Why don't more U. S. cities have metro systems like New York?
video description
Date: 2019-09-12
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
saybanana
US cities are different depending on the age of the city. Older cities built densely before the time of the automobile had a very good public transit system and built a Metro system. Also had no space for cars/car parking near homes or near jobs in the city. So using public transit was a better choice than driving even if the person can afford a car. Of course in the suburbs and working in suburbs, you will most likely have a car and thats true in suburbs of London, Paris, New York, Tokyo. But most US cities were built primarily dense after the automobile. Where roads were wider, homes built with parking spots. And shopping built with parking. Jobs also starting moving outside of city centers so people can drive there, too. So why build expensive public transit when people will just drive a car? Los Angeles is probably one of the most different American cities. It had a great public transit system of streetcars and trams and long distance trains. It had a dense Downtown with lots of inner suburbs near Downtown where people got around by bikes, trams, horse/carriage. Then the automobile arrived and things changed from slow to really fast. Hollywood industry, the Great Depression, and then WW2 in the Pacific in the years of the 1920s to 1940s brought millions of international immigrants and midwest/east coast migrants. It went from 500K in 1910 to 1 million in the County of LA in 1920 to 4 million by 1950. 7 million by 1970s and 10 million near 2020. While public transit was still around before WW2. Post WW2 and the building of the highway system solidified the automobile, far suburbs and the death of public transit. Like your graph, most areas would only support a bus system since most areas were zoned for single family detached. Most density was in old LA before most people owned car. jobs were relocated in areas especially near freeways not public transit. shopping malls, museums, sports stadiums, too. Downtown LA which was the center of everything from shopping, banks, etc was slowly dying for newer places like Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, The valleys because a car can take you anywhere. Today is different. Density is growing and most places could handle light rail, or high capacity bus. The Metro subway system is in the older parts and dense parts of LA the were zoned for multi-unit buildingslike Downtown, Westlake, Koreatown, East Hollywood, Hollywood. You dont find large areas of Single detached near subway lines. Now the problem is money to fund a grand transit web. Much easier if the city was smaller and just build in the denser parts. But what if the dense parts were the two ends Santa Monica and Downtown are 15 miles apart with lots of medium and low density in between. Or Long Beach and Downtown with lots of medium and low density andl ots of industrial in between. Expensive to build underground systems that length so they build light rail. It is not like everyone is traveling one way to Downtown. Everything is still spread out. Only new underground Metro building is under Wilshire Blvd which the route will 7 medium and large CBDs like Westwood, Centruy City, Beverly Hills, Koreatown, Downtown LA. So it makes sense to build expensive underground system on this route and light rail on the suburban parts.
reply
US cities are different depending on the age of the city. Older cities built densely before the time of the automobile had a very good public transit system and built a Metro system. Also had no space for cars/car parking near homes or near jobs in the city. So using public transit was a better choice than driving even if the person can afford a car. Of course in the suburbs and working in suburbs, you will most likely have a car and thats true in suburbs of London, Paris, New York, Tokyo. But most US cities were built primarily dense after the automobile. Where roads were wider, homes built with parking spots. And shopping built with parking. Jobs also starting moving outside of city centers so people can drive there, too. So why build expensive public transit when people will just drive a car? Los Angeles is probably one of the most different American cities. It had a great public transit system of streetcars and trams and long distance trains. It had a dense Downtown with lots of inner suburbs near Downtown where people got around by bikes, trams, horse/carriage. Then the automobile arrived and things changed from slow to really fast. Hollywood industry, the Great Depression, and then WW2 in the Pacific in the years of the 1920s to 1940s brought millions of international immigrants and midwest/east coast migrants. It went from 500K in 1910 to 1 million in the County of LA in 1920 to 4 million by 1950. 7 million by 1970s and 10 million near 2020. While public transit was still around before WW2. Post WW2 and the building of the highway system solidified the automobile, far suburbs and the death of public transit. Like your graph, most areas would only support a bus system since most areas were zoned for single family detached. Most density was in old LA before most people owned car. jobs were relocated in areas especially near freeways not public transit. shopping malls, museums, sports stadiums, too. Downtown LA which was the center of everything from shopping, banks, etc was slowly dying for newer places like Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, The valleys because a car can take you anywhere. Today is different. Density is growing and most places could handle light rail, or high capacity bus. The Metro subway system is in the older parts and dense parts of LA the were zoned for multi-unit buildingslike Downtown, Westlake, Koreatown, East Hollywood, Hollywood. You dont find large areas of Single detached near subway lines. Now the problem is money to fund a grand transit web. Much easier if the city was smaller and just build in the denser parts. But what if the dense parts were the two ends Santa Monica and Downtown are 15 miles apart with lots of medium and low density in between. Or Long Beach and Downtown with lots of medium and low density andl ots of industrial in between. Expensive to build underground systems that length so they build light rail. It is not like everyone is traveling one way to Downtown. Everything is still spread out. Only new underground Metro building is under Wilshire Blvd which the route will 7 medium and large CBDs like Westwood, Centruy City, Beverly Hills, Koreatown, Downtown LA. So it makes sense to build expensive underground system on this route and light rail on the suburban parts.
reply
roachtoasties
What is happening are residents of U. S. cities are asked to approve a tax increase, usually a sales tax, for development of mass transit. What then happens are residents vote down these new taxes (who wants new taxes. What is left are residents stuck in ever bigger traffic jams, because there's no money for transit improvements. Residents complain, but nobody wants to foot the bill. Los Angeles has been late in the game, but since 1980 has approved four sales tax increases (a total of 2%) for transit needs. Things are slow, but at least are heading in the right direction (I'm not going to get involved in an argument here about taxes in California. Doing nothing and complaining though, seems to be an American pastime. It's the same with development of intercity rail, but that gets clobbered in Washington. Other countries can do it, but the U. S. in comparison, can't even figure out how to tie their shoe.
reply
What is happening are residents of U. S. cities are asked to approve a tax increase, usually a sales tax, for development of mass transit. What then happens are residents vote down these new taxes (who wants new taxes. What is left are residents stuck in ever bigger traffic jams, because there's no money for transit improvements. Residents complain, but nobody wants to foot the bill. Los Angeles has been late in the game, but since 1980 has approved four sales tax increases (a total of 2%) for transit needs. Things are slow, but at least are heading in the right direction (I'm not going to get involved in an argument here about taxes in California. Doing nothing and complaining though, seems to be an American pastime. It's the same with development of intercity rail, but that gets clobbered in Washington. Other countries can do it, but the U. S. in comparison, can't even figure out how to tie their shoe.
reply
Enmity the Kindhearted
Honestly, I think that the return of light rail lines to many US cities is only a good thing, especially since most of them run on exclusive right of ways (similar to a metro line. The cheaper cost for rolling stock results in a lower cost per line (as you mentioned, resulting in more lines being opened for the same price. Also, population density is a huge factor. Most US cities are naturally spread out, and therefore connecting them in the way of New York is nearly impossible given the amount that the citizens are willing to pay for it. Many cities in Europe and Asia can do it because they are very, very dense. America is a beautiful place, but its spread out nature prevents large scale rapid transit from being economically feasible. Combine this with the relative inflexibility of trains, and it makes sense why America hasnt gone in that direction
reply
Honestly, I think that the return of light rail lines to many US cities is only a good thing, especially since most of them run on exclusive right of ways (similar to a metro line. The cheaper cost for rolling stock results in a lower cost per line (as you mentioned, resulting in more lines being opened for the same price. Also, population density is a huge factor. Most US cities are naturally spread out, and therefore connecting them in the way of New York is nearly impossible given the amount that the citizens are willing to pay for it. Many cities in Europe and Asia can do it because they are very, very dense. America is a beautiful place, but its spread out nature prevents large scale rapid transit from being economically feasible. Combine this with the relative inflexibility of trains, and it makes sense why America hasnt gone in that direction
reply
delpieru
As clearly stated, the chief architect against mass transit in the USA is auto companies. An expansion to mass transit seems to run parallel with lesser demand for personal automobiles. What I dont understand is, why cant the auto companies invest in mass transit as its a way of moving people around. The future is limitless and people cant live in the dark for long. Eventually, voters in any region will feel the traffic congestion and seek alternative forms of transport and thus demand more from their public officials. Its safe for car companies to think futuristic and invest in all forms of transportation like they currently doing with ride share companies. More people are willing to ride share or carpool these days than get stuck in traffic and many more will desire an efficient faster reliable rail system.
reply
As clearly stated, the chief architect against mass transit in the USA is auto companies. An expansion to mass transit seems to run parallel with lesser demand for personal automobiles. What I dont understand is, why cant the auto companies invest in mass transit as its a way of moving people around. The future is limitless and people cant live in the dark for long. Eventually, voters in any region will feel the traffic congestion and seek alternative forms of transport and thus demand more from their public officials. Its safe for car companies to think futuristic and invest in all forms of transportation like they currently doing with ride share companies. More people are willing to ride share or carpool these days than get stuck in traffic and many more will desire an efficient faster reliable rail system.
reply
Dragon Crackers
So Dallas/Fort Worth is spread over a huge area. The suburbs spread out in all directions. Try getting the money to build a metro system for all of that mess. Thats just one example. Its large but typical of American cities. I think we will eventually have to build better mass transit because the highways are just getting worse but not soon. Its like every video were it shows an issue with American infrastructure, every just stats talking about European cities. Iv been to Europe okay, its not that great or that different. They still got traffic jams and freeways. Being crammed in with all those smelly, noisy ass people in a subway. I would take an hour traffic jam any day. Just pay for the express lane and your usually okay anyways.
reply
So Dallas/Fort Worth is spread over a huge area. The suburbs spread out in all directions. Try getting the money to build a metro system for all of that mess. Thats just one example. Its large but typical of American cities. I think we will eventually have to build better mass transit because the highways are just getting worse but not soon. Its like every video were it shows an issue with American infrastructure, every just stats talking about European cities. Iv been to Europe okay, its not that great or that different. They still got traffic jams and freeways. Being crammed in with all those smelly, noisy ass people in a subway. I would take an hour traffic jam any day. Just pay for the express lane and your usually okay anyways.
reply
metalslugmasters
New York is the worst. The train tracks only feed Manhattan (good luck if you live in Queens and your job is in Brooklyn. The fare is expensive, and every year they call for public hearings that never stop the MTA for making whatever they want. The design of the car seats is horrible making people to occupy the entrance perimeter areas only. They are noise factories. They have a horrible draining system for floods (remember when the tropical storm Sandy hit new York) They are still using old tech on their fiber magstripe metro cards. Their metro card kiosks give change in dollar coins nobody wants or hates to use. And the list is endless.
reply
New York is the worst. The train tracks only feed Manhattan (good luck if you live in Queens and your job is in Brooklyn. The fare is expensive, and every year they call for public hearings that never stop the MTA for making whatever they want. The design of the car seats is horrible making people to occupy the entrance perimeter areas only. They are noise factories. They have a horrible draining system for floods (remember when the tropical storm Sandy hit new York) They are still using old tech on their fiber magstripe metro cards. Their metro card kiosks give change in dollar coins nobody wants or hates to use. And the list is endless.
reply
masnip
Part of the problem is that the older systems were done privately, with an eye to profitability. Atlanta's system was done politically. The result has left a bad taste in many people's mouths. A prime example is the building of an extension of the light rail line branch that goes nowhere. Because of the high cost of maintaining a line that generates almost no traffic the system has never even come close to paying for itself. With all systems setting fare prices are political so it's tricky to generate enough revenue for maintenance and operations, let alone expansion.
reply
Part of the problem is that the older systems were done privately, with an eye to profitability. Atlanta's system was done politically. The result has left a bad taste in many people's mouths. A prime example is the building of an extension of the light rail line branch that goes nowhere. Because of the high cost of maintaining a line that generates almost no traffic the system has never even come close to paying for itself. With all systems setting fare prices are political so it's tricky to generate enough revenue for maintenance and operations, let alone expansion.
reply
Bernardo Hernandez
I think its already too late. There are too many cars, and I dont meant theres too many on the road, i mean people own too many. There are people who want metros, but there are also those (who id still say are the majority) who prefer to own their own car and drive. In addition, you are all aware that the United States has the cheapest gas prices in the west right? Just rule of thumb, all these European countries with good metros have expensive ass gas. I feel like many Americans want rapid transit systems, yet arent aware of the changes thatll occur.
reply
I think its already too late. There are too many cars, and I dont meant theres too many on the road, i mean people own too many. There are people who want metros, but there are also those (who id still say are the majority) who prefer to own their own car and drive. In addition, you are all aware that the United States has the cheapest gas prices in the west right? Just rule of thumb, all these European countries with good metros have expensive ass gas. I feel like many Americans want rapid transit systems, yet arent aware of the changes thatll occur.
reply
Dad Man
This video is why the US does not have Metros. 1. There is no type of train system called a metro. It is called a subway. 2. I have worked with these train systems and guarantee this video offers 0 knowledge. The video is full of simplistic misleading info. 3. This is also outdated because no modern transit system relies on trains alone. 100 out of 100 urbanist videos will promote trains and ignore buses because they are not seen as European. That is the real reason why America doesnt have more trains, a bias against buses that support trains.
reply
This video is why the US does not have Metros. 1. There is no type of train system called a metro. It is called a subway. 2. I have worked with these train systems and guarantee this video offers 0 knowledge. The video is full of simplistic misleading info. 3. This is also outdated because no modern transit system relies on trains alone. 100 out of 100 urbanist videos will promote trains and ignore buses because they are not seen as European. That is the real reason why America doesnt have more trains, a bias against buses that support trains.
reply
Pichuscute
I went to Tokyo recently and got to experience their incredible metro system. Don't think I'll ever be able to live comfortably in the US again. This place is just awful with public transport. Cars being so required by city design is part of the problem, but really it seems like it's just cities not doing their damn jobs, imo. I'm lucky I live on a major college campus with a very good bus system, but in the larger city I'm from, we didn't even have that in any major capacity. It was simply impossible to get around without a car.
reply
I went to Tokyo recently and got to experience their incredible metro system. Don't think I'll ever be able to live comfortably in the US again. This place is just awful with public transport. Cars being so required by city design is part of the problem, but really it seems like it's just cities not doing their damn jobs, imo. I'm lucky I live on a major college campus with a very good bus system, but in the larger city I'm from, we didn't even have that in any major capacity. It was simply impossible to get around without a car.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
