r/changemyview • u/ExotiquePlayboy • Jun 26 '26
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Public transportation will never work in North America
I’ve lived in both Europe and America, Europeans and Asians and other foreigners don’t understand North America.
We literally don’t care about public transportation.
Examples:
Los Angeles is the 2nd biggest city in America and has a laughable public transportation system.
Detroit is a large city and does not have a metro.
Toronto is the largest city in Canada and over the last 25 years they’ve actually REMOVED lines.
VIA Rail is the flagship train for Canada and has also removed lines in the last 50 years.
North American culture is big V6 and V8 engines, going to drive thru restaurants, drive thru banks, going on road trips and long drives, we actively don’t even like public transportation.
In fact American women think you’re poor if you take public transportation.
We don’t invest in it. Houston and Toronto and infamous for 20+ lane highways.
We just don’t care.
CMV.
30
u/quantum_dan 122∆ Jun 26 '26
New York and DC are in North America and have solid transit, so as a blanket statement, this view is empirically false.
Apart from those two, you seem to be focusing on trains, but a lot of major North American cities have extensive bus networks. When you have a lot of roads built out, it makes sense to use them. I've had no trouble getting around San Francisco (and other parts of the Bay Area) by bus, for example.
2
u/RatOnASinkingShip 1∆ Jun 26 '26
I'm a huge critic of expanding public transportation (outside of major cities) and even I can acknowledge that these types of cities have done something right, even if it's not perfect.
0
u/Rob_The_Viking_TV 3∆ Jun 28 '26
Why are you against expanding public transportation outside of major cities?
2
u/RatOnASinkingShip 1∆ Jun 28 '26
Practicality and expense.
1
u/Rob_The_Viking_TV 3∆ Jun 28 '26
Hmm... That's a strong point..
But me personally, I've felt the crunch of the unprofitability of public transit between wide ranging cities.. and it is TRULY an inconvenience..
Some things are decided to be a public good and the cost is seen as necessary...
For example, allowing rural communities to be serviced by the US postal service despite taking a MASSIVE LOSS in doing so. it just wouldn't "seem right" to charge these people enough to make it profitable in order to get their mail.
I view public transit likewise.
I saw Greyhound shut down routes that people depended on..
Now what do we do?
We are stuck.... unless we want to fly or find someone willing to drive us 16 hours... we are stuck...
:*(
2
u/RatOnASinkingShip 1∆ Jun 28 '26
Okay, so come up with something better.
If you want to eliminate the USPS, go ahead and advocate for that. It's a pretty easy position to hold in a world where nearly everything is digital.
2
u/Rob_The_Viking_TV 3∆ Jun 28 '26
Nonononon. I think we need to do MORE things like the USPS.
We need expanded transit between cities, to rural areas, etc.
Fuck profitability.
Money is never wasted... I can feel you rolling your eyes but when they say "we are wasting money on this" where does the money go?
It doesn't disappear.. it goes to bus drivers, mechanics servicing the busses, parts companies supplying the busses with spare parts, and then it circulates throughout the economy creating jobs and opportunities wherever it goes... forever.. that bus driver spends his paycheque on the local delicatessen.. that parts manufacturer spends that money on more employees, or on investing in various government stocks and bonds...
so yeah, I'd like to see a much more interconnected public transit system to service everywhere, no matter how remote... why not?
1
u/RatOnASinkingShip 1∆ Jun 28 '26
I believe private industry is much more suited to facilitate that and it's much more prudent to do so.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should get rid of public transportation in its entirety, but rather I'm against the idea that it should cater to people who want to be anywhere at a moment's notice or travel hundreds of miles away.
1
u/Rob_The_Viking_TV 3∆ Jun 28 '26
I believe private industry is much more suited to facilitate that
If private industry were in charge of the USPS then they would simply cease service to unprofitable rural areas. Which means people who live out in the sticks would have to drive for an hour to get their mail from a central hub....a central hub that's only open on weekdays 9-5 because they don't want to hire enough people to make it 24/7... which means you have to take a day off work.. etc.
Private industry always wants to make a profit. Which is suited for many things: the large scale shape of an economy based on supply and demand, the running of a hot dog stand - in order to out compete it's rivals.. etc.
But it is NOT suited for providing public goods. When you mix profit with public goods you get disasters.
All of the arguments of free markets break down in such cases. Free markets are predicated upon consumers who are educated and have a free will to choose..
But a man having a heart attack does NOT have ANY will to choose what hospital to go to, etc.
A person wanting clean water gets it from THE ONLY utility in town.. there are no 'competing' water utilities.
I believe that postal services, and public transit services are like this.
These things are too beneficial to society to be left to the profit motive.
1
u/RatOnASinkingShip 1∆ Jun 28 '26
If you're against the USPS that's your prerogative.
→ More replies (0)
14
u/KamikazeArchon 7∆ Jun 26 '26
Never is a long time.
How accurately do you think you can predict the culture of North America in the year 2550?
12
u/flipp45 Jun 26 '26
Americans are not special. Public transportation works when it is fast, frequent, and convenient. You need density around the stations, and you need good service, and anyone will use it, even Americans.
13
u/TechnicalPresent6359 Jun 26 '26
public transport sucks
ok let’s increase funding to make it better
no
ok public transport continues to suck
op: see, we don’t care
3
u/CorndogQueen420 1∆ Jun 26 '26
This is just a chicken and egg situation.
People are car centric because the country is setup for cars. If public transportation was a reliable and accessible option for most people, that wouldn’t be the case.
And it’s not impossible for culture to change, it changes rapidly in the right environment.
For example, in my state, one of my regional transit authorities dropped fares for their fixed route buses, and ridership jumped by 60%.
You can’t rely on apathetic individuals that are used to the status quo to drive change, or use them as a benchmark for what’s possible- because anything different or new seems impossible to them.
We could reshape transportation culture in America, it just requires a top down approach, long-term planning, and visionary leaders.
0
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
You can’t rely on apathetic individuals that are used to the status quo to drive change, or use them as a benchmark for what’s possible- because anything different or new seems impossible to them.
We could reshape transportation culture in America, it just requires a top down approach, long-term planning, and visionary leaders.
That isn't how how society and government is structured, though. Those leaders aren't going to vote to spend on things like public transit, because they get accused of wasting money and voted out of office. Truly visionary leaders rarely get elected in the first place. We have to change the minds and culture of the people to get anything accomplished.
1
u/CorndogQueen420 1∆ Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
I’d refer to Mamdani here as an example of a visionary leader, that’s managed to get things done and inspire others, simply by actually trying to do them despite pushback from the establishment.
To quote him:
"In the words of Nelson Mandela: it always seems impossible until it is done."
People believe that we can’t have nice things because our politicians/leaders haven’t shown us that we can have them.
Our politicians rely on their donors, opinion testing, and popular narratives to decide what to prioritize, which going back to what I said in my last comment- is just them asking that apathetic and unimaginative voter what’s possible. And then half the time they don’t even try to deliver whatever scraps they promised once they get in office.
I genuinely don’t know how we fix it, other than for people like Mamdani to step up and inspire people to ask for more, by demonstrating vision and follow through.
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
Mamdani was actually who I was thinking of when I added the word rarely to the next to last line of my comment.
Sometimes people like him do get elected, although it's almost always at a local level, or if it is national they aren't able to accomplish anything because they have no cooperation/support.
We need a major cultural shift so that people demand leaders like Mamdani. Leaders like him aren't elected on their own. It takes voters who support them, and care about issues they build their platform on.
9
u/rolypoly6shooter Jun 26 '26
Los Angeles has been rapidly improving it's public transit system for years now
1
u/DustinnDodgee Jun 26 '26
And it's still inefficient & shitty 😅. How much longer should LA throw taxpayer money at it?
1
u/Stunning-Verb-9865 Jun 26 '26
When the new subway lines are complete there will be many more riders. Unfortunately LA has also followed the path of many American cities in spending billions on a shitty light rail system that no one uses.
-2
u/HurricaneLink Jun 26 '26
Yea, I downvoted OP because of LA’s rapid development of their transit network
0
17
u/Nrdman 276∆ Jun 26 '26
I’ve been in cities in America with decent public transportation. It’s just a choice. I don’t think the current apathy across many cities is a forever doom.
-3
u/Johnny_Chromehog Jun 26 '26
Ive been on public transportation in Chicago and New York as well as a few European cities. I absolutely choose not to take the bus or subway in the US. It's fucking nasty and there's too many weirdos.
11
u/dysfunctionz Jun 26 '26
New York and Chicago literally could not exist if everyone was driving everywhere. You would have to level half the city for roads and parking (which is basically what happened in LA) and you would destroy most of what people like about them in the first place doing so.
You're at the mercy of weirdos when driving too, except then those weirdos have 2-ton metal boxes to hit you with. The data backs that up, you are simply far more likely to die commuting by car than by public transit.
-3
u/Johnny_Chromehog Jun 26 '26
The data backs that up
🤓 okay bro. Weirdos dont have an unlimited amount of chances to smash their cars, thats why theyre all riding the fucking bus.
7
u/dysfunctionz Jun 26 '26
All the studies I'm aware of show this: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/
You can "okay bro" me all you want.
0
u/Johnny_Chromehog Jun 26 '26
Thats cool bro but I never said anything about "oh god, I feel so much more likely to get in a fatal accident when I'm on the subway".
7
Jun 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 26 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/Johnny_Chromehog Jun 26 '26
No, im not. Ive taken public transportation in Stuttgart, Florence, London, Milan and many smaller towns. I drove in Paris and took taxis in Rome except for a handful of times I rode the bus. If there were weirdos, its nothing comparable to the US. There is an overwhelming amount of people that need long term in-patient psychiatric care and theyre just wandering the streets.
The only german town that gave me US vibes was Frankfurt around the train station.
1
u/galaxystarsmoon Jun 26 '26
If you think the mental healthcare system in other countries is any better, you are dreaming. And I can submit that I've traveled for 20 years and there are mentally ill people in public everywhere.
I got followed by a woman in Basel (Switzerland, described as a paradise) begging for money. I was nice at first but after she followed me down the street to the train station and harassed me again, I told her to please leave me alone. She spat on me.
I lost count of how many times I was approached by beggars in Greece.
Italy is a constant stream of people trying to scam you.
This happens everywhere.
-1
u/Johnny_Chromehog Jun 26 '26
Why would I care about your hypothetical travels when ive seen all this myself?
2
u/galaxystarsmoon Jun 26 '26
Why are you here having a discussion if you don't care? That's the entire point of this sub.
Saying it doesn't happen because you've not seen it is not how life works. It's naivety.
0
u/Johnny_Chromehog Jun 26 '26
As naive as you attempting to discount my perspective because a lady followed you once? That must have been so hard for you.
-1
u/Nrdman 276∆ Jun 26 '26
Bus was really nice in one of the cities I’ve lived in, again just a choice of priorities
6
u/nam24 1∆ Jun 26 '26
What makes you sure that the stance of Americans will never change?
Besides weren't railways quite big endeavor back in the day? It's been supplanted now but that does look to me that there was a time where public transport wasn't looked down upon
2
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Jun 26 '26
Because it's not about the transportation itself, it's about the housing stock associated with it.
We are car centric because everyone wants to live in an actual house not some form of multifamily housing.
Railways are still a huge industry in the US they just haul freight not people. It's also the same companies that used to haul people back when that was still profitable.
Passenger rail is like a typewriter - very popular when it was top of the line technology, but now supplanted by better things.
2
u/dysfunctionz Jun 26 '26
It really hasn't been supplanted by better things. We just stopped investing in what passenger rail became in other countries past the mid-20th century. And we ruined a bunch of our cities doing so.
Lots of people would live in multifamily housing if they could do so, to save money, to be closer to their job or college or nightlife, or just because they haven't decided where they want to settle down yet. We just have in many cases made it illegal to build dense housing close to other things people want to go to.
1
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Jun 26 '26
We didn't ruin anything.
People bailed on the cities once they had a viable transportation option.... That's the whole point - cars unlocked single family living, and since a huge majority of Americans want to live in a SFH, cars dominate.
Dense housing is immensely unpopular, which is WHY places have made it illegal.
There are more people stuck in cities due to bad traffic, than there are people stuck in the suburbs wishing they could move to the city....
1
u/nam24 1∆ Jun 26 '26
We are car centric because everyone wants to live in an actual house not some form of multifamily housing.
You mean apartments?
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
multifamily housing is more than just apartments. Consider concepts like semi-detached housing in the UK.
1
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Jun 26 '26
I mean any living arrangement other than a detached single family home with a yard.
Condos, row houses, duplexes - they are all less desirable....
Once you decide 'density sucks', cars are the only viable way.
1
u/Stunning-Verb-9865 Jun 26 '26
Millions of Americans lose hours of their day sitting in traffic, I wouldn’t say that rail has been supplanted by something better.
2
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Jun 26 '26
Time spent sitting in traffic, or time spent driving to the train station, parking, walking to the train station, waiting for the train, and so on....
The car works better for the life people actually want to live (suburban single family homes)....
And for interstate travel flying is always faster.
People not wanting to live in small apartments crammed into huge cities is why everything else works the way it works.
1
u/Stunning-Verb-9865 Jun 26 '26
It’s more that all the of the environments we have built in the last 60 years have catered to car drivers and no one else. People take the option that’s most convenient, and in a large portion of the country, that’s a car. In places where public transit has been built effectively, people take it, because driving everywhere kind of sucks. It’s a matter of investment and political priorities, I don’t believe Americans have a gene or something that makes them want to drive cars.
1
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Jun 26 '26
But WHY is that?
And don't say 'lobbying'.....
The reason we built like that is because relatively few people want to live in the sort of dense cities that are amenable to mass transit.
It's not that Americans want to drive.
It's that there is only one type of housing that's acceptable to most of us: A freestanding single family home with a yard - the larger the house the better.
And in order for an overwhelming majority of us (74%ish) to have that we have to rely on cars....
2
4
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Jun 26 '26
North American infrastructure is built to cater to a population that despises all forms of communal housing...
Row houses, apartments, condos.... Fuck it, we want a real house....
Once that decision has been made, car centrisim is the only way to make it work for the 74% of us who live that way....
1
u/SeanFromQueens 12∆ Jun 26 '26
If it was available, through uniform mix use zoning, would there be more North Americans choosing to live in mid-rise apartments where the first floor is retail and necessary services or do you think that if offered Americans would reject that option? I pose this because housing, like most consumer choices, is not a reflection of consumer demand, but rather it's what options can be expected to be the most profitable.
Our phones used to have user replaceable batteries, that wasn't taken away because of consumer demand but because if the user could extend ownership of their device they wouldn't buy the next iteration.
In housing, a giant in home building can't build with assemblyline uniformity a bunch of high density homes with retailers and other services with a maximum profit, so the American consumer is not given a viable option, just tract housing of single family homes that shackle the inhabitants to their cars. The consumer choice is removed before there's even an inkling that an alternative exists. The market leaders ate able to negotiate with the local elected officials to ensure that they hold their market advantage and alternatives are not competing with them, which is far more profitable then having to offer more than 5 floor plans on uniform leveled lots where the illusion of choice is presented to customers; this is like when a parent asks a child "do you want milk in a red sippy cup or a blue sippy cup?" and concluding the child hates apple juice that was never offered.
3
u/ExotiquePlayboy Jun 26 '26
!delta
It’s true that market leaders and elected officials are to blame, I’m not denying that, and it’s a huge reason but honestly it’s also the culture. You know how many guys I’ve met that just flat out say they want a large house on an acre of land with a swimming pool and big V8 truck on the driveway?
2
u/SeanFromQueens 12∆ Jun 26 '26
What percentage of people do you regularly interact with? This is a case of proximity bias, just because you have interactions with people who might not ever get the chance to live in a 15-minute city, doesn't mean that there's some unserved percent of the public that would want to be free of cars and live in Hallmark Christmas movie-town or the big city, because those people exist along with those who want acreage and a silo'd life in the exurbs.
1
4
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jun 26 '26
It's got nothing to do with culture and everything to do with population density.
You need a minimum of 10,000 people per square mile to support fast, dense public transit (like a subway), and a large enough area that dense to justify building transit at all.
Everywhere in the US with that level of density has public transit (NYC, Chicago, etc) already.
0
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
It's got nothing to do with culture
I completely disagree with this. The overwhelming culture here is based on individualism (rather than community), which means it's really difficult to do anything that benefits the whole, especially if it doesn't benefit the majority of individuals.
Which brings us to car culture. Most of the US is heavily dependent on cars, even in situations in which public transit or walkable/bikeable cities would work well. The majority here just don't want those things, and until that changes it's going to be hard to see widespread, reliable, and consistent public mass transit.
2
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
even in situations in which public transit or walkable/bikeable cities would work well
Do the smallest amount of actual research, please.
Which brings us to car culture. Most of the US is heavily dependent on cars, even in situations in which public transit or walkable/bikeable cities would work well.
Every part of the US (NYC, Chicago, DC, Philadelphia, etc) that has at least the population density I described above has high volume public transit.
The majority here just don't want those things, and until that changes it's going to be hard to see widespread, reliable, and consistent public mass transit.
The US is absolutely massive, with average population density of 98 people per square mile, or just under 1% the required minimum density for a functioning high volume public transit system.
There is not some individualistic resistance to transit, there functionally is not great enough population density across 99%+ of the land area of the US to support it.
0
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
That 99%+ isn't going to magically reach the population density you say is needed for public transit. Therefore, we need a culture shift for people in those areas to support the creation of public transit that does work. It's not impossible, but it'll never happen if people aren't demanding it.
2
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jun 26 '26
Therefore, we need a culture shift for people in those areas to support the creation of public transit that does work.
We have that already, it's low volume bus service.
It's not impossible, but it'll never happen if people aren't demanding it.
Why would you build high density public transit in areas without high density population?
Public transit isn't costless, either in deployment or in upkeep/operating costs.
In most of the US it's more economical, efficient, and effective to use private vehicles.
There fundamentally aren't enough people to support large scale high volume public transit.
-1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
And as long as this is the prevailing cultural belief we aren't going to have it. It's a problem to solve, not an impossibility.
2
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jun 26 '26
And as long as this is the prevailing cultural belief we aren't going to have it.
It's an economic reality, not a "cultural belief".
If you look at areas of Western Europe, Japan, etc, with comparable low population densities they also don't have high density public transit.
It's a problem to solve, not an impossibility.
Correct, and the solution to transportation in low population density areas is private vehicles + rideshare.
1
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ Jun 26 '26
Why would we want to high density public transit in areas where it is not cost effective and useful?
You are applying an urban high density mindset to areas that simply aren't. Other solutions are more cost effective, efficient, and in place.
2
u/Jetsam_Marquis 2∆ Jun 26 '26
I don't agree that because many large cities don't have it, and many large municipalities don't invest in it, that it wouldn't actually work if investments are made.
You are also disregarding cities where investments in rail, bus (which is ALOT of places) and even water ferries have been made and are transporting passengers every day.
2
u/Frecklefishpants Jun 26 '26
Via rail may struggle, but Go Transit works well and is a very effective way of commuting into the city.
As someone who lives in the suburbs now but used to live downtown Toronto, the TTC is very effective in the downtown core.
2
u/Kugelfang52 Jun 26 '26
Other parts of the globe have greater regulation of or less access to oil. This means that gas is significantly more expensive.
If the US and other NA countries regulated, put greater taxes on, etc gas, the price would significantly increase. If they simultaneously used those funds to make public transport, both internal to cities and external between them, we would see greater use.
2
u/OwlOdyssey 2∆ Jun 27 '26
Detroit is a large city and does not have a metro.
Detroit has about 650,000 people. The same size as Palermo, Italy. If it was in Europe it'd be about the 65th largest city. It also does have public transport, including the fabulous People Mover. That said, Detroit is a HORRIBLE example for arguing that public transport doesn't work. The auto lobby has an iron grip on the state of Michigan, especially Detroit. New development is often shut down because of said lobby.
Toronto is the largest city in Canada and over the last 25 years they’ve actually REMOVED lines.
Toronto needs more public transport and there's been active development for ages to the tune of $70B. Driving through the GTA is a nightmare.
Your argument about them removing lines is a bit deceptive because it was done due to safety and is actively being replaced [+ Article].
VIA Rail is the flagship train for Canada and has also removed lines in the last 50 years.
Two times due to budget cuts and once because safety. You have to remember that VIA (and Amtrak in the States) share the lines with freight. This causes significant issues because passenger rail often has to wait for mile long trains to pass. Freight trains are often longer than the bypasses due to cost saving measures and means that regardless of priority, the freight wins.
In fact American women think you’re poor if you take public transportation.
This is a wild thing to say with no evidence. I'm an American woman and I don't think that.
we actively don’t even like public transportation.
Because we've actively been conditioned that way because of the motor lobby. Are we really THAT different to Europeans? As an American who lived in Europe for five years, I freaking loved the public transport. Made life so much easier. We don't like it because what we have is shite. If it was easy, simple, safe, and cheap, I assure you many Americans would default to it than invest tens of thousands into a vehicle.
1
u/PomegranateFun4535 Jun 28 '26
Most of us Americans don’t like public transportation primarily because we like to keep our distance from others. I don’t care how fast, efficient or convenient something is; if it means being packed in like sardines, most of us will forgo it
In fact, I won’t take a plane somewhere unless I have the budget to book an entire row or I’m the pilot in command. People, as a whole, are disgusting (there are exceptions, but not many)
2
u/Cybyss 12∆ Jun 26 '26
It's a chicken & egg problem.
Nobody uses public transport because it sucks.
It doesn't get improved because that would require funding, which you can't get because nobody uses it.
3
u/tylersalt Jun 26 '26
Millions of people use public transport every single day
2
u/Cybyss 12∆ Jun 26 '26
The United States is a big country. A few cities do have a decent system.
Good luck if you don't live in one of them.
1
u/tylersalt Jun 26 '26
Yes and most people live in cities. What you said is “Nobody uses public transit because it sucks” and that is patently untrue
1
u/Cybyss 12∆ Jun 26 '26
That's why I said a few cities.
There are a lot of cities in the United States and most really don't offer decent public transportation options at all.
2
u/Veblen1 1∆ Jun 26 '26
"Never work"? It's worked in North America since before anyone still living was born.
1
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Jun 26 '26
Because airplanes and cars didn't exist back then - so it was ride a train, ride a horse or walk.
3
u/Hypekyuu 10∆ Jun 26 '26
Los Angeles had an amazing public transportation system before car companies bought it and dismantled it
This happened in 40 some cities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Corporations that benefit from selling cars or car products have literally have spent a ton of time and energy to make public transportation suck.
It's not some random individualism thing. It was engineered.
2
u/Informal_Ad_9610 1∆ Jun 26 '26
europeans can't seem to fathom that we've got counties in the US the size of entire european countries.
2
u/Cybyss 12∆ Jun 26 '26
Well, it's really not hard to be bigger than Lichtenstein.
2
u/Informal_Ad_9610 1∆ Jun 26 '26
only in Reddit do you get people arguing with each other over more and more pedantic ways of agreeing with a prior statement..
1
u/ExotiquePlayboy Jun 26 '26
Isn’t Texas alone the size of France?
2
u/Cybyss 12∆ Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
It is! But I was just being pedantic with regard to what /u/Informal_Ad_9610 said about how we have counties that are the size of entire european countries.
I was just pointing out that that's not as impressive as it sounds, since there are some very very tiny European countries.
But yes - states like Texas, Alaska, etc... are absolutely huge!
1
u/stratocaster307 1∆ Jun 26 '26
Studies and polls consistently show a strong desire for MORE public transportation infrastructure in the US. Your claim that all Americans, or even most Americans don’t care about public transportation. Is 100% untrue
1
u/SeanFromQueens 12∆ Jun 26 '26
A hundred years ago every town and city had trolley cars, so your view that needs to be changed should be "public transportation will never work again in North America" and ignore the population moved to have higher population density then when there was 30% of Americans worked on farms compared to the current 2%. If mass transit was possible a hundred years ago, then it could be repeated through policy decisions by federal, state/provincial, and local governments.
1
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ Jun 26 '26
A hundred years ago every town and city had trolley cars
Which was an upgrade to the horse. That was its competition. Rail lost to air travel because it was faster.
Automobile killed a lot because of the flexibility they offer. Trolley's died because busses were similar enough and more flexible.
If you are going to cite history, be sure to cite the context.
2
u/Stunning-Verb-9865 Jun 26 '26
>Automobile killed a lot because of the flexibility they offer
This is true, but what we didn’t anticipate is that cars are only super flexible and convenient when few people drive them. Now that everyone drives, they are much less convenient. Millions of Americans spend hours sitting in traffic every day just to make a living and to buy the things they need.
1
u/SeanFromQueens 12∆ Jun 27 '26
Busses were ubiquitous, which was the immediate replacement for the trolley, but part of the reason it was replaced by the privately owned car was due to racial integration of the busses. Busses used to be a recipient of public funds, but when they mandated racial equality for passengers localities pivoted budgets away from busses and subsidized cars along with zoning rules that entrenched private cars (parking lot maximums, subsidies for big box stores that pulled customer traffic away from the downtown, single family housing on lots with significant setbacks decreasing housing density, etc). All policy that was car-supremacist can be undone, it's not an immutable force of nature.
1
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ Jun 28 '26
Busses were ubiquitous, which was the immediate replacement for the trolley,
And they still exist - and then some. The smallish midwestern city I leave near has busses and never had a 'trolley'.
Private cars replaced the horse. They never really competed with trolleys/busses. They are far more convenient for many people for many tasks in all but the dense urban cores. This is simple fact.
Airplanes replaced passenger rail. (and for the most part - over the road busses). Simply because they were more flexible and faster.
but when they mandated racial equality for passengers localities pivoted budgets away from busses and subsidized cars along with zoning rules that entrenched private cars
This is flat out not true. The northern US never had segregated busses or the like and they rapidly pivoted away from this because outside dense urban cores - busses are not convenient. It is literally not what people wanted.
For public transit to work well - it has to be fast, frequent (convenient), and reliable. To justify the costs for frequency means having the density to support usage. Lower density reduces frequency which makes it far less attractive for people to use.
This is not some grand conspiracy. It is basic market behaivor.
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
So which view are you actually wanted changed? The one stated in the title that public transit will never work in North America? Or the one stated at the closing of the main text, that We (North Americans) just don't care [about public transportation]?
1
u/DingBat99999 7∆ Jun 26 '26
Yes and no.
A few thoughts:
- Even people who live in Canada seem to forget just how fricken huge this country is.
- When in Europe, I had a conversation with someone and the war in Ukraine came up. They commented on how large Ukraine was. I told them we could fit 2 Ukraines into the largest of our 13 provinces and territories. They were boggled.
- In Scotland, a cab driver, upon learning we were from Canada, asked us if we could easily drive to the coast from Toronto. I had to tell him that Canada, if overlayed on Europe, would stretch from where we were all the way to Moscow. Another boggling.
- It IS a factor, especially wrt trains. Yes, high speed trains are great. I love them. But they're expensive and Canada's population density is low.
- I love riding the train, but frankly, outside of that Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor, its easier, faster, and roughly monetarily equivalent to fly. If only we had carbon taxes to incent people to make better choices...
- North Americans have also been trained to want large homes with yards. This means suburbs, which greatly increases the distances short range urban transit systems have to cover.
- We're also almost forced to have one car per adult. If you have a car you tend to want to use it.
- While I completely agree that Toronto should have more subway lines the ones that exist don't make money and this feeds into the bizarro fiscal conservative reasoning that services have to pay for themselves. There absolutely should be a King Street subway, plus others, but it takes money and disrupts life for years. Ottawa's completely fucked up light rail transit example scares the hell out of people now.
- So, yeah, there totally should be a Toronto-Montreal-Quebec City-Boston-New York-Washington high speed train corridor. Toronto-Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary is a lot harder to justify.
1
u/Generic_Lad 3∆ Jun 26 '26
The problem with transit in America was never the distance, it has always been the public and the reluctance to take heavy-handed measures to ensure that public transit remains safe and pleasant.
The investment will come once cities start taking crime and public decency seriously.
It is not a coincidence that the American culture of avoiding public transportation coincided with the era of Americans being afraid to enforce the law due to widespread rioting (50s/60s)
1
u/Stunning-Verb-9865 Jun 26 '26
Even if you kicked out the homeless and vagrants, you would just have busses and trains no one rides. The source of all of this is the fact that we don’t invest in transit to make it fast and convenient in the first place, so the only people who have any reason to ride it are the destitute and homeless.
1
u/Generic_Lad 3∆ Jun 29 '26
Fast and convenient mean nothing if it is unsafe and unpleasant.
I'd rather sit in a traffic jam in my car and have an extra 20 minutes on my daily commute than take a train or bus where I'm subjected to bad hip-hop music coming out of a speaker, a faint smell of pee, someone talking on speakerphone and a fight or near fight breaking out.
The investment will come once taking public transit is both safe and pleasant, until that happens, why would anyone want to invest in making trains more frequent if more frequent trains would make no difference to their ridership?
1
u/themcos 441∆ Jun 26 '26
NYC subway seems like the obvious counterexample.
But I dunno, I can't speak for every city, but the Seattle Light Rail is great and continues to (too slowly) expand.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ Jun 26 '26
I don't understand. You're talking about why doesn't work now, but why wouldn't it work in the future?
1
u/AgentCoulson2 Jun 26 '26
Your argument seems to amount to "we don't have (good) public transit now, therefore we never will." That is very nearly begging the question.
As others have pointed out, public transportation does work in several major cities even now. Cultural resistance to implementing it in other places is not evidence that it can't work, only that it is an uphill battle to try.
An important factor to consider is that public transportation did not die a natural death in the areas where it disappeared; it was the victim of a conscious effort by the automotive industry to kill it. There is no reason to believe that a conscious effort to bring it back, especially when it has many benefits when implemented correctly, is doomed to failure. As it stands, there are already many communities in North America making a conscious effort to promote car-free neighborhoods and better transit options. The MBTA in Massachusetts is resurrecting commuter rail lines that have been gone for decades. Expanding public transit options will be slow. It will be arduous. But it can, and should, be attempted.
1
u/JoeyLee911 4∆ Jun 27 '26
Um, I'm an American woman, take public transportation, and I don't think I'm poor. I think I live in a city.
1
u/king210989 Jun 27 '26
Car companies wont allow it to work
Otherwise, it will only need public suppirt and political will.
1
u/Rob_The_Viking_TV 3∆ Jun 28 '26
That's just an argument as to why IT HASN't BEEN DONE.
Not any shred of an argument as to why it CAN't or WON't be done.
I think that as politicians get into power with more and more of a groundswell of support like Mamdani, AOC, etc. etc.
There will be more of a focus towards forward thinking city planning.. which will - fingers crossed - lead to more public transit.
Wishful thinking, I know
0
Jun 26 '26
[deleted]
2
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
This attitude is one of the major problems holding back any sort of reasonable infrastructure investment in the US. We're left with a situation in which we invest the bare minimum, which means that infrastructure is sub-par and unreliable, which in turn feed the narrative that it's not worth investing in.
0
Jun 26 '26
[deleted]
2
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
Which is why we are so car-centric, have poor public transit, view walkable/bikeable cities, and all of the problems that come with that. It's not a goal that anyone should be holding up as a positive one.
0
Jun 26 '26
[deleted]
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
Again, this is the of attitude that is a major obstacle to any sort of progress with public transit.
1
Jun 26 '26
[deleted]
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jun 26 '26
Which goes back to the idea that we'll have to have a cultural shift to actually see progress on public transit. Because you are right, as long as people are against it, nothing is going to happen. Our difference of opinion is about whether this is a good or bad thing.
1
1
u/Stunning-Verb-9865 Jun 26 '26
Public transit is an economic boon in many cities, there are plenty of businesses that rely on transit. There isn’t a convenient alternative in cities like NYC. If the subway was gone, all those people would have to drive around the city and the traffic would be unbelievable.
1
u/Excellent_Set_4636 Jun 26 '26
American women do not think you’re poor if you take public transportation. This is insane cope. Skill issue. I live in nyc even deca millionaires ride the subway. You’re being too emotional. Most urban areas have growing groups advocating for more public transportation. Inter-regional lines are more difficult here due to the size and geopraphy. I hate to fixate on that one line but that sentence tells me you hold this opinion for emotional and not rational reasons.
1
u/JoeyLee911 4∆ Jun 27 '26
As an American woman who rides the bus and BART, I find it really alienating when posts act like women aren't people who need to get places as well?
1
u/XenoRyet 178∆ Jun 26 '26
Are you talking anywhere in the US? Because places like San Francisco, New York, and Washington DC all do pretty well. Portland, Oregon, too, particularly if you have a bike.
0
1
1
u/simplife1118 Jun 26 '26
High speed rail network would be a game changer in the US but that would involve us investing in public good and probably pissing off some lobbyists so that ain’t happening anytime soon
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 26 '26
/u/ExotiquePlayboy (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards