Originally Posted By Mr X ***Japan also has suburbs, does it not, X?*** Sure, but it's definitely denser here all around (particularly around Tokyo where I live, of course). The thing that surprised me was that here, you can ride a "subway" train for hours and hours and hours...seriously, they go way out into the middle of nowhere, or even to remote resort towns (of course, there are also express trains and bullet trains if you want to pay more and get there faster). I always thought you needed "big" trains for that, but apparently not.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "However, I would guess that the yearly expense of operating a rail system is more costly than a network of freeways covering the same distance." Good point. But you're comparing the cost of maintaining rail cars, track, signalling systems, and all the administrative overhead that comes with it, to re-paving a road every few years. However, cars emit harmful pollution that everybody must deal with, whether they drive or not, whether they drive a lot or not. Not to mention the death and destruction caused each year by automobiles. Crashes happen in every form of transportation, but they happen the most on roads and freeways because of private automobiles. It's largely a quality of life issue. Which do you prefer, a six lane road that's difficult for everyone to use but automobile users, or a street with lower speed limits that is designed not just for cars (or no cars at all), but pedestrians, cyclists and users of mass transit? The problem is that we are designing all roads like the former, and few roads like the latter.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy "However, I would guess that the yearly expense of operating a rail system is more costly than a network of freeways covering the same distance." You are comparing operating expenses to lifecycle costs, which is never a valid comparison. The upfront costs of highway construction is large, and the lifecycle costs to maintain that infrastructure are also large. There may not be large annual recurring expenses, but the long-term costs of maintaining a network of roads far exceeds the long-term costs of maintaining a rail network. Still, it's a false argument to claim that rail systems are "more expensive" than roads. Nobody demands for the highway system to show a profit or subside on user generated fees every year. Why do we insist the same for other modes of transit. Annual budgets for mass transit systems are paltry in comparison to highway budgets, yet the public cries foul anytime one of these systems shows a deficit. There is never any investigation of the costs for similar highway systems.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I'm interested in hearing from X about how Japan's suburbs do it.*** To elaborate on what I wrote above, Dabob, it seems to me that the fact that Japan is so relatively small and so densely populated (I read somewhere it's roughly the same size as California with 5X more inhabitants!), that's it's pretty much tailor made for mass transit. That plus back when America was prospering greatly Japan was struggling mightily with poverty and so a car was an unthinkable luxury (I'm thinking 1950's 1960's here)...it just became par for the course and people became very accustomed to relying on mass transit (I'm just theorizing). Even when Japan finally DID rise up in the 80's, for some reason not many people bought cars. The system was fine enough, and as a splurge people would just take taxis for the most part. But in any case, as I wrote before you can get anywhere you want on trains here very conveniently and comfortably. There are all kinds of "levels of service" so you can choose exactly how expensive your journey will be depending on what you want. Want a budget trip? Take a local train. It's slow and cheap, but punctual and clean and it gets you wherever you want to go. In a hurry? No problem (obviously), as bullet trains are everywhere. How fast do you want to go? Pick your speed and pay accordingly (can't do THAT with a car, unless "pay accordingly" means speeding tickets lol). Want luxury travel? Most trains offer first class cars, private "business" rooms, overnight accommodations if desired, and Japan even has one of the most luxurious trains in the world, the Cassiopeia, which runs from Tokyo to Hokkaido in about 14 hours (much sought after, even though a flight would take you 1/4th of the time at half the cost!). In short, I think people stick with mass transit here because it's reliable and gives you lots of options.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Here in the Seattle area our bus system is actually pretty good, especially for daily commuters. Just about all towns have Park&Rides with direct or nearly direct buses to the larger cities. Depnding on where you are going, you can actually cut your commute time because the buses can use the Express lanes.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ Straight from the horses mouth, we talked about getting a drivers license in my Japanese class. It's more expensive, cars have tougher regulations, and the streets are narrower and tougher to navigate than in America. Japan is the size of CA and has half the population of America. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ The horses mouth mainly being my Japanese teacher and my 2 Japanese ESL students that I tutor. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Mr X ***^^ Straight from the horses mouth, we talked about getting a drivers license in my Japanese class. It's more expensive, cars have tougher regulations, and the streets are narrower and tougher to navigate than in America.*** Yup. Just the license alone will set you back at least $3,000 (probably more now, that's last I heard and it was years ago).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <To elaborate on what I wrote above, Dabob, it seems to me that the fact that Japan is so relatively small and so densely populated (I read somewhere it's roughly the same size as California with 5X more inhabitants!), that's it's pretty much tailor made for mass transit. > True, but like California it has its densely populated areas and its not so densely populated areas, and its in between. I don't imagine Osaka and suburbs are wildly different from, say, Chicago and suburbs in terms of having a city center that those from a 60 mile radius (let's just say) commute to every day. Yet, I'll bet metro Osaka beats the pants off metro Chicago in terms of trains. And Chicago is one of the BETTER cities for commuter trains.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I don't imagine Osaka and suburbs are wildly different from, say, Chicago and suburbs in terms of having a city center that those from a 60 mile radius (let's just say) commute to every day. Yet, I'll bet metro Osaka beats the pants off metro Chicago in terms of trains. And Chicago is one of the BETTER cities for commuter trains.*** Interesting point, since they are comparably sized cities (it's hard to make any comparisons with Tokyo, counting all the surroundings there's like 35 million people within spitting distance of the city!). Japan's public transit sure does rock, I'll say that much (and perhaps it's just that the places I was headed for are more touristy in general, but it feels that way even out in the "countryside"...there are always a few train lines wherever you go it seems!).
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "You are comparing operating expenses to lifecycle costs, which is never a valid comparison. The upfront costs of highway construction is large, and the lifecycle costs to maintain that infrastructure are also large. There may not be large annual recurring expenses, but the long-term costs of maintaining a network of roads far exceeds the long-term costs of maintaining a rail network." I'm not going to dispute you, but I do ask that you show some sort of proof to support your assertion. I don't know either way - as I said I was guessing based on the fact that rail travel requires the daily operation of trains and stations which have employees on payroll. Again, I'm guessing, but I would think that the day to day operation of a rail system per mile would be more expensive than a freeway. On the other hand freeways are free and rail systems collect revenue from passengers, and that should theoretically offset any additional operating expenses.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Rail is actually known for its relatively low maintenance costs over other forms of transit. This isn't speech and debate so I'm not going to dig up any sources.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Rail is actually known for its relatively low maintenance costs over other forms of transit." Yes, but I was specifically talking about freeways.
Originally Posted By mawnck The main reason public transportation honks so much for Orange County is that there are no light rail arteries servicing it ... just a bunch of once-or-twice-an-hour bus routes, and a single Metrolink line with not-that-many trains. The big waste of time isn't the stop-and-go, it's the waits at the bus stops for your connections. If the bus routes have major connecting arteries (light rail, multiple buses, Peoplemover, whatever) that leave every couple minutes, then the connection time dwindles to next to nothing and public transportation actually becomes useful. OC doesn't have that.
Originally Posted By alexbook I haven't read the whole thread, yet, but I have to say: >>Do we need mass transit?<< If you take away our buses, how are the people in low wage service jobs going to get to work? Because of our idiotic urban planning policies, there are large parts of American cities where nobody lives. >>I actually attempted to be a "commuter" in Orlando my first few days living there. I can't begin to tell you how silly that was of me. WIthin a week, I'd gone out and bought a car.<< Not everybody has that option. Aside from teenagers, the elderly, the disabled and others who can't drive, the bus is the "transportation of last resort" for low wage workers. People making $8 an hour can't afford to buy or operate cars. Some people in affluent communities, such as parts of Orange County, don't want to support mass transit because they don't want "poor people" in their community. The problem is that they *do* actually want "those" people, to clean their houses and serve their coffee, but they don't want "those" people to be visible or to cost anything. Sorry, but unless you can replace all the janitors and baristas with robots, you're going to have to provide a way for them to get to work.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Disneyland is one of the biggest beneficiaries of mass transit. Check out the 43 on Harbor Blvd sometime. In both directions, a lot of cast members get off at the bus stop at the entrance to the resort. There are also older cast members who commute from the north or south by Metrolink. OCTA operates express service "Station Link" buses during rush hour that meet specific trains and drops commuters off on Harbor Blvd and at TDA.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***WIthin a week, I'd gone out and bought a car.<< Not everybody has that option. Aside from teenagers, the elderly, the disabled and others who can't drive, the bus is the "transportation of last resort" for low wage workers. People making $8 an hour can't afford to buy or operate cars.*** Yup, I'm well aware of that. And for those poor souls, having to take buses around Orlando means wasting literally hours of your day every day (hope you don't have connections...then it's even worse, and a journey under 15 miles can easily take 3 hours!).
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I would move out of Orlando. Even Los Angeles is more transit-friendly than Orlando.
