# Attitudes towards mass transit in your country



## BriedisUnIzlietne (Dec 16, 2012)

Slartibartfas said:


> Wouldn't be the obvious solution to "overcrowding and infrequency" be a higher frequency? If the corridor is there and it isn't used that densely can it really be a problem to afford to run some extra cars, if the demand is there?


As for the bus and trolleybus network - there is a lack of vehicles. Only on a couple of routes there is a 3-4 minute interval. But we can't really increase the number of vehicles because large amounts of money go towards the replacement of the old vehicles. Currently for 190 million € we have ordered 300 new vehicles, which will replace the last high floor busses and trolleybuses. So then we won't have to worry about old vehicle replacement and will be able to buy new ones primarily for capacity increase.

But I don't know what's the problem with the tram network. During the Folk song festival they are able to put up a service with 2-3 minute intervals (although even then trams are full). Granted - they put up extra staff that coordinate the frequent service and even use some vehicles which were mothballed years ago... But they have the spare trams. They even recently sold 30 trams to Ukraine! Maybe it's just too expensive to run 40 year old trams?










On a side note - what will they do on special occasions when the last of the "free" Soviet trams will be written off? It would be mad to buy trams that will only be used on special occasions.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Weird.

If the demand is there, and you can afford the tram line as such, it is hard to imagine how you could not be able to afford a beefed up service to meet the actual demand.


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne (Dec 16, 2012)

^^
They are trying to reduce costs. Even so that since summer tram lines 2 and 10 are being operated by single car trams! Something that hasn't happened since the early 2000s. And line 2 on weekends sees just 2 trams per hour! No wonder that people don't use it anymore - they have flocked to the buses which run roughly every 6 minutes...










The problem might be the low ticket income. In 2013 a whopping 45% of all Rīgas Satiksme passengers rode for free and only 30% paid full price tickets. And, even if you pay full price, it's 0,60 € for a trip of 11 km in a tram that's worth 2,6 million €. Or, in a bus, you can travel up to 35 km for 0,60 €! Although - the city does subsidize the company...

The fact that they don't increase the frequency on tram lines 6 and 11 might also be either because the old trams are expensive to maintain or because people are really angry to see an old tram instead of a new one (even if it's an extra service).

The problem with new trams is that they are extremely expensive. As I mentioned above, a new tram costs 2,6 million € because we want cameras, air conditioning, many LCD screens, etc. They probably think that it's too much for a tram that's going to be used only at peak hours. And, if they could afford one, their top priority is to replace the old trams on lines 4 (13 trams) and 7 (11 trams) because they are already behind on the schedule. Line 4 should have had new trams already in 2014, but they haven't even ordered them yet.

As for line 4 and 7 I'm not sure that extra services are possible - in the city center all the lines meet and there is a section where the intervals at times are as much as every minute or two. Currently the best would be if the new trams that will be bought will be the 4-section ones.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Disturbing Reality said:


> Yeah, the southern towns/cities closer to DC are exceptions, so are some areas in and around Baltimore served by the light rail (Hunt Valley, Owings Mills) but Maryland in general is not big on mass transit and it seems that people really couldn't care less about it.


Well to be honest Maryland as a whole is pretty transit friendly in US terms since even the suburbs are well served by local and commuter bus lines not to mention the MARC commuter rail network. If you were to go into other states such as Texas or Florida, a car is for all intents and purposes is a necessity and there are very few suburbs that are even served by a single bus line (for example Arlington, Sugar Land, and Frisco) let alone any light rail/commuter rail line.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Transit in Baltimore suburbs and even the city tend to be piss poor, but I agree it's better than other US cities in different regions.


----------



## rsrikanth05 (Mar 12, 2009)

Hi,
I'm Rsrikanth05 from India. I stumbled across this thread while searching for something else.
I'm hoping to learn something about different mass transit systems here. 


P.S: Bumping the thread.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

In Vancouver, almost everyone I knew liked using their cars, while in Montreal I noticed people were split between cars and various other modes of transport. I think that's the general theme in North American between East and West. The west is much more car centric


----------



## rsrikanth05 (Mar 12, 2009)

In India, owning a car is an aspiration for many, and owning a larger car is a status symbol.

Most of the metropolitan cities are overcrowded because of the ever increasing car population.


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne (Dec 16, 2012)

^^
When we were in the Soviet Union, most people didn't have cars (although the cities were built very auto-centric) so it was also a status symbol. And all teens wanted to get a car. When capitalism came, having a car wasn't enough - bigger means better! And so we don't have almost any small hatchbacks and similar. But nowadays a car is so common that it's no longer such a dream to own one. The country is so underpopulated which results in infrequent public transport (outside the capital city) so a car really is a necessity. In the city some still hold on to their car as a symbol of wealth, but increasingly many switch back to public transport or choose to cycle.


----------



## rsrikanth05 (Mar 12, 2009)

^^Here that is yet to happen.
A majority of privately owned cars are owned by a small part of the population. The rich own multiple cars while the not so rich don't own cars. 
Public transport is yet to be adopted on a full fledged basis because some cities just don't have proper systems in place.


----------



## phojyt (Jan 13, 2015)

*Are some teens in world like this about starting to drive?*

I'm just wondering if I am or not. 

As a 16 yr old turning 17 next month and becoming a senior this August. I'm not really pressed about learning to drive and going to take the written/computerized test. 
My parents say that I should be so excited about it but...I'm kinda not, I mean I'm ok about it but its more like "eh" to me ya know. 

my dad keeps bothering me about it and it drives me crazy xP so he signed me up to do it next Saturday again *I failed it the 1st and 2nd time because its timed and I ran out of time every time* 

Well I'm just wondering if I'm the only teen on Y!A that feels this way and to probably give me so encouragement to give me a little more better attitude towards it.


----------



## rsrikanth05 (Mar 12, 2009)

^^Don't worry. I was in the same boat as you. I didn't bother with learning how to drive because I was living in a city with decent public transport. WHen I had to learn, I was 21 and got my licence on the third attempt.


----------



## Roaming Girl (Jan 19, 2015)

Here in London there are some people who just use buses because they can be cheaper under certain circumstances. 

Buses take much longer to complete longer trips, however, than trains, tube, DLR...


----------



## narkelion (Sep 28, 2012)

Not very good in Rome, I'm afraid. 

Only 25% of people use public transport (made up of buses, 3 underground lines, suburban railways, trams and 1 trolleybus line).

Rome is a terribly trafficated city.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^it may be poor by Western European standards, but it's decent, I liked it. I couldn't believe when the airport shuttle took at rush hour just 30 minutes from Termini station to Ciampino, I had braced myself for around one hour and a half...


----------



## narkelion (Sep 28, 2012)

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^it may be poor by Western European standards, but it's decent, I liked it. I couldn't believe when the airport shuttle took at rush hour just 30 minutes from Termini station to Ciampino, I had braked myself for around one hour and a half...


Decent, I agree with that. But only for certain links, certain routes and certain areas of the city.

There are some neighborhoods that, to be reached, a person may take more than 2 hours, during rush hour. That's not acceptable for a so-called 1st world city.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ didn't know that, cheers


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne (Dec 16, 2012)

My city of Rīga would probably win the "Make people hate public transport in one day" competition.

The mayor has just announced that ticket prices will nearly double starting February the 1st. The single ticket price will rise from 0,60 € to 1,15 €! The ticket that's bought at the driver will cost 2,00 € instead of 1,20 €. A monthly ticket will be 1 € more expensive than in Brussels! A city where people are wealthy! And have a metro!
All in all ours will be the most expensive public transport in Eastern Europe!

So people wouldn't blame the mayor, already all the press releases from both the operator and the mayor blame the government who wouldn't subsidize 50% of the costs from the state budget. But why would they? And why would people in the regions want their tax money to go to financing the capital's public transport?

The actual cause for all this ticket price increase are the populistic free tickets for pensioners and scholars. Due to this, 50 % of all passengers carried ride for free and have to be compensated by the city (which doesn't really have the money to do so).


----------



## narkelion (Sep 28, 2012)

In Rome, a couple of years ago, happened something very similar.

Ticket price raised from 1€ to 1,50€ for everyone, monthly from 20€ to 35€, yearly from 180€ to 250€.

They also removed discounts for students and pensioners above a certain income (wich is just above the poverty line).

Doing so, 85% of students and pensioners paid 250€ instead of 135€.

And now they want to rise daily to 7€ (from 6) monthly to 38€ and yearly to 280€.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

If we want more people to use PT we should make it more difficult to own a car.


----------



## rsrikanth05 (Mar 12, 2009)

^^That's the argument I hold to support BRTS. Give priority to bus lanes to private vehicles will get clogged Reason enough for people to make the switch.


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne (Dec 16, 2012)

El_Greco said:


> If we want more people to use PT we should make it more difficult to own a car.


Maybe not owning but using a car? In my country people love to travel to the countryside at the weekends. But the countryside is so underpopulated that using mass transit doesn't make sense. So a family must have a car. But the city should be made car unfriendly so the air wouldn't be polluted and there would be no congestion.


----------



## narkelion (Sep 28, 2012)

You can't just forbid the cars in the cities.

You have to give the people a better alternative (in terms of comfort, time and money) and let people choose.

If, to go from A to B:

1) by car it takes 15 minutes and 10€ (parking included)
2) by public transport it takes 20m and 2€

Many more people would choose option B, probably.

But if option B takes 1hour, than almost everyone'd go by car.

That's why city councils should build more undergrounds, trams, BRT, bus lanes to make PT faster, instead of just eliminate car usage. Because forbidding cars would incur in lowering mayor appreciation, but upgrading PT in rising it...


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Problem is the mass car ownership. Anyone with a credit card can own one these days. Result - clogged roads and polluted air. You need to make driving more expensive by increasing taxes and insurance and banning old cars (10 years let's say) from the roads. In the meantime continue investing in PT.


----------



## Roaming Girl (Jan 19, 2015)

El_Greco said:


> If we want more people to use PT we should make it more difficult to own a car.





El_Greco said:


> Problem is the mass car ownership. Anyone with a credit card can own one these days. Result - clogged roads and polluted air. You need to make driving more expensive by increasing taxes and insurance and banning old cars (10 years let's say) from the roads. In the meantime continue investing in PT.


If car costs were the problem, London would be empty of them. 

I think "punitive" measures like you suggest only angers citizens (and voters), who perceive them as money grabbers.

Make a comprehensive and efficient transportation system, like the London Tube or DLR, and people will flock to it.

I also think ownership is different than usage. 

You don't solve Heathrow congestion problems by limiting the ability of British Airways to buy new airplanes.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Heathrow is vital for national economy, most car trips are not.


----------



## narkelion (Sep 28, 2012)

Everyone cares.

If a mayor forbid cars, the one after, to be elected, will give car users many more privileges.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

narkelion said:


> Everyone cares. If a mayor forbid cars, the one after, to be elected, will give car users many more privileges.


Well that's the problem isn't it? The lack of common sense. Maybe politicians should try and explain why car ownership is bad and that if you still want to drive you'll have to pay more for it, instead of trying to score some cheap political points in order to further their ambitions.


----------



## Roaming Girl (Jan 19, 2015)

El_Greco said:


> Who cares if it angers voters? Clean air and health is more important. Moreover unlike Heathrow which is vital for national economy, most cars are just a waste of space and most trips could be transferred to PT without doing any damage to the economy.


I think in a democracy voters have rights, don't they?

I myself am not a British citizen, so I don't vote here, but governments can't run amok. At least democratic ones.

Politicans are savvy and know this. 

These heavy-handed solutions don't work. 

I own a car. It stays on the garage lot 5 out of 7 days per week, on average.

Tube and DLR work fine for me normally.

I would not be happy however if suddenly my car were taken away by some policy.

I go to certain places on weekend that would be hard to reach by public transportation in London and beyond.

I also like to shop for groceries once a week from some specific shops and bring everyting on my car. It would bother me a lot to bring them on the trains, stairs etc. 

If I didn't own a car, I would be forced to shop closer to home, likely, and to shop more often because I'd still have only two hands.

This would limit my quality of life by requiring me to spend more time shopping for groceries. 

And the special exotic food stores I go would be out of reach or require a 1h trip instead of 20min drive. 

This is just my example.

I'm sure there couple millions of Londoners on a similar situation: they own a car, but also use public transportation.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

It's not democracy it's selfishness. You want to drive, clog up roads, pollute the air and lower the quality of life of residents then pay more for it. 

Millions of Londoners including myself manage to do their shopping without using a car. And yes sometimes I bring it all the way from the West End too.


----------



## Roaming Girl (Jan 19, 2015)

El_Greco said:


> It's not democracy it's selfishness. You want to drive, clog up roads, pollute the air and lower the quality of life of residents then pay more for it.
> 
> Millions of Londoners including myself manage to do their shopping without using a car. And yes sometimes I bring it all the way from the West End too.


I live in Stratford and work in Canary Wharf.

It would be non-sense to drive and then park there.

No need for me to drive there. DLR is good enough.


----------



## rsrikanth05 (Mar 12, 2009)

It shouldn't be difficult to OWN a car. That's stupid. What if I'm going out of town for a family outing or I have to drive on my own in an emergency.

Incentives need to be given for usage of Public transport.


----------



## narkelion (Sep 28, 2012)

El_Greco said:


> Well that's the problem isn't it? The lack of common sense. Maybe politicians should try and explain why car ownership is bad and that if you still want to drive you'll have to pay more for it, instead of trying to score some cheap political points in order to further their ambitions.


That's perfect. I go 100% for this. But reality is that 9/10 it doesn't happen, and politicians aim firstly to their appearance and chance of being re-elected.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

I agree with making it less convenient to drive in the city, eliminating car lanes in favor of public transport, pedestrian, and bicycle priority. I don't agree with making car ownership more difficult though


----------



## Roaming Girl (Jan 19, 2015)

London doesn't have an attitude problem towards public transportation, I'd say.

Increasing its usage require new projects for tube, DLR and overground lines.


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne (Dec 16, 2012)

The overcrowding on the trams after the company decided that single car trams would be enough. They must be proud of themselves - they have reduced the number of tramcars by four. Four! And in return the people must suffer!


----------



## JonBlack95 (Mar 22, 2013)

Here in Kuala Lumpur and the Klang Valley (the metropolitan area surrounding KL itself with multiple towns) most citizens prefer to drive, with only about 14% of the population using public transport. The reason? Cars are viewed heavily as a status symbol (the bigger the better!), since urban Malaysians are quite materialistic, and also the lack of accessibility of bus routes and train lines. The urban planning of all new townships in the country is also quite road centric, especially in the Klang Valley where all the local councils want to build are new highways whether or not the local residents want them.

We do have rather decent Public Transport (varies!) though. We have our buses run by multiple companies, with the best being the state run Rapid KL with their flashy new buses but horrible frequency for some routes, 2 Commuter train lines that are heavily utilised, 2 LRT lines (actually narrow metro trains like the DLR) that are frequented by those who work in the city centre, and one Monorail line in the city centre, plus a new MRT line coming up. These lines are pretty heavily utilised, although the only problem is their coverage as not all of the suburbs have access to them, and sometimes the location of the station is poor. For example, the commuter station in my town is located on the fringe, which means you either have to drive or take the bus to reach it anyway. I'll post some pictures later if I remember haha.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

El_Greco said:


> Problem is the mass car ownership. Anyone with a credit card can own one these days. Result - clogged roads and polluted air. You need to make driving more expensive by increasing taxes and insurance and banning old cars (10 years let's say) from the roads. In the meantime continue investing in PT.


You don't encourage public transport use by attacking car use. You do it by making public transport an attractive option.

When public transport takes far longer (and normally costs more) it's not an attractive option.

I live less than 20 miles from Heathrow, but if I go there I always either drive or take a taxi. 

Both of those options work out much more expensive than public transport, but when it comes to a choice of getting there in 30 minutes, or 1.5-2 hours, the former will always win.

Similarly with my travel to work. I have a 15 minute drive which will cost about £2 for a return journey.

Public transport involves taking a bus then a train, taking 45 minutes, and costing £8.30.


A huge part of the problem is building new houses (and this probably counts almost anything built since the 1960s) with public transport added as an afterthought.

When London expanded 100 years ago, much of the development followed the railway lines. Most newer development makes having a car a necessity, unless you have a lot of patience.

There's also the problem that people who live in large cities don't appreciate, in that there's little public transport integration outside of big cities.

In my previous job, a whole 12 miles from where I live, public transport would have involves taking two buses and a train, and having to pay fares to three different companies to do so.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Rev Stickleback said:


> You don't encourage public transport use by attacking car use.


But you just said you'd use car regardless, because it's quicker. :dunno:

My commute is over 1 hour, I don't complain. If I need to bring shopping from the city I use public transport. If I can why can't you? You can but you don't want and it's perfectly alright. However if you're going to force me to breathe the poison your car emits then pay.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

El_Greco said:


> But you just said you'd use car regardless, because it's quicker. :dunno:
> 
> My commute is over 1 hour, I don't complain. If I need to bring shopping from the city I use public transport. If I can why can't you? You can but you don't want and it's perfectly alright. However if you're going to force me to breathe the poison your car emits then pay.


How long would it take if you drove?


You encourage public transport use by making public transport convenient, which needs a combined effort with town planners to build housing with public transport in mind.

You also subsidise public transport to make it appealing, and make the network integrated so you only need to buy one ticket even if you have to change trains/buses.

Instead we have a mess of a system, where the powers that be think the way to address the problem of overcrowding on trains is to raises fares at peak times, as if people have the option of getting to work at 10.30 and leaving before 4.

If you live in London, public transport is an easy option. You usually have a station within walking a 10 minute walk, and you destination will often be even nearer.

Get out of the city and you often don't have that luxury. The nearest railway station might be three miles away - more if you live in a village, and you might work in an industrial estate, way out from the centre.


Look at the Heathrow example. There are two railway lines from Heathrow to the centre of London, but no rail link from anywhere else in the country - not even from anywhere else in London.


----------

