get from a station to final destination, it's the preferred option for me.

I'll just leave it here, as after all, this is a roads forum, not a rail forum.

[Rothman]

More like some people don't want to be stuck in traffic, and spend $10-15 per hour on parking every day, and rather take the train when it's convenient.

Though if you prefer to drive 100% of the time, that's your choice.

I'll gladly switch places with you if it's an option. You can have the car-centric Cincinnati, while I'll take Philadelphia's rail system, which imo is solid compared to most other American systems (though definitely still fall flat when comparing to rail transit in European cities).

That's exactly what it should be, a choice. However in the case where roads and transit are actually given the proper priority and people have a true choice, driving in my opinion is clearly superior, because you are never bound to a schedule, you can go wherever you want, whenever, and don't have to be stuck in a box with a bunch of miserable people and nutjobs. Politicians know this so they choose not to provide the proper funding for roads or to deliberately reduce capacity to force people to take public transit even though it's largely obsolete. Look at NYC, I have to drive there for work sometimes and the shear amount of lanes they have taken away to make bike lanes or bus lanes, in many cases that hardly anyone uses, is a major disincentive to drive into the city when it would otherwise be possible, and is starting to drive business away.

And looking into the future, the two big "problems" with road infrastructure (carbon emissions and the task of driving) will be almost nonexistent in a few decades due to the introduction of electric and driverless cars. So now politicians and transit advocates have to work even harder to convince people of transit's "superiority" as people wake up to the fact that driving is possible, more convenient, and in fact liberating. Just look at the volume of used car sales since corona. Dealerships can't keep cars on the lot anymore

I am not seeing even a correlation between the addition of bike and bus lanes to an exodus of businesses from NYC.

[HighwayStar]

However in the case where roads and transit are actually given the proper priority and people have a true choice, driving in my opinion is clearly superior, because you are never bound to a schedule, you can go wherever you want, whenever, and don't have to be stuck in a box with a bunch of miserable people and nutjobs.

Ehh, for me, it depends still. I would still choose transit in certain situations, and more so in an European or East Asian city. In cities I've been in where buses and intracity trains are frequent enough that you don't have to rely on a schedule (very rare in the US), and the sidewalk infrastructure is adequate to get from a station to final destination, it's the preferred option for me.

I'll just leave it here, as after all, this is a roads forum, not a rail forum.

Frequency and wider sidewalks do nothing to remedy the underlying nature of public transit.

[Roadgeekteen]

However in the case where roads and transit are actually given the proper priority and people have a true choice, driving in my opinion is clearly superior, because you are never bound to a schedule, you can go wherever you want, whenever, and don't have to be stuck in a box with a bunch of miserable people and nutjobs.

Ehh, for me, it depends still. I would still choose transit in certain situations, and more so in an European or East Asian city. In cities I've been in where buses and intracity trains are frequent enough that you don't have to rely on a schedule (very rare in the US), and the sidewalk infrastructure is adequate to get from a station to final destination, it's the preferred option for me.

I'll just leave it here, as after all, this is a roads forum, not a rail forum.

Frequency and wider sidewalks do nothing to remedy the underlying nature of public transit.

What is the "nature" of public transit?

[HighwayStar]

However in the case where roads and transit are actually given the proper priority and people have a true choice, driving in my opinion is clearly superior, because you are never bound to a schedule, you can go wherever you want, whenever, and don't have to be stuck in a box with a bunch of miserable people and nutjobs.

Ehh, for me, it depends still. I would still choose transit in certain situations, and more so in an European or East Asian city. In cities I've been in where buses and intracity trains are frequent enough that you don't have to rely on a schedule (very rare in the US), and the sidewalk infrastructure is adequate to get from a station to final destination, it's the preferred option for me.

I'll just leave it here, as after all, this is a roads forum, not a rail forum.

Frequency and wider sidewalks do nothing to remedy the underlying nature of public transit.

What is the "nature" of public transit?

Primarily the following factors:

• Sharing space with total strangers
• Inherently not point to point, the Bus/Train/Trolley etc. does not come to my door, and likely requires a few blocks of transit on foot
• Inherent lack of climate control for the entire journey, with minimal climate control often being the norm even in Buses

[Bruce]

Primarily the following factors:

• Sharing space with total strangers
• Inherently not point to point, the Bus/Train/Trolley etc. does not come to my door, and likely requires a few blocks of transit on foot
• Inherent lack of climate control for the entire journey, with minimal climate control often being the norm even in Buses

I'm surprised you can find a totally private grocery store and mall to shop in. What luxury.

They even move the store so it's right on your normal commute and requires no diversions whatsoever.

And they even adjust the temperature for you!

[SkyPesos]

Primarily the following factors:

• Sharing space with total strangers
• Inherently not point to point, the Bus/Train/Trolley etc. does not come to my door, and likely requires a few blocks of transit on foot
• Inherent lack of climate control for the entire journey, with minimal climate control often being the norm even in Buses

I'm surprised you can find a totally private grocery store and mall to shop in. What luxury.

They even move the store so it's right on your normal commute and requires no diversions whatsoever.

And they even adjust the temperature for you!

He's pretty much like Kernals12 when it comes to transit here.

[sprjus4]

I'm surprised you can find a totally private grocery store and mall to shop in. What luxury.

His points were regarding the transportation between Point A and Point B, not the final destination itself. Irrelevant comparison.

[hotdogPi]

When I commuted to UMass Lowell by bus, the bus was 500 feet from my house (about as close as you can get without living on a major arterial), and it went directly to downtown Lowell. There was no problem with most of the other people there (and the few with problems weren't directed at me or anyone else on the bus). My main issue is that the last bus runs at 7 PM weekdays, 6 PM Saturdays, and 5 PM Sundays, but they run much later in Boston compared to the suburbs. The temperature on the buses is fine; the issue only comes up if you need to wait outside for a transfer.

[SEWIGuy]

However in the case where roads and transit are actually given the proper priority and people have a true choice, driving in my opinion is clearly superior, because you are never bound to a schedule, you can go wherever you want, whenever, and don't have to be stuck in a box with a bunch of miserable people and nutjobs.

Ehh, for me, it depends still. I would still choose transit in certain situations, and more so in an European or East Asian city. In cities I've been in where buses and intracity trains are frequent enough that you don't have to rely on a schedule (very rare in the US), and the sidewalk infrastructure is adequate to get from a station to final destination, it's the preferred option for me.

I'll just leave it here, as after all, this is a roads forum, not a rail forum.

Frequency and wider sidewalks do nothing to remedy the underlying nature of public transit.

What is the "nature" of public transit?

Primarily the following factors:

• Sharing space with total strangers
• Inherently not point to point, the Bus/Train/Trolley etc. does not come to my door, and likely requires a few blocks of transit on foot
• Inherent lack of climate control for the entire journey, with minimal climate control often being the norm even in Buses

You do realize there are trade offs here that people can find positive right?

Don't have to worry about parking
Someone else can do the driving while you can do something else
The cost of purchasing and maintaining a car.

One of my kids used to live in Chicago without a car.  He could do pretty much whatever he wanted with public transit and Uber.  If he wanted to drive somewhere, he would reserve a rental from the local Enterprise.  Another one currently lives in Tokyo, and the idea of even driving a car makes no sense to him.  He can get anywhere in the city he wants without much effort outside of walking three blocks to the train station.  And if wants to go to a different part of the country, the train can take him there too.

[SkyPesos]

You do realize there are trade offs here that people can find positive right?

Don't have to worry about parking
Someone else can do the driving while you can do something else
The cost of purchasing and maintaining a car.

One of my kids used to live in Chicago without a car.  He could do pretty much whatever he wanted with public transit and Uber.  If he wanted to drive somewhere, he would reserve a rental from the local Enterprise.  Another one currently lives in Tokyo, and the idea of even driving a car makes no sense to him.  He can get anywhere in the city he wants without much effort outside of walking three blocks to the train station.  And if wants to go to a different part of the country, the train can take him there too.

I mentioned parking above, he said something about a city providing adequate parking would make it a non-issue.

I guess his ideal cityscape is 1960s Houston, with lots of parking. Looks like a part of the city got bombed in WW2 or something.

[1995hoo]

He also made the absurd comment that people in areas like New York, DC, San Francisco, and Chicago support public transportation "because so many people are too broke to afford a car anyway." He's simply delusional if he believes that. True, there are some people who fall within that description, but to suggest, as his comment seems to do, that the number is anywhere even remotely close to a large portion of people living in those metropolitan areas is to prove that the person making the comment is unfamiliar with the cities in question and is just trying to advance his own agenda.

He's pretty much like Kernals12 when it comes to transit here.

I strongly suspect, in view of how he refuses to consider the legitimacy of any arguments that disagree with his own viewpoints, that he shares something else with kernals12.

[hotdogPi]

He's pretty much like Kernals12 when it comes to transit here.

I strongly suspect, in view of how he refuses to consider the legitimacy of any arguments that disagree with his own viewpoints, that he shares something else with kernals12.

kernals12 posts like a kid. HighwayStar does not. I'm almost certain they're not the same person. I can't imagine kernals12 making long and detailed (but wrong) arguments about economic theory and price gouging or about redlining.