Submitted by OfficialEthxn t3_zpx075 in nyc
ironypoisonedposter t1_j0v3hd2 wrote
i wish more cities in the US had transit like NYC. many cities used to have more robust transit (trains, street cars, buses) and there were these lines called interurbans that were electrified trains that travelled between cities (only one interurban remains, and it travels between Chicago, Il and South Bend, IN) but unfortunately, we've ceded A LOT of ground to the car industry/car culture and have reshaped out cities to accommodate cars.
i hope going forward, the US can more seriously invest in public transit, but it's definitely an uphill battle.
OfficialEthxn OP t1_j0v5ajt wrote
The car market is incredibly lucrative and it’s understandable, but I agree that there should be increased public transportation as well. The more we become dependable on cars, the less common ground we have when it comes to transportation. People care less about getting around when they see their car as the only answer. Trains, buses and other ways can save time, money, and benefit the environment. It’s a slippery slope as well because of the tax side of it. Tampa just introduced a 30 year, 1% sales tax raise to create a transportation system that is “safe, reliable, and equitable”. This proposition happened to get denied during mid terms in November.
JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j0xg5fu wrote
Same result in Orlando
[deleted] t1_j0v4vhm wrote
>i hope going forward, the US can more seriously invest in public transit, but it's definitely an uphill battle.
Recent bills have invested hundreds of billions into public transit, $66 billion for Amtrak alone!
CooperHoya t1_j0v5bcf wrote
I used to use Amtrak at least once a month between NY and DC. I hear that it is the only profitable route and pays for most of the infrastructure. I’m completely OK with that.
[deleted] t1_j0vbso3 wrote
I've gone all over the country with Amtrak
A couple months ago, before moving to NYC, I went to Cincinnati via Amtrak, then back, and then to NYC and back, and about 12 days ago I made hopefully the final Amtrak journey to NYC
I love Amtrak but it could definitely stand to be faster, especially along the DC-Boston corridor
shotpun t1_j0wmnhj wrote
that line runs through my little hometown in CT. they integrate the train into downtown so everyone can see it, it's very fun. always heard it was slow though
wwcfm t1_j0wacss wrote
How long did NYC to Cinci take?
[deleted] t1_j0wgdpj wrote
I didn't go direct, I had a stop for some days between
sutisuc t1_j0xf3r3 wrote
It is the only profitable route and that’s why the trips between DC and Boston are much more expensive than the equivalent trips elsewhere. Like so many other things in this area we subsidize everyone else.
oreosfly t1_j0vu8oc wrote
> I hear that it is the only profitable route
That is true.
Dragon_Fisting t1_j0w6cqd wrote
Which is how it was always supposed to be. Amtrak is a public service. It's like asking the post office to turn a profit.
oreosfly t1_j0wv6hr wrote
> It's like asking the post office to turn a profit
Fun fact: It actually did until circa 2006. The Post Office makes enough money to cover its operating costs. Its main issues are retiree pension and healthcare costs. The Post Office is also a bit different from Amtrak in that USPS does not recieve direct subsidies from the government.
Anyways, I agree that Amtrak is a public service and that profit is not a main concern. But I also think it would behoove Amtrak and the public to examine its biggest money losers to see whether or not a restructuring is called for. As an example, one of its biggest losers is the California Zephyr, a 52 hour trip between Chicago and SF. Not only does it cost more than a plane ticket between ORD and SFO, but a plane will also bring you between the two cities 49 hours ahead of the train. Routes this long inevitably face delays along the way, hence its 36% on time rate. Perhaps Amtrak thinks about breaking its route into multiple segments so that it is not so prone to delays? Maybe beef up frequencies in its most crowded segments (Denver to Salt Lake)? Who knows.
I don't think Amtrak needs to make money, but it could probably benefit from someone taking a closer look at how the service could be made better
spicytoastaficionado t1_j0vymg7 wrote
> we've ceded A LOT of ground to the car industry/car culture and have reshaped out cities to accommodate cars
The suburban industrial complex is a unique and dangerous menace!
Stonkstork2020 t1_j0wfifk wrote
Part of the issue is that the cities are too spread out (because zoning) so even if you throw huge amounts of $ in transit, it’s not enough. Just look at LA. It has a pretty extensive transit system but because the density is too low, doesn’t matter.
You only have to build 1/4 the transit if the buildings are on average 6 stories instead of 1.5 stories
Stonkstork2020 t1_j0wfqoa wrote
NY actually has this problem in Long Island too. The state built this nice LIRR commuter rail but the houses around the rail are very low density (uh zoning again) so it services way too few people.
NewYorker0 t1_j0vwpsq wrote
While we all love walkable cities here you also have to remember that a lot people don’t want walkable and public transportation otherwise they would’ve voted for a politician who did.
gzrrt t1_j0wksdk wrote
This has much more to do with the effects of many decades of corporate greed and lobbying, vs. normal citizens 'not wanting' walkability.
NewYorker0 t1_j0wt7lm wrote
Really? You are dodging my question, then why don’t Americans vote for vote someone who will make cities walkable. Survey says most American prefer suburbs which is why our cities look like that.
JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j0xisrb wrote
Politicians don't respond to the average person. In NYC zoning changes get brought to community board input. Working people sure as hell ain't making those meetings on weekday afternoons, even weekday evenings are too hard for people with kids. Politicians respond to whoever shows up there, which is retired rich people, and not the electorate. Also the electorate in most council elections is retired rich people anyways.
NewYorker0 t1_j0xlvk3 wrote
Jesus man you can’t answer my question can you. Politicians are voted by the people. If people want change they must vote. That’s called democracy. You got people who love to complain but can’t bother to vote just once a year.
JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j0xn4m4 wrote
Motivating voter turnout is an entirely different problem from whether or not people want walkability. People don't decide to vote or not based on how much they like walkability.
ironypoisonedposter t1_j0z6yyl wrote
i mean, politicians by-and-large suck, our electoral process is deeply flawed, and american voters don't have much in terms choice, which i think is reflected in shitty voter turnout.
that said, i would just counter to your point about "not voting" for the right politicians, voters very often DO vote in favor of pro-transit ballot measures.
gzrrt t1_j0zth7u wrote
You can't just vote for some politician who's going to singlehandedly reverse the fact that it's been illegal to build high-quality urban spaces for 50+ years (and still is, in most of the country). It's going to take many, many years of sustained effort to undo even some of the damage.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments