In usa the government stopped building things like 40 years cause free market and instead opt for the contract contractors who contraft contractors model
Can you make a video on dhaka metro rail? Now that the mrt line 6 has been fully opened and it provides service from 7:10 am to 8:40 pm with its expansion on going to the Kamlapur Railway Station, the capital's main railway station.
Summary of the video (hopefully this is pretty accurate): 1. Build more metros and electric regional rail. 2. Build more cost-effectively. 3. Build in city cores, then expand out. In general, LOCATION is IMPORTANT. 4. Effective transit planners, ideally those who use transit and are engineers 5. Treating transit like an essential service similar to roads, water, and sewers. 6. Increasing education on transit in universities and schools, especially regarding transit in places outside of North America.
So, if I understood the video correctly and read this correctly, we need most, if not all, of these things to happen to reverse the collapse of transit in America. Given that whole continents move faster than American politics, we can expect a transit renaissance in America in…what…200 years? Or is that too optimistic?
You also have to tackle corruption, corporate, government and labor. I keep getting the feeling that it is a major contributor to cost overruns, How does a professional be so wrong on their cost estimates? I don't think planners are that inept.
I truly believe that those heading transit agencies should use transit. I was in Austin when ProjectConnect was proposed, and Randy Clarke *used* the red line and busses. Now in DC, I love that Randy is a user of the DC Metro. Now if only we could get a dedicated funding stream...
It would be amazing if the state established a permanent fund for transit projects or if transit districts could levy property taxes. But that's probably not going to happen In Texas. Many of the Dems manage to get hold of a couple branches.
@@jetfan925 Maybe they could offer federal dollars to states that come up with their own dollars for jointly funded projects, and just like with the highway systems, they could insist on certain minimum standards for projects funded that way. Sounds like an American-style solution to that problem.
I like the idea of Federal and State funding guaranteed with some local backup. It may help solve the accountability problem, although the road lobby may still complain, unfair, unfair.
@@Patmorgan235Us Texas is in an odd place - public transit is really only pushed by Dems and expansions of Dallas and Houston is difficult since like 80% of land is privately owned. And I don't think eminant domain can be used for public transit. I believe Austin's issue is price increases post pandemic. The political will is not there at the state level
One thing I notice so many transit projects end up failing at is planning a whole system from the get go. It's a lot easier to get buy in for one line when people can see what the whole system is supposed to look like and how that line fits in the whole system. Another advantage of cities doing this from the get go is that, on the rare occasion that Congress decides to spend our money on us, the city has already gone through the community input and planning process and can start further along and end up qualifying for more money
It still boggles my mind that Seattle spent so much money building a train system that is 95% grade separated and then...has to run trams on it because of the 5% that isn't. Like, come on, just make the whole thing grade separated and turn it into a proper metro...
Meant that an existing tunnel could be used instead of having to build a brand new one for the same effect. Besides, Seattle isn’t running trams on its system, using vehicles that, even without major changes and frequency upgrades, can carry 9,600 pphpd (expandable to as much as 24,000 with current technology constraints, 4 car trains at 2 minute headways) traveling at 55 mph
The sections of this video around consistency and predictability of transit feel especially relevant to Seattle right now as well, as we enter yet another period of multiple weeks of drastically reduced service. Anecdotal, but I've already seen plenty of people talk about transitioning to other means of commuting due to the state of Link right now - I really hope they come back to Link once it's done, but I think there's no guarantee that'll be the case
Is it a tram or light rail? They are not the same thing especially in the USA. In the USA, a tram is equivalent to a streetcar which usually run much slower than light rail trains.
COVID was a big setback for transit in many US cities. Ridership is way down where remote work has become dominant. Downtowns have traditionally been emphasized, but now neighborhood-to-neighborhood transit is relatively more important. Public transit faces huge challenges.
Yeah who knew that sharing public space in close proximity with a bunch of other people was a super bad idea during a pandemic, who knew? And even after the pandemic...the fact that public spaces have become far less safe is not doing any help.
Light Rail here in the NC Triangle area (Durham, Chapel Hill, and Raleigh) was basically singlehandedly scuttled by Duke University; everything else was a go. I should be able to find at least one article about this.
@@josemelo1699 Indeed. I'm still trying to figure out who that might be. Car dealers, car supply stores, local fossil fuel magnates? Construction contractors who only know how to build car-road stuff and not railroad stuff? People who are afraid of change?
@@woozaliait was really weird, they said they wanted the station in a specific spot. Then complained about it being there and said it would interfere with medical equipment. There were solutions proposed, but they decided they didn’t want to negotiate anymore. It was really sad.
@@thomaswill37Yeah, it was pretty clear they were using any excuse to kill it. Someone suggested that they only waited so long because they thought for sure something/someone else would kill it first. I'd really, really like to know who decided it needed killing. >.
Three points in this excellent video are valid world wide. At 2m 50s 'to save the planet we need better public transport'. At 5m 40s the emphasis on electrified regional rail. At 12m 45s the need for public transport to run 365-days-a-year. On the point of electrified regional rail we must watch PROVINCIAL France . The success of the new RER-style system around Geneva (running to towns situated in France) has set politicians thinking. On 19 December the French Parliament approved a new plan for 'Service Express Regional Metropolitain'. ('SERM'} There are already FIFTEEN projects for SERMS under consideration! (Edit = I must stress that the SERMS scheme is for provincial cities, NOT for Paris.)
Perhaps the most important metropolitan transit project in France is the circular Grand Paris Express. Mind you, they had to do it because it was just too inconvenient to travel from one _arrondissement_ to another without going through the center of Paris with all its city center congestion. Currently, the Swiss Federal Railways does travel into France as far as Bellegarde, but can't go any further due to the fact Bellegarde is the west end of the 25,000 V 60 Hz AC overhead power commonly used by Swiss Federal Railways. SNCF will need to install a lot more 25 kV AC overhead power near Geneva if they want more RER style service into France from that city.
@@Sacto1654 To clarify, the highly successful Leman Express system around Geneva is jointly operated by SNCF and Swiss Federal Railways using dual-voltage units capable of running off both 15,000 and 25,000 AC. Lines west of Bellegarde are still electrified at 1,500 DC. Bellegarde to Geneva was converterd from 1,500 DC to 25,000 AC a fewe years ago.
I'd say 'finally' ! We (France) are late regarding regional rail services, when compared with our neighbours (Switzerland... but they have unlimited money cheat code, or Germany with their S-Bahn systems are good examples). I have had courses about the one in Lyon... it's not about to happen in a forseeable future. The region and Lyon Metropolis can't reach an agreement on pricing and, to make it simple, the region simply doesn't want to invest 1 cent into rail infrastructure and not much into rail service.
Public transit doesn't really impact the planet the way you suggest, but that's not the point (despite suggestions otherwise, please don't be so naive). So let's move past that. It's efficiency and that's where the "maybe we build it maybe we won't" comes into play. We need good solid plans, not patchwork systems which are indeed inefficient.
I think electric regional rail and subways are indeed the most important parts that need to be built. They both excel in different areas and they work together really well. Subways excel at providing very high capacity in the most dense areas and serve as a very good solution for the first/last mile problem, at least for a lot of people. Electric regional rail in the meanwhile excels at moving high numbers of people mid to long distance between population centers. Connect them up with decent bike infrastructure and a decent bus network in suitable areas, and you have a very decent backbone to build a great transit network on. Also, yes, keep it running. In order to get people using transit, they need to be able to rely on transit.
@@RMTransit Before even looking at regional/intercity rail, what the US really needs is electric suburban rail like Australian cities I think, so that suburbs within a metro area can be better connected to their core cities & downtowns. I really liked your video on 'The Australian Solution' and think that would be really beneficial in North America which shares a lot of the same characteristics and sprawl.
If streetcars didn’t get axed in the mid-century they would just transition into rapid transit system on certain corridors and circumstances. As an example in Toronto’s Bloor and Yonge streetcars being the 2 main subways and a part of the Queen Street subway in the Ontario Line Plan. If it was private companies, would just end up the Japanese model if they owned land around stations or stops. It’d be interesting if we see any resurgence of streetcar suburbs, though more so like Light Metro TOD with Montreal, Honolulu and Vancouver.
In Mexico City the first three Metro lines were built along the old tramway routes, specifically the most used ones, and to this date they have the highest ridership of the system
It being private also won't solve everything, if the culture there doesn't have good transit mindset. It'll be more likely to kill the tra sit project itself...
I know there are successful private transportation services however if it was always the best option then all roads should be privatized. We need to stop looking at transit as something that needs to generate profit. Just like a road or highway it contributes to the economy, it is not a profit centre itself
@@bradlevantis913 Completely agree transit needs to be looked at as a general good because the entire economy runs on our different transport systems all we're doing as time goes on is updating that system and making it more efficient so the economy can run faster what is so wrong with that?
Management being hired internally isn't inherentely a bad thing. In fact, the MTA has been pretty sucked dry by outside consultants who work on projects and leave, as opposed being kept internally as institutional knowledge. America is very insular, so management, along with basically every class of worker below them, are only comfortable with American practices.
I think by externally he means hiring people from abroad and not just from the US rather then relying on consultants [At least in past videos he has recommended against hiring consultants and instead relying on internal people].
These comments you provide here are so good Reece. Here in Denmark we have been having some issues lately. Specifically we had an assessment coming in on a proposed new rail line connecting the city of Aarhus with the nearby Silkeborg via a fast new railway parallel to the highway built there a decade ago. However when the assessment report came back the price tag was twice that of the previous report and of what the government had set aside in funding. Thankfully the government is now launching studies into how the cost in this new report is so much higher than before, and while this doesnt mean the project is safe from cancelation (especially given how obsessed Danish politicians are with upfront costs), it is at least reassuring that they havent ruled it out yet but simply want to figure out how in the world the price tag got so high and if it can be reduced.
@@RMTransit well Denmark does have one glaring similarity with the anglosphere and that's car dependency. In the greater Copenhagen region only 11% of trips on motorized vehicles is handled by transit! This is compared to Skåne across the water in Sweden which despite being much more rural has a staggering 33% of all trips in motorized vehicles done on public transit. Plus most of Denmarks megaproject expertise is on highways and road bridges. In the very same region as the overbudget rail line there was a highway being built from Herning to Holstebro. It was slated to cost 3.5 billion kroner, about the same as 8km of light rail, but it was done a whole billion kroner under budget. Whereas the rail line in question went from a price tag around 2.6 billion kroner to 5.8 billion
The cost blow outs and delays never stop freeway interchanges from getting completed... its not really about the those things its just that when it comes to cars we always find a way to deliver because the American dream is sitting in car traffic.
Thanks for mentioning PATCO as a modern successful metro. I would note that it was originally proposed to be a bigger system but the proposed branches were never developed. The original line did have the benefit of having the right of ways and the subway portion already was in existence so it was relatively easy to get built.
San Diego's transit planning/construction agency is proposing an elevated automated metro with 2 minute frequencies connecting Downtown with the airport. But Downtown NIMBYs and San Diego's transit operating agency are joined in an unholy alliance against the automated metro ("automated metro viaducts will ruin bayside views!") and pushing instead for a light rail branch to the airport with 15 minute frequencies. Unfortunately even many transit advocates support the light rail branch because "light rail is cooler than automated rubber-tyred metro."
Los Angeles will open an automated people mover that will connect the airport to LA Metro stations. The APM will run every 2 minutes and carry 200 passengers per train 24/7.
I bet they're thinking it's going to be a people mover which doesn't have the capability to move large numbers of people unless it's a skytrain. If it's a real metro or a real light metro like in Montreal, Paris, and Lille, it could be the first line in an areawide metro system. But if the agency is just planning a people mover, then yeah light rail will be better.
@@edwardmiessner6502 Lille's VAL is a people mover. San Diego's people mover will run every 2 minutes and cost $1.54B for 2.5 miles--which would get them a VAL-style system, not a cable-pulled APM.
I think, that "nice to have" is the core to many of these issues. It not only causes a very unstable funding, but also makes it far to easy to destroy political support. And it also leads to building it like with a checklist instead of optimizing it to get as many users as possible.
The problem with trams is that they are slow EVERYWHERE. Many French cities have a tram or two, which look very nice and might even have underground stations, however it is almost always faster to walk! This is no joke, you can sometimes walk next to a tram and overtake it. This is because they tend to be in pedestrian malls so need to travel really slowly for safety. Later if they go underground it becomes a much better service, but a subway or other train would be a better solution at that point.
I liked this video as you cover all the various topics that plague North American transit systems today. I agree that looking towards the UITP and non-American transit agencies will help but, at least in the USA, there are many codes/requirements such as Buy America that cause an extra hurdle for implementing some of those technologies that are found in many places in the world besides North America. It will take the creativity/pro-activeness of everyone (advocates, riders, planners, engineers, transit agency management, bus drivers, mechanics,etc) to step forward and take note of these issues and find solutions.
Yesterday, I travelled by tram to an event that I would usually travel by car, I was so much less stressed when I arrived, things worked perfectly, didn't have to wait long to get a tram in either direction. In a couple of weeks time I have to travel a longer distance for a funeral, there's a rail strike on that day, but I can still get to my destination by train, just need to change trains during my journey down, as far as I'm concerned that's an adventure not a blockage, my biggest gripe about it is the cost, but I have no choice but to pay it.
I really like to see that you are so passionate about public transport and that (I think) you care very much about transportation in Toronto. Of course, I also have that for my city Rotterdam, which is also going to start a very large project to install more stations in Rotterdam and a large tram bridge over the Maas. maybe if you like it you could make a video about that, because I would be very interested in that
Most American city governments don't have the in-house expertise and rely on consultants and contractors who rip them and us off. Metro D.C.'s Purple Light Rail line started at $1.6B's and now at $10B's and still not finished and a decade behind schedule. San Francisco's new 2-mile light rail subway, few riders and Billions in cost-could have paid off the mortgages of every homeowner in that city.
You hit nail on the head with we must get the younger generation into transit by taking it as a major in college however, what happens then is when they come out it's their profession and all thoughts go to advancing in their careers ,not so much i collaborating to make the best transit. Even though we need their new ideas and excitment. Hopefully happening in my lifetime ,well, probably not since I'm 80 yrs. Old😊
I caught a bit of the recent Alan Fisher live stream and he mentioned that America has better inter-city transit, but Canada builds much better metros. I have to agree on that. Americans are really cutting themselves short on some of the great benefits of well-built and operated transit infrastructure, like automated metros running short trains really frequently. Or supporting a rail network with a frequent bus network. There also seems to be an unwillingness to really dive in to transit-oriented developmemt and those areas are the ones that allow the network to have strong ridership on major routes in order to bring on minor routes.
We need to increase focus on transportation and density in the cities themselves, rather than going 20 miles into the suburbs and having stops so far apart that they don't even serve the area.
And people who oppose say deiving is "freedom" and public transit does not get support. Well of course they seem to not be getting support, coz of the sprawls our government created over the years. Residential areas are so flat people need to spend extra time to walk to transit stops which adds to the travel time. On top of new systems, res areas also need to change to adapt, so they are more dense!
I will say the one silver lining to that is if they do it correctly and it goes through somewhat built up areas of the suburbs, you can always add infill stations later. They did that by adding a station to the line I grew up riding.
But my suburb -- Sprawlville -- deserves a massive investment in brand new rail too! Build it next to the freeway if you have to. If Sprawlville doesn't get a station, you city folks get nothin!
@@RMTransit Low-density distant suburbs are inappropriate for new rail. If you have existing tracks, then that can work. Otherwise just run buses. But without a good inner-city system, it doesn't matter what you build to the suburbs.
In American cities with their long straight roads it should be much easier to build a subway than in Europe. You can usually build the whole subway line below one of those roads. Especially in Los Angeles. I also wonder why it is not embarrassing for Americans that even some "poor" countries have much better public transport. Americans are proud of their airports, but even those usually suck compared to the ones in other parts of the world. The US already reached a debt of $34 trillion. Imagine they would invest $1 trillion into public transport.
Just the reduction in traffic alone would easily pay itself off in terms of more time for work and leisure in urban areas. Traffic jams are unnecessary and transit would reduce them a lot.
Because most Americans don’t know anything about other countries. Most Americans never leave the US and are told over and over again that the US is the best country in the world. The people who do know better are powerless to change things because the politicians in power mostly only care about their donors who are primarily wealthy corporations.
Americans don’t get embarrassed by that because they don’t know what they’re missing. A lot of Americans don’t leave the country, and the ones that do seem to think other cities are like Disneyland, not actual places that people live and work in, so they don’t realize that it’s possible and way better to live like this
CityNerd here on TH-cam did a video about how much private transportation costs America a year. It is a conservative estimate that the price for private transit ran the U.S.A. almost 5 trillion a year. I know hardly anyone in North America actually knows how much private transit is costing us. It is a scam made by oil and car corporations who are known to lie for profit. They keep saying it is the best and easiest economic way to travel, when it is highly stressful and extremely expensive. I am saying this for everybody else if you want a good country do not copy the North American transit system (because these lying corporations have been trying hard to spread it).
@@reilandeubank For many Americans it is just a different mindset. Even when they travel extensively, it doesn’t really sink in. The attitude is that Americans are different. Those transit systems are good for “those people”.
Lowcountry Rapid Transit (LCRT) is being designed as a 21.3-mile modern bus rapid transit system that will connect communities in our region like never before. Operating mostly in dedicated lanes, from the Fairgrounds in Ladson, serving North Charleston along Rivers Avenue and connecting to the WestEdge development in Downtown Charleston, LCRT will offer a safe, reliable, low-cost and new mobility alternative to tens-of-thousands of residents and visitors.
One thing your didn't mention in this video (but has been mentioned in others), is that it isn't the current population density that determines usage, but clusters of development around each station. The Metropolitan Railway was built on creating stations in the countryside around which developers built housing and business, creating "Metroland". People moved there and commuted to London. Any transit development needs to relax zoning near all the stations (or tram stops) so that people can live close by in 4 or 5 storey tenements. Get rid of zones of just single family houses. Increased income from both property taxes and fares will pay for transit.
most american suburbs don't even need that much demolition to rezone, most front lawns are large enough to become small grocery stores,liqour stores, libraries, and other local businesses/public third spaces
The hardest part about transit is having to take a diagonal route when the roads are cardinal. The east west roads are fast and frequent to connect to downtown, but the North and South routes are slow and late. This causes a 20 minute drive to be 80 minutes long on transit.
your analysis as always is amazing and so comprehensible and comprehensive. as a native california but resident of Spain for over 30 years, it still blows my mind how slow and unrealistic transportations projects are in california and over all in the states. People need realistic timelines say 36 to 60 months... lines that open, let's say 3 or 4 stations at a time though the projected line has 12. As well as making universities, hospitals, commercial and sport events areas the priority. As you said, where do people want to go or need to get to? Trams in the states seems like a Disney ride and buses would be much more efficient. Anyway, just wanted to say a huge fan of yours and your truly global vision of public transportation.
Los Angeles is already doing what you suggest. The bigger problem is the lack of federal funding. In Spain, rail infrastructure has much more support from the national government. A new HSR line recently opened from Madrid to Asturias. It took about 15 years but it goes through difficult terrain. However, without national government funding it would not have happened. It's not a coincidence that Spain has the largest HSR system in Europe. California is building the first true HSR line in the USA and the federal government has only paid about 15% of the cost so far. California has paid 85%. Construction started in 2015 and the Los Angeles to San Francisco connection won't open until about 2034 at the earliest. If the federal government paid 60%, it could be done years sooner maybe even by the 2028 Olympics in LA.
Excellent video. Absolutely correct on all the issues in North American transit. I live in the DC area, and we are building a light rail system that so far has been a disaster. I think it would be a great augmentation to the DC Metro, it is way over budget and timeline.
Watched it on Nebula hours ago. I gotta say, love your points. They're spot on and most Americans will have a hard time understanding what you said because of how little they know about transit. THAT's why we have trouble. Lack of expertise!
EXcellent video as usual. There is a lot of problems building transit systems especially here in the UK. Take HS2 for an example... it could have been built already except of the following problems (assumptions). 1. NIMBY's - You buy a house by a railway line, you should accept you might be disturbed by noise. It is different if the railways come after. 2. Should have been called HC2 (High Capacity) as the public would have understood more that the reason for it is to create space on the other railway lines for more freight and local services. 3. Consultants and change of design - Do we really need to pay all these consultants and does it have to be redesigned again and again. Stick to the first plan and maybe some small alterations. It cost enough for the first design. 4. Backhanders - just like Covid 19 in the UK, how many backhanders have been paid ? How much is put on the price to pay top people in their back pocket? 5. Health & Safety - it is time people were told to look after themselves and children (like the old days) and use some common sense. All this would lead to a cheaper price
Neo Luddites are everywhere, some using left wing and green arguments and some using libertarian right wing arguments. Public transport is freeing and green.
Electric trains are crazy efficient. No Electric car can beat an electric train on efficiency. Even if it's powered by a coal steam plant. It's a hyper efficient way to use that dirty power. And when we replace that coal plant with something cleaner. You have that other clean infrastructure already in place. Secondly. All that infrastructure for electric trains solves our transmission capacity issues. Think track passing by solar fields (imagine bringing in all those solar lego blocks or wind by rail, then that same field hooked up to a substation hooked up to the overhead lines above the track.) One we have to build regardless of whether we electrify or not. Double rail and electrify. A huge logistical opportunity
The problem with electric is if a hurricane or tornado hits the area there’s going to be allot of down time esp if using overhang electric wires. Gas is the better option at the moment bc it’s cheaper as well. If they can make the electric wires storm proof then do it by all means
As a White Sox fan, I’m super stoked that we’re now talking about building a new ballpark right in the edge of downtown, in a spot that will make access to transit so good it’s almost ridiculous. We actually already have better access to it then the Cubs do, the problem is we pretty much incentivize driving with the several oceans of parking lots we provide. The new location location will have easy access to three different L lines, LaSalle Street Station soon to be home to two Metra lines, and with its location right on the river they’re already talking about the possibility of water taxis.
A big part of the problem is planning reservations across the board. You don't need to spend a fortune tunnelling underneath your barely-10-year-old development if you had just included the corridor reservation in the original development plan. That space still provides value before the transit arrives, in the form of linear parkland. And that parkland can then become a dense travel corridor for a small fraction of the otherwise cost once you decide to commit to it. It would cost $0 right now to demand that starting right now, ALL new urban developments MUST consider incorporating cycling infrastructure and larger capacity transit corridors. Just reserve that space at the time of planning.
USA should have standards and general policies for the design transit systems for: • Combined metropolitan areas / conurbation / urban agglomeration • Metropolitan areas • Large city with suburbs • City with suburbs • Large town • Town • Small town • Village • Rural areas • Uninhabited areas / nature reserves (no transit) This is based on commuting zones, a concept the US office for statistics is using. And depending on the size of the area and population there should be a maximum of only and just five modes of transport in the system: • bus • tram • metro • train • intercity train All other modes are: • just variants of the five mentioned above, • wrong application of one of the five mentioned above, • wrong naming or • gadget bahns *About variants* Variants of transport modes is all about playing with capacity, frequency, reliability depending on the technical situation, economics and circumstances. This is where you play with low floor vehicle no platform, high floor vehicle no platform, high floor vehicle with platform, level boarding vs step boarding, one door, multiple doors, pre-paid, not pre-paid, platform doors, no platform doors, length of vehicle, number of cars per vehicle, signalling, transit priority signalling, full separation from other traffic (separated ways, crossing barriers, tunnels or elevated ways), express service or local service, high or low average service speed vehicles, high acceleration and braking (for high service speed but short distances between stops), number of seats vs standing, seat orientation. *About wrong application* Most light rail (tram) could be done with heavy rail (metro) in combination with trains and a good network with lower level transit modes as feeders for the metro. *About wrongful naming* For example heavy vs light rail. Those terms should only be used by the design engineers of the vehicles. Cars designed for higher speeds tend to be heavier. Planners of transit systems should not use these technical terms and also the users should not. Just like it's not important for the traveler to know if a metro is on metal wheels or rubber tyres. Planners and travelers should use transit terms instead of technical/engineering terms. Also the words mass and rapid make little sense. Those words have to do with capacity and frequency. But planners should know the definitions and right application of intercity train, train, metro, tram and bus. For example a bus is still a bus, no matter if it's a 6 m local rural bus, a 16 m articulated city bus, or a brt. The transit planner just has to know the measures to increase the capacity of a bus.
Hot take, but the one city with the most transit potential is Houston, Texas. They have so many amazing existing straight rail alignments that go directly downtown, all with enough room to build extra track. If Houston built a GO RER type system that they connected to plentiful BRT lines, that city would truly shine.
@@TPAsses I don't think so. They've done some great things in the inner ring. They're not focused on rectifying the endless sprawl of Harris County, as that's impossible, but they are focused on creating a nice vibrant inner city with decent housing, walking, cycling, and amenities. And even then, they've done a lot to build out their frequent bus network along with planning more commuter rail and light rail. It's slow but it's coming along.
@@tomothan I really like the idea of the inner ring deciding planning for themselves. I'm from Vancouver, where the Greater Vancouver Regional District is comprised of 23 jurisdictions who make their own decisions, but come together to work out regional solutions via a mayor's council. That means that no one in Burnaby or Surrey has any say over what gets built in Vancouver, and vice versa. That also means that a lot of infrastructure is planned on a regional scale through the mayor's council, Metrovan, Translink, and the government of BC, while urban planning is left up to individual municipalities to sort out for themselves. Of course, this hasn't worked perfectly, as we've seen tremendous growth in cities like Burnaby and Surrey and almost no growth on other cities. Anything with a Vancouver in its name, be it North shore or South shore is notorious for NIMBYism. So the government of BC has mandated TOD areas and gentle densification of single family areas. At the same time, this has allowed Vancouver to eliminate parking and lanes, building out a robust cycling and transit network in the core of the city, much to the chagrin of suburbanites who want to commute by car (for the love of god, it's just not worth it - never drive downtown).
The Paris tram fails to move even 10% of the region's total rail raiders for one simple reason: Paris' metro and regional rail are well distributed throughout the urban area and beyond...and they work well! To give an opposite example, Rome, on the other hand (one of the largest municipalities in Europe although not so populous) is building a tram network but, having only two and a half subway lines, it would have more need to build subways than trams (useful as supply lines for the larger and faster subways). Each city obviously has different needs, characteristics and management of public transport, we can realize this thanks to the interesting RMTransit videos!
the paris tram is meant for smaller comute, like beetween 2 suburban neighboring communes. It's a necessity, and of course it's concerning less people than the RER, but it's ok, it's just an other purpose : not to cross the whole urban area, but to connect your appart to the nearest mall, and that kind of things.
@@SieurBrabantio Of course, as Paris has an excellent metro network and a modern regional rail network, it is natural that the tram network serves for shorter journeys and/or as a feeder network for the metro and trains, which is why, as Reece states, the Parisian network trams move less than 10% of the passengers of the regional railways.
Indeed. He does this a lot. He misrepresents the real-world situation so it fits his narrative better which makes his observations and solutions practically irrelevant.
Yep, how this works in the US is always the same. The leaders of a city finally agree on a cut back version of some transit, lets say, a tram line. Once the line is built for an astronomical cost, and totally out of the way from where it should be, the usually bad service makes this new system just bad, with not many riders using it. This is done deliberately, so the leaders then can say "See, we knew this is no good, we said that from the beginning but we spent the money anyways for this just to prove you wrong.". It really is sad, especially when you travel and go to cities around the world with great transit and you know it is possible!
This video completely ignored the rotting corpse in the room that is stopping more enthusiasm for transit, which is the demographics of cities versus the suburbs and how money is allocated along with political influence among them. The lack of diversity in American cities is a major problem that is strangling their budgets, while the political influence of suburban and countryside areas is magnified to a point that also strangles the chances of spending on transit.
I can speak a little bit to the issues with the Honolulu HART train. The idea was good, don't get me wrong, but it's been plagued with issues from the planning stages forward. Part of the reason the costs are so much is both because of mismanagement and also just that the project is taking so long and prices for stuff continue to go up ad finitum. The original plan was to build it in two phases. Phase one would go from Kapolei in West Oahu to the international airport and then phase two would go from the international airport to Ala Moana mall, which is a massive outdoor shopping mall right on the beach just east of Downtown. The whole project is supposed to be elevated metro. I personally think that's okay, but a bit misguided. I think it's added to the construction time because they've basically built most of it in the median of a highway, but because everything on Oahu is so built up, these highways are running through towns and the construction disrupts everyday life. Possibly having phase one be elevated made sense and maybe it saved money, I don't know. I moved there after construction began. That being said, the rest of the line will run through Honolulu proper and would both make more sense as a subway, but also be less disruptive to people living and commuting along the roads it will go over. As of right now they opened the train behind schedule and only part of phase one is completed. They have started putting in some columns past the airport, but the train stops a few stations before the airport, so it still doesn't go all the way to the airport. The daily ridership numbers right now are abysmal, but honestly because of how little coverage it has right now, expected and understandable. Only a couple thousand people take it daily, I think they said less than 3000 people. It really mostly serves the leeward community college, UH west, and a West Oahu hospital, so most of the riders right now are elderly people and students, but if they can at least get it to the airport, then maybe some commuters who work around there and tourists who are staying in hotels in Kapolei could benefit from it. To really be successful, this train needs to go past Ala Moana and go to Waikiki (the main tourist spot with all the hotels) and at least end at UH Manoa, the main campus for UH. Beyond that if they could get it to Kahala Mall and possibly on to Hawaii Kai or at least Kapiolani Community College, that would be a plus. Hawaii Kai would basically make it a true West to East Oahu full rail system.
I feel like my city, Cincinnati, is actually sort of open to more public transit and urbanism but we just don’t have any money and funding. We’re super broke to do anything.
Do what Los Angeles did and pass an increase in sales taxes which is much more fair than increasing property taxes. With sales taxes everyone is helping to fund new transit including visitors and tourists who will also benefit from better transit going forward.
Blame the Cincinnatians of the early 1920s who decided to abandon their system halfway constructed. All that's left is an unfinished subway underneath your divided avenue downtown.
Another major issue is how small municipalities can easily slow down or stop a transit project; sure the majority of us want transit, but there are pockets of conservatives dotted throughout a metro area, and that can really slow things down. Imagine: a large metro area is building a new transit line, but that line happens to go through many small cities. Each city can slow down a project to the point where it can be delayed for ages.
Hey could you make a video about transit in cracow Poland? There is plan on constructing Underground tram network, metropolitan trains are evolving and many buses are riding right now. In comparasion its all a big mess. But very intresting.
I was just in Seattle of man, torture for transit. The want and need it but the gov, public and planning is completely off the rails. Such a shame. Also Portland, while better than Seattle, it's stalled completely
Paris is not a tramway city at all ! Old network was 100% removed, the current "network" is really more single independent lines (with each a different standard train length and width) to complement metro and train lines or upgrade from a bus line where it makes sense.
It is hard to summarize what America needs because the cities are so different. I'll try anyway: Improve things in order: 1) Focus on operations first. Make sure the trains and buses run frequently and without major delays. Even in New York (which could justify spending hundreds of billions on new subway lines) getting to a "Six Minute City" would be far more important than any extension. 2) Focus on quality, not quantity. That doesn't mean fancy stations, but stations in the right place. Build where it makes sense to build. If you aren't running buses every ten minutes along a corridor, you probably don't need to build a subway there. 3) Rail won't solve all of your problems. In most cities, more people will ride the buses than ride the trains. Make sure the trains and buses work together well. 4) If you have existing rail you can leverage, do so. If not, look to buses as a way to serve suburbs and connect cities. 5) Look to models around the world that match your city. Chances are, they won't be in Europe (simply because most U. S. cities don't have the density). Most American cities should look to Vancouver. In many cases, American cities should smaller, simply because they lack the density of Vancouver (even if they have people in the region). It is better to start small than overbuild (see 2).
So many cities in the US became private transit centered; spend more money on roads and infrastructure for cars than maintaining streetcars and bus metwork. Most of this stemmed from the push of the big three auto makers and politicians pushing for jobs. Jobs inaking steel, automobiles, building roadways, homes, schools, shopping centers and suburbs. Very little went back into redeveloping and revitalizing the inner city core. By the 1970's you drove from the suburbs, into the city, parked your car in a garage and worked all day in one of the pre WW II buildings or one of the early fifties ones. Then business and industry decided to move to the suburbs so the workers no longer had to commute as far and land was cheaper for developing and local governments were willing to give everything from tax breaks to development funding. Now many of those towns are looking at empty buildings, dwindling revenues and urban problems in the suburbs. The only way out of this is through regional planning and cooperative development. If you have the housing stock, but lack jobs you have to look at what skills your workers have. It does not do any good to attract an employer if there is a shortage of workers skilled for those jobs wothout plans for educating or training them. Then you have to understand that the larger the metropolitan area the greater.the transportation issues without cooperative planning and development. Commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, busses and highways are all critical but the jobs have to be there. If there isn't jobs the infrastructure doesn't matter.
Anecdotally speaking it seems like the united states suffers a lot from a lack of technical know how and capacity for building tunnels. In my home city of baltimore there's a proposed light rail line that may involve a tunnel but the tunnel itself adds on several billion dollars and extra years to the project, despite being critically necessary for a dense downtown area where street level running just wouldn't be possible.
That's false. Many American cities have been tunneling successfully for decades. Los Angeles has done a lot of tunneling in expanding their Metro system since 1990s.
@@mrxman581It is, however, extremely expensive and slow here. Seattle spent over $3 billion to dig two miles of tunnel for the SR99 project, and it took six years to complete (originally estimate was 14 months.)
@@DwynNWynns I think a lot of people lose track of the fact that older systems, like New York's, were built when there were no worker protections, life was cheap, and it was acceptable for a big project to have a death toll.
Geologist here (and admittedly without any experience in construction/civil engineering). I've always thought that the main reason why LA and San Francisco never developed an extensive subway network is seismic hazard. In other words, it's hard to ensure that all those tunnels won't collapse in case of a big earthquake. In fact, I always thought that Vancouver (our city) chose the Skytrain over an actual subway for the same reason. Am I wrong on that?
no expert here but as an LA transit enthusiast I've actually always heard, from reliable sources, that a subway tunnel is actually by far the safest place during an earthquake
BART is often used as an example of a usable public transit system, but it's a truly awful system. It's slow, it's noisy, and its dirty. Security is a mixed bag too with some people afraid to ride through certain cities. Just saying, building is one thing, maintaining is another.
Any journey that is less than 3 hour flight away is an ideal candidate to replace with high speed rail. Brightline west is a really good idea, when people are stuck in traffic as the train flies past as they get into LA
As long as it is people choice as to which method they used. But as always when liberal thing their idea as so good that they wanted to ban and mandate what to force people to do what they want. Look at european banning short hop flights.
@@phillipbanes5484 If I'm going to want a car when I get to that location two and a half hours away I might as well drive the car I already have and spend money on instead of hassling with securing transportation to there and paying for it, securing transportation while there and paying for it, and securing transportation from there back to home and paying for it; plus, having my car also answers the question of where to secure things I acquire while there.
The problem was never that Americans don't want public transit. It's that Americans are saying "Heck yeah! I want public transit to be better! It'll make traveling around so much easier!... Just don't put the rails too close to where I live because I don't want my property value to potentially maybe not really change because of little bit of train noise." Americans are all hypocrites. We want things, but we won't ever allow good ideas to happen if there's even the tiniest chance it could slightly inconvenience us as individuals.
@@phillipbanes5484 Agreed! America is also built better for driving and flying. Thats why even though the U.S. has bad public transit compared to Europe and Asia, America had the most impressive highway system and aviation system.
I disagree to an extant. Your quotes are typically coming from two different types of people. Anyone whos saying "we don't want rails to to my house" are not the same people who say " I want public transit" and anyone who doesn't want rails near them most likely never wanted public transit to begin with. The only people who might be hypocrites are the ones in the big cities who complained about the construction noise but deliberately choose to live in the city and voted for public transit.
Why is Chicago never mentioned? Is it the Toronto / Chicago mini-rivalry or is the latter just that much father behind than Seattle, Austin, LA, Philly, Toronto, Denver, etc.?
@@RMTransit Fair enough. We are building a $3B extension through the least dense area of the city instead of the circle line everyone begs for. Would love to know why Chicago is giving away its lead to its 'competition' on the continent.
I really like the part about transit professionals working with international organizations. Good public transit should be viewed as a pillar of modern societies, so everyone should learn about the latest innovations. It is the norm for so many other professions.
indeed it would be a good thing for North America. but i think there are 2 (main) problems that prevents it. - like in a previous RMTransit was mentioned: federal money isn't allowed to be used to buy non-US made busses. so instead of being able to buy the best fit vehicle for the best price, US cities have to buy an American made vehicle. and the makers don't have any incentive to build better vehicles because they don't have to compete for the market. - the America is the greatest mindset/indoctrination, to many US-Americans still think their way is the best way. and because they are so set in their thinking of being be best, they don't see a point in looking at the rest of the world. because if you're the best at everything, those other places won't have anything that would interest you.
@@ChristiaanHWActually what he said about buying American is not correct. There are exceptions, and it's on a case by case basis. Many people and companies have been hired from abroad to to work on public transit projects in the USA.
Land Value Tax would help if not outright fix many of the problems mentioned in this video. Henry George was right and _Progress and Poverty_ is gospel
As an immigrant from Hong Kong, the reluctance and roadblocks of building more rail systems in America has always been baffling to me. When I was a kid in the 90s in HK, we already had electronic tap payment (Octopus card) and a really robust light rail and subway system to the point where taxis and car ownership are unnecessary luxuries. The short bits of walking between the stations and destinations kept people physically healthy as well. In 2024, I have not seen anything in the US that can hold a candle to what I experienced in the mid-90s in HK. I love the car culture and driving, and my favorite domestic vacations generally consist of road trips. That said, being stuck in traffic and getting frustrated on the daily commute isn't it. Folks in the US tend to focus on short term monetary gains/savings, but almost never consider the irrefutable fact that better transit can provide a huge boost to the economy, so much that the initial investment is negligible in the long run. The only reason why we have so much roads instead was largely due to the lobbying and propaganda by car manufacturers and oil companies in the post WWII era, and cities are going bankrupt just trying to repair and maintain those roads. The infrastructure is so terrible that the next best thing we have to a high speed rail network are Teslas on autopilot. Create the problem, sell the solution. Classic American innovation.
your point about trams is so true but a bit heartbreaking. I love trams and their aesthetic but they are by no means the most efficient way to move as many people around as fast possible, which is the main purpose transit should serve. it's an unfortunate truth
"What and where to build" is a huge part of it. Few things have unified locals in the area of Milwaukee, Wisconsin like their hatred of The Hop, the very limited, very dumb old-fashioned on-rails streetcar the city built serving a tiny chunk of its downtown and not even planning to eventually get to venues like American Family Insurance Field or the Fiserv Forum, much less to or from any of the suburbs or less expensive neighborhoods. I guess if you want to go from the Third Ward to... a pretty empty stretch of Ogden Ave., you're in luck. If you want to actually get anywhere you might want to go, or if you want to get home from one of those places, and "home" isn't an expensive downtown high rise, you're out of luck. Meanwhile, the MCTS buses are just as useless as ever despite all the transit funding that went into the Hop. Seriously, never met anyone in this metro area who doesn't just laugh or cry when reminded of The Hop.
A few points that I think the video missed: Some people actively don't want public transit, or even connected bike lanes or multiuse pathways, for security or mixing reasons. As in, it's not the money, but rather that they don't want it to happen at all. And, I think they find ways to scuttle, without necessarily admitting that's what they're doing. Recall the video of the city council member for whom stopping a pathway 200m before it connected with other stuff, was the cross she was going to die on. Notice how many pathways stop a few hundred meters short of connecting, and there's usually a "reason", but given how much that scuppers the utility of the pathway, never a good, actual reason, other than scuppering. Or how transit lines like Boston's Blue line stop just before they'd connect with another line. Or how even an enormous transportation project like the Big Dig somehow didn't connect, or better unify, North and South stations, even though it literally ran from one to the other. And how many transit stops connect easily to pathways, for easy pleasant last mile, rather than dumping out on a roaring thoroughfare that's hard to cross and unpleasant. Having transit not connect, or not have coverage, is an active goal that some put their shoulders into. Another is high speed rail. Until there's good, ubiquitous, frequent transit in cities, HSR has little point except as a park and ride car-plus project, while absorbing eye watering amounts that would provide proper comprehensive rapid transit for an entire ten million person metropolis. It does little for climate change until there's good transit enabling door to door, and it does little for people's ability to get from A to B via transit, until there's transit that enables door to door. HSR is expensive tokenism, until the rest is in good shape, and probably holds it back. America, at least, should go all in on urban transit, including pathways and bike paths separated safely for getting to and from transit without getting run over. And then HSR, when there's something to connect to. (Though for many city pairs, aviation with sustainable aviation fuel, which already exists and only needs to drop in price by half to match kerosene (jet fuel), will still be the practical option.). As a bonus, by then, for the cost, one could probably get maglev, which the Japanese have been steadily progressing, making it viable to connect a much larger set of cities. (Maglev has of course been in service in Shanghai for two decades, so it's really a matter of refinement rather than achieving anything wholly new.). But even if there's never maglev, urban transit first, then HSR, is the right way. Let Brightline do what they want in the meantime.
If there were two cities without good transit but with a flight connection, HSR would divert passengers from the flight regardless of the lack of transit. That's true of Houston and Dallas. Flying is the worst possible transport in terms of emissions, so even without a local network those HSR lines would make a giant climate impact. With regards to aviation fuel, keep in mind that we haven't even created sustainable *car* fuel yet, and jet fuel is another level more refined than regular gasoline. Clean jet fuel isn't viable any time soon, but airlines hype it up because they know if that truth was generally understood their entire industry would have no right to exist. The sustainable jet fuel talking point is just propaganda
The maglev train in China is a tiny route to an airport. It doesn't go any faster than many regular HSR trains. Maglev technology hasn't been well tested for the long distance required of HSR. The HSR train being built in California will be faster than the Maglev in China.
@@azd685 Stop using Emissions as a get out of jail card. Yelling "emission" to imposed your fantasies is not helping the argument. Aviation fuel and car fuel are the most efficient deliveries of stored energies into mechanical energies yet. It is not your or the government to decided which mode of transportation of the worst possible way to get anywhere. The people decided that. You liberal are so fund of voting excepting when it really count in the choice people make in their daily live. Stop using fearmongering of "Climate change" to impost your dictatorial Utopia.
Denver’s rail is so frustrating. They have these lovely new trains and great stops but they go no where. If you look at a map the rail lines go around the border of Denver are there is basically no service within the city (where most people live). This puts Denver in a situation where those who live in more densely populated areas in the city need to drive places and people who live in the sprawling suburbs have state of the art stations and trains. It makes no sense.
I am not sure how metros would work with America's low density cities. Metros are typically seen as being for high density cities rather than places where population density is around 3,000 to 5,000 people per square mile. Durham, NC has a population density of around 2,500 per square mile.
Agreed. His implication of only building subways, especially in the USA, is ridiculous especially when there is very little federal funding support at the local level. In Los Angeles, they've been very good at balancing need vs funding availability. In a perfect world, building only subway lines would be best, but the world isn't perfect as we all know including the guy who made this video. Los Angeles has built a Metro system that relies mostly on partially grade separated (underground, aerial, and at grade) light rail lines with a dedicated ROW. The tracks don't share the same section of the road with cars as you have with trams/streetcars. LA has 4 light rail lines and 2 subway lines. There are three main reasons LA has relied more on building light rail lines. 1. Los Angeles is very spread out. It covers about 4800 square miles. LA Metro is responsible for public transit of both the city of LA and County. 2. Cost. Building subways is much more expensive. Had LA only built subways, the system would be half the size it is today serving many less areas of the County. 3. Weather. Because LA has more of a Mediterranean climate, building outdoor light rail lines makes sense since the weather is mild and it's less expensive to build.
0:08 that’s actually the skyline of Raleigh, not Durham. I expect compensation for this error via video about transit in the Raleigh-Durham area, perhaps about the cancelled Chapel Hill-Durham tram line.
IndyGo has been proposing the Green Line to be some sort of Commuter type rail for years now, but they’ve constantly been held back. The Green line is supposed to run between Noblesville and Indianapolis.
Hasn't the Indiana state legislature dictated that IndyGo shall not build any rail transit whatsoever? Oh, and you guys once had the best interurban and trolley network in the US. What happened? *My partner's from Indiana and has bought a two volume set on the history of Indiana, that's how I found out.
Transit in Philadelphia- and the rest of Pennsylvania- could be so much better if it was better funded. I have read several transit studies for transit agencies in PA that basically say "we would love to expand, but we can't afford it." Very frustrating, because PA has so many walkable towns and cities that lend themselves better to transit than driving.
I disagree that there are problems of equal importance affecting transit building in America. The #1 problem is cost. And it's far and away the one that most needs to be dealt with.
I'm not sure expecting or demanding those who are in charge of public transit actually use the systems they are in charge of is entirely credentialism. If these people have no vested interest in the success of the system because they can afford to use something else, and if not using it means they approve plans that are impractical or just look nice on paper, then the transit system will suffer. Where I live the minister of transportation has a government car and driver, and the people in charge of mass transit also drive, and there are bugs in the system that if they had to deal with regularly would have been changed years ago. Instead, there's no one to talk to and complain about it. Many of these issues are ones that can be solved relatively easily and cheaply, this isn't some major overhaul they need to do.
I believe the most significant challenge facing public transportation development in North America, especially the United States, is likely the population density, which subsequently leads to cost issues. As a Chinese individual, I've observed that in recent years, due to economic downturns, the widespread construction of urban rail transit in Chinese cities has come to an end. Governments now prioritize the operational costs and benefits of a single rail line in a city. Obtaining approval for new lines has become quite challenging. However, when comparing, the population density in Chinese cities is already considerably higher than that in North American cities. Many new residents in Chinese cities reside in high-rise apartments, often 30 floors or higher, forming communities that generate a substantial passenger flow for public transportation. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the suburban living pattern in North America is problematic. After all, this type of single-family dwelling environment is much preferable compared to high-rise apartments in China. However, the extremely low population density in North America brings its own set of challenges. Even if buses operate in these low-density communities, there is a high probability of them running at a loss. To attract individuals who used to commute by car to switch to public transportation, there must be sufficient appeal. This means that ticket prices cannot be too high, and service frequencies must be maintained at a reasonable density-I believe anything beyond 15 minutes is inconvenient. If you've played Cities: Skylines, you'll notice that running public transportation in low-density communities results in a significant number of vehicles running empty if the service frequency is high. On the other hand, if the frequency is too low, it won't attract passengers. The high operating costs associated with high service frequency lead to increased ticket prices, but high ticket prices can discourage potential passengers. This creates a situation where the government has to provide substantial subsidies. However, in these low-density communities, no matter how much you try to cultivate ridership, there's a limit. In the long run, government subsidies may not be a good choice, ultimately leading to slow progress in public transportation development in North American cities, as the car remains the most convenient mode of transportation due to this living pattern. PS：This message is translated by Chat-GPT, because my English is really suck :(
Translation is okay, makes sense to me who only reads and speaks English any more, having lost other language skill through non-use of it. Talking about low density population and the not using of public transit, I live in a farming town of population around 6,000 which is about 30 miles from the nearest city. Even if there was public transportation to that city I would still use my car because I'm going to go shopping at five different places spread around the city and need somewhere to store the things I bought while I travel between shopping locations. That can't be done on a bus or tram.
My city's tram tracks are still in place in some places, as they were simply paved over, but buses replaced all of them AND in most cases the streets aren't even made for cars, much less buses or other transit. 😂 Imagine a Rust Belt city that's made up of several villages & towns that decided to incorporate together and so there's no uniform street plan and patchwork repairs of 1800's infrastructure that modern city planners don't know how to modernize and if it just needs to be removed. 😩 It's called Buffalo, NY and it's a mess but I love it anyway.
A big issue I don't see being talked about is that US cities are already built for cars, meaning extremely spread out and sprawling. Building transit for that is a lot harder than building transit for cities that are already fairly dense to begin with.
Exactly. And this guy knows this, but pointing out those obvious real-world issues don't support his narrative. Same goes with how systems are funded in the USA. He just ignores those realities which is why I've concluded much of his observations and solutions are irrelevant in the end. For example, in Los Angeles many of the ROWs that were used by the yellow and red car trollies were used to build many of the freeways in the city and county. Having a more researched discussion of removing freeways in cities like LA and how that could improve public transit options, would be much more useful and interesting.
@@mrxman581if you think Reece’s videos are so “irrevelant”, why even bother watching? Better yet, why even bother taking the time to comment and talk trash? Here’s a solution: hit the “unsubscribe” button.
BTW, the best example in the world for expanding usable transit quickly is Moscow, Russia. It's shocking how much they have expanded their metro, suburban trains, and buses in just 15 years including converting trolley buses to battery electric busses, all many times faster than any US city.
Have any one figure out the cost of running the Moscow much laud system. Lucky for US citizens most public projects are not vanity project of a dictator.
@@DwynNWynns A common response when you can't see the whole picture. Labor is cheap in Russia and, yes, things happen a lot faster when there's no opposition. But still, an all-new 70 kilometer underground loop around the city with 31 new stations all within about 10 or 12 years is amazing by any standards. This can't be matched in the West. And, btw, 2/3 of the worlds countries are authoritarian,; you can't hate everyone and expect peace in the world.
@@jre617 Imagine that, thing goes much faster when you don't have to consult thousand of stackholders from citizens, unions, local businesses to federal/states/cities/local districts/judges because any opposition to the power that be is not good for you health. FYI - I am not hating on anyone, I also don't care to have authoritarian system that is not mine. PS The US through private industries connected of a sizable continent, through mountains, and high deserts in less then a decades, and go on to built track covering the entire country (part of it twice after the unfortunate affair in 1864) more then a 100 years ago
@@DwynNWynns Well, I'm not sure what your point is. No one wants authoritarianism. My point is there is so much disagreement in the US now, nothing gets done, and if it does, its way too expensive and then not always maintained properly. Busses are cheapest. Just do busses.
@@jre617 My point is you all say you don't want authoritarianism but you advocated method and result that only authoritarism can produce. Your people literally foam at the month for CCP China and Singapore.
With all due respect Reese, I don't think the argument about China's rapid building of transit infrastructure in comparison to the slow trickle in the US holds weight. This is especially true when the reason the PRC's building so quickly is because it is coming at the expense of safety. The term "tofu dregs" exists among online circles in China for a reason and it is to describe some of the country's big infrastructure projects, especially in regards to transit, because of the shoddy materials being used and lax requirements that exist to rush these projects through. A lot of the time, these massive thrown up metros are being built as a prestige project rather than a functional piece of infrastructure that will last for decades and the biggest issue with regards to that is drainage. The lack of proper drainage in most Chinese metros is frightening and the most horrific case of it was during 2021 Henan floods in the city of Zhengzhou, where passengers were trapped inside the metro and hundreds drowned due to the PRC failing to require adequate drainage systems for the city's metro and the city at large. I agree with a lot of the other points and the overall message in your video, but I just want to caution using China as a model North America should look to when building our metros.
A key issue with US transit is the problem of building low capacity transit. I like light rail, but it cant “fix traffic” in LA or Dallas as its capacity is too low. Another isssue is the unwillingness of multiple agencies to collaborate or try new solutions/operating patterns. (Cough cough NJT, LIRR)
It depends on execution. Not all light rail lines are equal. In Los Angeles, it's the only choice for many routes mostly having to do with available funding, something Reece continually ignores when arguing for his "solutions." In LA it's not about replacing the use of a car completely or even a majority of the time. But if people used their cars 40% less, that would be a huge change in quality of life. The light rail lines in Los Angeles are all partially grade separated. Some of them significantly so. In fact, the C line is completely grade separated. Top speed on them is 55 mph. There are different ways to increase capacity on a line. LA Metro just increased the frequency of the trains across both subway and light rail lines. They are also plans to incorporate signal prioritization on the light rail lines to increase the overall average speed on the lines. However, there are plans to build more subways too.
@@mrxman581 I think that LA has its good and its bad. The Purple line and Sepulveda line (if it’s heavy rail) are good projects. But some lines like the Crenshaw line and A line extension are questionable. I think that there needs to be more of a commuter rail focus in some areas. If the San Bernardino line was better than an A line extension would be unnecessary. And while going to the airport is good, nobody will transfer 3 times with their bags.
A reminder that all videos in 2024 now have English-language captions available!
In usa the government stopped building things like 40 years cause free market and instead opt for the contract contractors who contraft contractors model
Please can you make a video about prague metro please👉👈
That’s great
Can you make a video on dhaka metro rail? Now that the mrt line 6 has been fully opened and it provides service from 7:10 am to 8:40 pm with its expansion on going to the Kamlapur Railway Station, the capital's main railway station.
Why does everyone here ignore me?
Summary of the video (hopefully this is pretty accurate):
1. Build more metros and electric regional rail.
2. Build more cost-effectively.
3. Build in city cores, then expand out. In general, LOCATION is IMPORTANT.
4. Effective transit planners, ideally those who use transit and are engineers
5. Treating transit like an essential service similar to roads, water, and sewers.
6. Increasing education on transit in universities and schools, especially regarding transit in places outside of North America.
Yes!
So, if I understood the video correctly and read this correctly, we need most, if not all, of these things to happen to reverse the collapse of transit in America. Given that whole continents move faster than American politics, we can expect a transit renaissance in America in…what…200 years? Or is that too optimistic?
You also have to tackle corruption, corporate, government and labor. I keep getting the feeling that it is a major contributor to cost overruns, How does a professional be so wrong on their cost estimates? I don't think planners are that inept.
I truly believe that those heading transit agencies should use transit. I was in Austin when ProjectConnect was proposed, and Randy Clarke *used* the red line and busses.
Now in DC, I love that Randy is a user of the DC Metro. Now if only we could get a dedicated funding stream...
It would be amazing if the state established a permanent fund for transit projects or if transit districts could levy property taxes. But that's probably not going to happen In Texas. Many of the Dems manage to get hold of a couple branches.
Yes, even in Greater NYC should do this to get invested in instead of driving/or riding in cars from their opulent suburban McMansions.
@@jetfan925 Maybe they could offer federal dollars to states that come up with their own dollars for jointly funded projects, and just like with the highway systems, they could insist on certain minimum standards for projects funded that way. Sounds like an American-style solution to that problem.
I like the idea of Federal and State funding guaranteed with some local backup. It may help solve the accountability problem, although the road lobby may still complain, unfair, unfair.
@@Patmorgan235Us Texas is in an odd place - public transit is really only pushed by Dems and expansions of Dallas and Houston is difficult since like 80% of land is privately owned. And I don't think eminant domain can be used for public transit. I believe Austin's issue is price increases post pandemic. The political will is not there at the state level
One thing I notice so many transit projects end up failing at is planning a whole system from the get go. It's a lot easier to get buy in for one line when people can see what the whole system is supposed to look like and how that line fits in the whole system.
Another advantage of cities doing this from the get go is that, on the rare occasion that Congress decides to spend our money on us, the city has already gone through the community input and planning process and can start further along and end up qualifying for more money
It still boggles my mind that Seattle spent so much money building a train system that is 95% grade separated and then...has to run trams on it because of the 5% that isn't. Like, come on, just make the whole thing grade separated and turn it into a proper metro...
You can thank nimbys for that lol
Meant that an existing tunnel could be used instead of having to build a brand new one for the same effect. Besides, Seattle isn’t running trams on its system, using vehicles that, even without major changes and frequency upgrades, can carry 9,600 pphpd (expandable to as much as 24,000 with current technology constraints, 4 car trains at 2 minute headways) traveling at 55 mph
@@metrofilmer8894 i think the low floor issue is massively overblown as well. the big kicker is the rv segment that absolutely bodies frequency
The sections of this video around consistency and predictability of transit feel especially relevant to Seattle right now as well, as we enter yet another period of multiple weeks of drastically reduced service. Anecdotal, but I've already seen plenty of people talk about transitioning to other means of commuting due to the state of Link right now - I really hope they come back to Link once it's done, but I think there's no guarantee that'll be the case
Is it a tram or light rail? They are not the same thing especially in the USA. In the USA, a tram is equivalent to a streetcar which usually run much slower than light rail trains.
COVID was a big setback for transit in many US cities. Ridership is way down where remote work has become dominant. Downtowns have traditionally been emphasized, but now neighborhood-to-neighborhood transit is relatively more important. Public transit faces huge challenges.
Yeah who knew that sharing public space in close proximity with a bunch of other people was a super bad idea during a pandemic, who knew?
And even after the pandemic...the fact that public spaces have become far less safe is not doing any help.
Light Rail here in the NC Triangle area (Durham, Chapel Hill, and Raleigh) was basically singlehandedly scuttled by Duke University; everything else was a go. I should be able to find at least one article about this.
The fact a university would be the ones to stop it is shameful.
the project was not good for a group of people who didn't want light rail system.
@@josemelo1699 Indeed. I'm still trying to figure out who that might be. Car dealers, car supply stores, local fossil fuel magnates? Construction contractors who only know how to build car-road stuff and not railroad stuff? People who are afraid of change?
@@woozaliait was really weird, they said they wanted the station in a specific spot. Then complained about it being there and said it would interfere with medical equipment. There were solutions proposed, but they decided they didn’t want to negotiate anymore. It was really sad.
@@thomaswill37Yeah, it was pretty clear they were using any excuse to kill it. Someone suggested that they only waited so long because they thought for sure something/someone else would kill it first. I'd really, really like to know who decided it needed killing. >.
In Britain it's noticeable how all public transport projects outside London involve plenty of Park & Rides.
Id still prefer suburbanites use park and rides rather than driving into the city center. Wish that wasnt how it had to be though
Park and Rides are fine - as a niche thing, projects which rely on them are . . . concerning
Also Park & Rides FREE UP road traffic for truck delivery and then busses can move ! tjl
Three points in this excellent video are valid world wide. At 2m 50s 'to save the planet we need better public transport'. At 5m 40s the emphasis on electrified regional rail. At 12m 45s the need for public transport to run 365-days-a-year. On the point of electrified regional rail we must watch PROVINCIAL France . The success of the new RER-style system around Geneva (running to towns situated in France) has set politicians thinking. On 19 December the French Parliament approved a new plan for 'Service Express Regional Metropolitain'. ('SERM'} There are already FIFTEEN projects for SERMS under consideration! (Edit = I must stress that the SERMS scheme is for provincial cities, NOT for Paris.)
Perhaps the most important metropolitan transit project in France is the circular Grand Paris Express. Mind you, they had to do it because it was just too inconvenient to travel from one _arrondissement_ to another without going through the center of Paris with all its city center congestion.
Currently, the Swiss Federal Railways does travel into France as far as Bellegarde, but can't go any further due to the fact Bellegarde is the west end of the 25,000 V 60 Hz AC overhead power commonly used by Swiss Federal Railways. SNCF will need to install a lot more 25 kV AC overhead power near Geneva if they want more RER style service into France from that city.
@@Sacto1654 To clarify, the highly successful Leman Express system around Geneva is jointly operated by SNCF and Swiss Federal Railways using dual-voltage units capable of running off both 15,000 and 25,000 AC. Lines west of Bellegarde are still electrified at 1,500 DC. Bellegarde to Geneva was converterd from 1,500 DC to 25,000 AC a fewe years ago.
For future reference, you can use timestamps like 2:50, 5:30, and 12:45 to give easy links to points in the video.
I'd say 'finally' ! We (France) are late regarding regional rail services, when compared with our neighbours (Switzerland... but they have unlimited money cheat code, or Germany with their S-Bahn systems are good examples). I have had courses about the one in Lyon... it's not about to happen in a forseeable future. The region and Lyon Metropolis can't reach an agreement on pricing and, to make it simple, the region simply doesn't want to invest 1 cent into rail infrastructure and not much into rail service.
Public transit doesn't really impact the planet the way you suggest, but that's not the point (despite suggestions otherwise, please don't be so naive). So let's move past that.
It's efficiency and that's where the "maybe we build it maybe we won't" comes into play. We need good solid plans, not patchwork systems which are indeed inefficient.
I think electric regional rail and subways are indeed the most important parts that need to be built. They both excel in different areas and they work together really well. Subways excel at providing very high capacity in the most dense areas and serve as a very good solution for the first/last mile problem, at least for a lot of people. Electric regional rail in the meanwhile excels at moving high numbers of people mid to long distance between population centers. Connect them up with decent bike infrastructure and a decent bus network in suitable areas, and you have a very decent backbone to build a great transit network on.
Also, yes, keep it running. In order to get people using transit, they need to be able to rely on transit.
The nice thing about high quality regional rail is it can also help improve the urban approaches for long distance / intercity rail services.
@@RMTransit Before even looking at regional/intercity rail, what the US really needs is electric suburban rail like Australian cities I think, so that suburbs within a metro area can be better connected to their core cities & downtowns. I really liked your video on 'The Australian Solution' and think that would be really beneficial in North America which shares a lot of the same characteristics and sprawl.
If streetcars didn’t get axed in the mid-century they would just transition into rapid transit system on certain corridors and circumstances. As an example in Toronto’s Bloor and Yonge streetcars being the 2 main subways and a part of the Queen Street subway in the Ontario Line Plan. If it was private companies, would just end up the Japanese model if they owned land around stations or stops.
It’d be interesting if we see any resurgence of streetcar suburbs, though more so like Light Metro TOD with Montreal, Honolulu and Vancouver.
In Mexico City the first three Metro lines were built along the old tramway routes, specifically the most used ones, and to this date they have the highest ridership of the system
It being private also won't solve everything, if the culture there doesn't have good transit mindset. It'll be more likely to kill the tra sit project itself...
I know there are successful private transportation services however if it was always the best option then all roads should be privatized. We need to stop looking at transit as something that needs to generate profit. Just like a road or highway it contributes to the economy, it is not a profit centre itself
@@bradlevantis913 Completely agree transit needs to be looked at as a general good because the entire economy runs on our different transport systems all we're doing as time goes on is updating that system and making it more efficient so the economy can run faster what is so wrong with that?
Los Angeles has the largest light rail system in the USA and it continues to grow.
Management being hired internally isn't inherentely a bad thing. In fact, the MTA has been pretty sucked dry by outside consultants who work on projects and leave, as opposed being kept internally as institutional knowledge. America is very insular, so management, along with basically every class of worker below them, are only comfortable with American practices.
I think by externally he means hiring people from abroad and not just from the US rather then relying on consultants [At least in past videos he has recommended against hiring consultants and instead relying on internal people].
I should have worded this better because *internal* hires are absolutely good.
Exactly! The USA exists in its own little bubble, isolated from the rest of the world. We need to end isolationism.
These comments you provide here are so good Reece. Here in Denmark we have been having some issues lately. Specifically we had an assessment coming in on a proposed new rail line connecting the city of Aarhus with the nearby Silkeborg via a fast new railway parallel to the highway built there a decade ago. However when the assessment report came back the price tag was twice that of the previous report and of what the government had set aside in funding. Thankfully the government is now launching studies into how the cost in this new report is so much higher than before, and while this doesnt mean the project is safe from cancelation (especially given how obsessed Danish politicians are with upfront costs), it is at least reassuring that they havent ruled it out yet but simply want to figure out how in the world the price tag got so high and if it can be reduced.
It seems Denmark has many of the same cost issues as the Anglosphere, and thats despite the expertise in megaprojects!
@@RMTransit well Denmark does have one glaring similarity with the anglosphere and that's car dependency. In the greater Copenhagen region only 11% of trips on motorized vehicles is handled by transit! This is compared to Skåne across the water in Sweden which despite being much more rural has a staggering 33% of all trips in motorized vehicles done on public transit.
Plus most of Denmarks megaproject expertise is on highways and road bridges. In the very same region as the overbudget rail line there was a highway being built from Herning to Holstebro. It was slated to cost 3.5 billion kroner, about the same as 8km of light rail, but it was done a whole billion kroner under budget. Whereas the rail line in question went from a price tag around 2.6 billion kroner to 5.8 billion
So.... it PAYS to lie to everyone and lowball cost projections to get your foot in the door?
The cost blow outs and delays never stop freeway interchanges from getting completed... its not really about the those things its just that when it comes to cars we always find a way to deliver because the American dream is sitting in car traffic.
So true. Insane.
Thanks for mentioning PATCO as a modern successful metro. I would note that it was originally proposed to be a bigger system but the proposed branches were never developed. The original line did have the benefit of having the right of ways and the subway portion already was in existence so it was relatively easy to get built.
As an American I support giving our transit system to the Swiss or Japanese.
Don't forget ATL has heavy rail/public transit too, and evensome interesting expansions ongoing snd planned!
You're expanding your heavy rail? I thought it was only the streetcar you guys are thinking of expanding into a circumferential tram line!
San Diego's transit planning/construction agency is proposing an elevated automated metro with 2 minute frequencies connecting Downtown with the airport. But Downtown NIMBYs and San Diego's transit operating agency are joined in an unholy alliance against the automated metro ("automated metro viaducts will ruin bayside views!") and pushing instead for a light rail branch to the airport with 15 minute frequencies. Unfortunately even many transit advocates support the light rail branch because "light rail is cooler than automated rubber-tyred metro."
Los Angeles will open an automated people mover that will connect the airport to LA Metro stations. The APM will run every 2 minutes and carry 200 passengers per train 24/7.
I bet they're thinking it's going to be a people mover which doesn't have the capability to move large numbers of people unless it's a skytrain. If it's a real metro or a real light metro like in Montreal, Paris, and Lille, it could be the first line in an areawide metro system. But if the agency is just planning a people mover, then yeah light rail will be better.
@@edwardmiessner6502 Lille's VAL is a people mover. San Diego's people mover will run every 2 minutes and cost $1.54B for 2.5 miles--which would get them a VAL-style system, not a cable-pulled APM.
I think, that "nice to have" is the core to many of these issues. It not only causes a very unstable funding, but also makes it far to easy to destroy political support. And it also leads to building it like with a checklist instead of optimizing it to get as many users as possible.
The problem with trams is that they are slow EVERYWHERE. Many French cities have a tram or two, which look very nice and might even have underground stations, however it is almost always faster to walk! This is no joke, you can sometimes walk next to a tram and overtake it. This is because they tend to be in pedestrian malls so need to travel really slowly for safety. Later if they go underground it becomes a much better service, but a subway or other train would be a better solution at that point.
Good point about multiple stars needing to align before transit gets built. It’s really one of the most complicated things people do. Thanks !!
I liked this video as you cover all the various topics that plague North American transit systems today. I agree that looking towards the UITP and non-American transit agencies will help but, at least in the USA, there are many codes/requirements such as Buy America that cause an extra hurdle for implementing some of those technologies that are found in many places in the world besides North America. It will take the creativity/pro-activeness of everyone (advocates, riders, planners, engineers, transit agency management, bus drivers, mechanics,etc) to step forward and take note of these issues and find solutions.
Yesterday, I travelled by tram to an event that I would usually travel by car, I was so much less stressed when I arrived, things worked perfectly, didn't have to wait long to get a tram in either direction. In a couple of weeks time I have to travel a longer distance for a funeral, there's a rail strike on that day, but I can still get to my destination by train, just need to change trains during my journey down, as far as I'm concerned that's an adventure not a blockage, my biggest gripe about it is the cost, but I have no choice but to pay it.
I really like to see that you are so passionate about public transport and that (I think) you care very much about transportation in Toronto. Of course, I also have that for my city Rotterdam, which is also going to start a very large project to install more stations in Rotterdam and a large tram bridge over the Maas. maybe if you like it you could make a video about that, because I would be very interested in that
Most American city governments don't have the in-house expertise and rely on consultants and contractors who rip them and us off. Metro D.C.'s Purple Light Rail line started at $1.6B's and now at $10B's and still not finished and a decade behind schedule. San Francisco's new 2-mile light rail subway, few riders and Billions in cost-could have paid off the mortgages of every homeowner in that city.
It goes further than this, they often don’t believe they NEED in house expertise!
You hit nail on the head with we must get the younger generation into transit by taking it as a major in college however, what happens then is when they come out it's their profession and all thoughts go to advancing in their careers ,not so much i collaborating to make the best transit. Even though we need their new ideas and excitment. Hopefully happening in my lifetime ,well, probably not since I'm 80 yrs. Old😊
I caught a bit of the recent Alan Fisher live stream and he mentioned that America has better inter-city transit, but Canada builds much better metros.
I have to agree on that. Americans are really cutting themselves short on some of the great benefits of well-built and operated transit infrastructure, like automated metros running short trains really frequently. Or supporting a rail network with a frequent bus network.
There also seems to be an unwillingness to really dive in to transit-oriented developmemt and those areas are the ones that allow the network to have strong ridership on major routes in order to bring on minor routes.
We do not international standards it's not a american interest, we love cars than transit .
As a Bostonian I was livid that you used Chicago as the example for trains being on fire
I was saying the same thing. lol Thank god I don't have to take the T.
We need to increase focus on transportation and density in the cities themselves, rather than going 20 miles into the suburbs and having stops so far apart that they don't even serve the area.
An all of the above approach is required IMO
And people who oppose say deiving is "freedom" and public transit does not get support. Well of course they seem to not be getting support, coz of the sprawls our government created over the years. Residential areas are so flat people need to spend extra time to walk to transit stops which adds to the travel time. On top of new systems, res areas also need to change to adapt, so they are more dense!
I will say the one silver lining to that is if they do it correctly and it goes through somewhat built up areas of the suburbs, you can always add infill stations later. They did that by adding a station to the line I grew up riding.
But my suburb -- Sprawlville -- deserves a massive investment in brand new rail too! Build it next to the freeway if you have to. If Sprawlville doesn't get a station, you city folks get nothin!
@@RMTransit Low-density distant suburbs are inappropriate for new rail. If you have existing tracks, then that can work. Otherwise just run buses. But without a good inner-city system, it doesn't matter what you build to the suburbs.
In American cities with their long straight roads it should be much easier to build a subway than in Europe. You can usually build the whole subway line below one of those roads. Especially in Los Angeles.
I also wonder why it is not embarrassing for Americans that even some "poor" countries have much better public transport. Americans are proud of their airports, but even those usually suck compared to the ones in other parts of the world. The US already reached a debt of $34 trillion. Imagine they would invest $1 trillion into public transport.
Just the reduction in traffic alone would easily pay itself off in terms of more time for work and leisure in urban areas. Traffic jams are unnecessary and transit would reduce them a lot.
Because most Americans don’t know anything about other countries. Most Americans never leave the US and are told over and over again that the US is the best country in the world. The people who do know better are powerless to change things because the politicians in power mostly only care about their donors who are primarily wealthy corporations.
Americans don’t get embarrassed by that because they don’t know what they’re missing. A lot of Americans don’t leave the country, and the ones that do seem to think other cities are like Disneyland, not actual places that people live and work in, so they don’t realize that it’s possible and way better to live like this
CityNerd here on TH-cam did a video about how much private transportation costs America a year. It is a conservative estimate that the price for private transit ran the U.S.A. almost 5 trillion a year. I know hardly anyone in North America actually knows how much private transit is costing us. It is a scam made by oil and car corporations who are known to lie for profit. They keep saying it is the best and easiest economic way to travel, when it is highly stressful and extremely expensive. I am saying this for everybody else if you want a good country do not copy the North American transit system (because these lying corporations have been trying hard to spread it).
@@reilandeubank For many Americans it is just a different mindset. Even when they travel extensively, it doesn’t really sink in. The attitude is that Americans are different. Those transit systems are good for “those people”.
Lowcountry Rapid Transit (LCRT) is being designed as a 21.3-mile modern bus rapid transit system that will connect communities in our region like never before. Operating mostly in dedicated lanes, from the Fairgrounds in Ladson, serving North Charleston along Rivers Avenue and connecting to the WestEdge development in Downtown Charleston, LCRT will offer a safe, reliable, low-cost and new mobility alternative to tens-of-thousands of residents and visitors.
One thing your didn't mention in this video (but has been mentioned in others), is that it isn't the current population density that determines usage, but clusters of development around each station. The Metropolitan Railway was built on creating stations in the countryside around which developers built housing and business, creating "Metroland". People moved there and commuted to London. Any transit development needs to relax zoning near all the stations (or tram stops) so that people can live close by in 4 or 5 storey tenements. Get rid of zones of just single family houses. Increased income from both property taxes and fares will pay for transit.
most american suburbs don't even need that much demolition to rezone, most front lawns are large enough to become small grocery stores,liqour stores, libraries, and other local businesses/public third spaces
Could you do a video about DART in Dallas Texas and how they should improve it or how Dallas could improve public transit in general
The hardest part about transit is having to take a diagonal route when the roads are cardinal. The east west roads are fast and frequent to connect to downtown, but the North and South routes are slow and late. This causes a 20 minute drive to be 80 minutes long on transit.
I notice the San Diego transit green line and blue line signs you have in the back. Can you do a video on San Diego’s transit infrastructure?
your analysis as always is amazing and so comprehensible and comprehensive. as a native california but resident of Spain for over 30 years, it still blows my mind how slow and unrealistic transportations projects are in california and over all in the states. People need realistic timelines say 36 to 60 months... lines that open, let's say 3 or 4 stations at a time though the projected line has 12. As well as making universities, hospitals, commercial and sport events areas the priority. As you said, where do people want to go or need to get to? Trams in the states seems like a Disney ride and buses would be much more efficient. Anyway, just wanted to say a huge fan of yours and your truly global vision of public transportation.
Only the highways get built the fastest.
Los Angeles is already doing what you suggest. The bigger problem is the lack of federal funding. In Spain, rail infrastructure has much more support from the national government. A new HSR line recently opened from Madrid to Asturias. It took about 15 years but it goes through difficult terrain. However, without national government funding it would not have happened. It's not a coincidence that Spain has the largest HSR system in Europe.
California is building the first true HSR line in the USA and the federal government has only paid about 15% of the cost so far. California has paid 85%. Construction started in 2015 and the Los Angeles to San Francisco connection won't open until about 2034 at the earliest. If the federal government paid 60%, it could be done years sooner maybe even by the 2028 Olympics in LA.
It takes more than 36 months just to get through environmental review.
You sound like the typical snobbish NJB fanboy.
Excellent video. Absolutely correct on all the issues in North American transit. I live in the DC area, and we are building a light rail system that so far has been a disaster. I think it would be a great augmentation to the DC Metro, it is way over budget and timeline.
Watched it on Nebula hours ago. I gotta say, love your points. They're spot on and most Americans will have a hard time understanding what you said because of how little they know about transit. THAT's why we have trouble. Lack of expertise!
That's a huge generalization and false. Both Alstom and Siemens build trainsets in the USA.
@@mrxman581 the train themselves are fine. I’m talking about building the infrastructure.
I'm glad DC Metro and BART were brought up, because they are great.
EXcellent video as usual.
There is a lot of problems building transit systems especially here in the UK.
Take HS2 for an example... it could have been built already except of the following problems (assumptions).
1. NIMBY's - You buy a house by a railway line, you should accept you might be disturbed by noise. It is different if the railways come after.
2. Should have been called HC2 (High Capacity) as the public would have understood more that the reason for it is to create space on the other railway lines for more freight and local services.
3. Consultants and change of design - Do we really need to pay all these consultants and does it have to be redesigned again and again. Stick to the first plan and maybe some small alterations. It cost enough for the first design.
4. Backhanders - just like Covid 19 in the UK, how many backhanders have been paid ? How much is put on the price to pay top people in their back pocket?
5. Health & Safety - it is time people were told to look after themselves and children (like the old days) and use some common sense.
All this would lead to a cheaper price
Watching this on the subway in Tokyo. It's great here
Would love to have some electric regional rail. But, as long as VRE runs on CSX's tracks, that isn't happening.
Neo Luddites are everywhere, some using left wing and green arguments and some using libertarian right wing arguments. Public transport is freeing and green.
the power comes from somewhere. Usually coal
Better than cars mate
Electric trains are crazy efficient. No Electric car can beat an electric train on efficiency. Even if it's powered by a coal steam plant. It's a hyper efficient way to use that dirty power. And when we replace that coal plant with something cleaner. You have that other clean infrastructure already in place. Secondly. All that infrastructure for electric trains solves our transmission capacity issues. Think track passing by solar fields (imagine bringing in all those solar lego blocks or wind by rail, then that same field hooked up to a substation hooked up to the overhead lines above the track.) One we have to build regardless of whether we electrify or not. Double rail and electrify. A huge logistical opportunity
@@Fullstrengh100 in the US, more likely to be natural gas at this point.
The problem with electric is if a hurricane or tornado hits the area there’s going to be allot of down time esp if using overhang electric wires. Gas is the better option at the moment bc it’s cheaper as well. If they can make the electric wires storm proof then do it by all means
As a White Sox fan, I’m super stoked that we’re now talking about building a new ballpark right in the edge of downtown, in a spot that will make access to transit so good it’s almost ridiculous.
We actually already have better access to it then the Cubs do, the problem is we pretty much incentivize driving with the several oceans of parking lots we provide.
The new location location will have easy access to three different L lines, LaSalle Street Station soon to be home to two Metra lines, and with its location right on the river they’re already talking about the possibility of water taxis.
Sox/35th is better access than Addison?
@@shuttsteven yes it is.
The Cubs have the red line, we have the red and green lines, and the Metra Rock Island District, and I’ve taken all three.
Can you please talk about how other countries fund their transit?! Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Europe…like actual numbers.
A big part of the problem is planning reservations across the board. You don't need to spend a fortune tunnelling underneath your barely-10-year-old development if you had just included the corridor reservation in the original development plan. That space still provides value before the transit arrives, in the form of linear parkland. And that parkland can then become a dense travel corridor for a small fraction of the otherwise cost once you decide to commit to it.
It would cost $0 right now to demand that starting right now, ALL new urban developments MUST consider incorporating cycling infrastructure and larger capacity transit corridors. Just reserve that space at the time of planning.
USA should have standards and general policies for the design transit systems for:
• Combined metropolitan areas / conurbation / urban agglomeration
• Metropolitan areas
• Large city with suburbs
• City with suburbs
• Large town
• Town
• Small town
• Village
• Rural areas
• Uninhabited areas / nature reserves (no transit)
This is based on commuting zones, a concept the US office for statistics is using.
And depending on the size of the area and population there should be a maximum of only and just five modes of transport in the system:
• bus
• tram
• metro
• train
• intercity train
All other modes are:
• just variants of the five mentioned above,
• wrong application of one of the five mentioned above,
• wrong naming or
• gadget bahns
*About variants*
Variants of transport modes is all about playing with capacity, frequency, reliability depending on the technical situation, economics and circumstances.
This is where you play with low floor vehicle no platform, high floor vehicle no platform, high floor vehicle with platform, level boarding vs step boarding, one door, multiple doors, pre-paid, not pre-paid, platform doors, no platform doors, length of vehicle, number of cars per vehicle, signalling, transit priority signalling, full separation from other traffic (separated ways, crossing barriers, tunnels or elevated ways), express service or local service, high or low average service speed vehicles, high acceleration and braking (for high service speed but short distances between stops), number of seats vs standing, seat orientation.
*About wrong application*
Most light rail (tram) could be done with heavy rail (metro) in combination with trains and a good network with lower level transit modes as feeders for the metro.
*About wrongful naming*
For example heavy vs light rail. Those terms should only be used by the design engineers of the vehicles. Cars designed for higher speeds tend to be heavier. Planners of transit systems should not use these technical terms and also the users should not.
Just like it's not important for the traveler to know if a metro is on metal wheels or rubber tyres. Planners and travelers should use transit terms instead of technical/engineering terms.
Also the words mass and rapid make little sense. Those words have to do with capacity and frequency. But planners should know the definitions and right application of intercity train, train, metro, tram and bus.
For example a bus is still a bus, no matter if it's a 6 m local rural bus, a 16 m articulated city bus, or a brt. The transit planner just has to know the measures to increase the capacity of a bus.
"nature reserves (no transit)"
Nature reserves should instead have horse carts of 15 passengers as public transport.
The USA don't have any such power. We don't have a national dictatorship yet as much as you liberal are trying so hard to impose.
Hot take, but the one city with the most transit potential is Houston, Texas. They have so many amazing existing straight rail alignments that go directly downtown, all with enough room to build extra track. If Houston built a GO RER type system that they connected to plentiful BRT lines, that city would truly shine.
Houston is way too short sighted to do this.
@@TPAsses I don't think so. They've done some great things in the inner ring. They're not focused on rectifying the endless sprawl of Harris County, as that's impossible, but they are focused on creating a nice vibrant inner city with decent housing, walking, cycling, and amenities. And even then, they've done a lot to build out their frequent bus network along with planning more commuter rail and light rail. It's slow but it's coming along.
And soon they will have the political power to do so. Prop B is due to take effect soon
@@tomothan I really like the idea of the inner ring deciding planning for themselves. I'm from Vancouver, where the Greater Vancouver Regional District is comprised of 23 jurisdictions who make their own decisions, but come together to work out regional solutions via a mayor's council. That means that no one in Burnaby or Surrey has any say over what gets built in Vancouver, and vice versa. That also means that a lot of infrastructure is planned on a regional scale through the mayor's council, Metrovan, Translink, and the government of BC, while urban planning is left up to individual municipalities to sort out for themselves.
Of course, this hasn't worked perfectly, as we've seen tremendous growth in cities like Burnaby and Surrey and almost no growth on other cities. Anything with a Vancouver in its name, be it North shore or South shore is notorious for NIMBYism. So the government of BC has mandated TOD areas and gentle densification of single family areas. At the same time, this has allowed Vancouver to eliminate parking and lanes, building out a robust cycling and transit network in the core of the city, much to the chagrin of suburbanites who want to commute by car (for the love of god, it's just not worth it - never drive downtown).
No, the city that not only has the potential, but is also making it a reality is Los Angeles.
The Paris tram fails to move even 10% of the region's total rail raiders for one simple reason: Paris' metro and regional rail are well distributed throughout the urban area and beyond...and they work well!
To give an opposite example, Rome, on the other hand (one of the largest municipalities in Europe although not so populous) is building a tram network but, having only two and a half subway lines, it would have more need to build subways than trams (useful as supply lines for the larger and faster subways).
Each city obviously has different needs, characteristics and management of public transport, we can realize this thanks to the interesting RMTransit videos!
the paris tram is meant for smaller comute, like beetween 2 suburban neighboring communes. It's a necessity, and of course it's concerning less people than the RER, but it's ok, it's just an other purpose : not to cross the whole urban area, but to connect your appart to the nearest mall, and that kind of things.
@@SieurBrabantio Of course, as Paris has an excellent metro network and a modern regional rail network, it is natural that the tram network serves for shorter journeys and/or as a feeder network for the metro and trains, which is why, as Reece states, the Parisian network trams move less than 10% of the passengers of the regional railways.
Indeed. He does this a lot. He misrepresents the real-world situation so it fits his narrative better which makes his observations and solutions practically irrelevant.
Yep, how this works in the US is always the same. The leaders of a city finally agree on a cut back version of some transit, lets say, a tram line. Once the line is built for an astronomical cost, and totally out of the way from where it should be, the usually bad service makes this new system just bad, with not many riders using it. This is done deliberately, so the leaders then can say "See, we knew this is no good, we said that from the beginning but we spent the money anyways for this just to prove you wrong.". It really is sad, especially when you travel and go to cities around the world with great transit and you know it is possible!
This video completely ignored the rotting corpse in the room that is stopping more enthusiasm for transit, which is the demographics of cities versus the suburbs and how money is allocated along with political influence among them. The lack of diversity in American cities is a major problem that is strangling their budgets, while the political influence of suburban and countryside areas is magnified to a point that also strangles the chances of spending on transit.
Funny, I thought liberal socialist like democracy.
@@DwynNWynns You cannot have a functional nation when everyone is constantly running away in fear from someone else.
I can speak a little bit to the issues with the Honolulu HART train. The idea was good, don't get me wrong, but it's been plagued with issues from the planning stages forward. Part of the reason the costs are so much is both because of mismanagement and also just that the project is taking so long and prices for stuff continue to go up ad finitum. The original plan was to build it in two phases. Phase one would go from Kapolei in West Oahu to the international airport and then phase two would go from the international airport to Ala Moana mall, which is a massive outdoor shopping mall right on the beach just east of Downtown.
The whole project is supposed to be elevated metro. I personally think that's okay, but a bit misguided. I think it's added to the construction time because they've basically built most of it in the median of a highway, but because everything on Oahu is so built up, these highways are running through towns and the construction disrupts everyday life. Possibly having phase one be elevated made sense and maybe it saved money, I don't know. I moved there after construction began. That being said, the rest of the line will run through Honolulu proper and would both make more sense as a subway, but also be less disruptive to people living and commuting along the roads it will go over.
As of right now they opened the train behind schedule and only part of phase one is completed. They have started putting in some columns past the airport, but the train stops a few stations before the airport, so it still doesn't go all the way to the airport. The daily ridership numbers right now are abysmal, but honestly because of how little coverage it has right now, expected and understandable. Only a couple thousand people take it daily, I think they said less than 3000 people. It really mostly serves the leeward community college, UH west, and a West Oahu hospital, so most of the riders right now are elderly people and students, but if they can at least get it to the airport, then maybe some commuters who work around there and tourists who are staying in hotels in Kapolei could benefit from it.
To really be successful, this train needs to go past Ala Moana and go to Waikiki (the main tourist spot with all the hotels) and at least end at UH Manoa, the main campus for UH. Beyond that if they could get it to Kahala Mall and possibly on to Hawaii Kai or at least Kapiolani Community College, that would be a plus. Hawaii Kai would basically make it a true West to East Oahu full rail system.
The real issue is the evil highway lobbyist Pavos Prevedorous.
0:09 that’s not Durham that’s Raleigh
I feel like my city, Cincinnati, is actually sort of open to more public transit and urbanism but we just don’t have any money and funding. We’re super broke to do anything.
Do what Los Angeles did and pass an increase in sales taxes which is much more fair than increasing property taxes. With sales taxes everyone is helping to fund new transit including visitors and tourists who will also benefit from better transit going forward.
Blame the Cincinnatians of the early 1920s who decided to abandon their system halfway constructed. All that's left is an unfinished subway underneath your divided avenue downtown.
North American cities could drastically improve transit by the end of the year by making their bus networks faster and more frequent.
Dedicated bus lanes.
Another major issue is how small municipalities can easily slow down or stop a transit project; sure the majority of us want transit, but there are pockets of conservatives dotted throughout a metro area, and that can really slow things down. Imagine: a large metro area is building a new transit line, but that line happens to go through many small cities. Each city can slow down a project to the point where it can be delayed for ages.
Hey could you make a video about transit in cracow Poland? There is plan on constructing Underground tram network, metropolitan trains are evolving and many buses are riding right now. In comparasion its all a big mess. But very intresting.
bad idea if it's gonna be underground they should increase capacity to a full metro to justify the cost
This is one of your most all-encompassing videos yet! It really brings everything important together that you hit on in all of your videos
I was just in Seattle of man, torture for transit. The want and need it but the gov, public and planning is completely off the rails. Such a shame. Also Portland, while better than Seattle, it's stalled completely
Los Angeles is doing it and improving every year.
@@mrxman581 e for effort yes but holy crap is it expensive a lot of unnecessary brueocacy.
In Europe the lotteries give out a million to each of 1000 (sic) people. In usa they give out 1000 million (sic) to one person.
Could you make a video about the Prague public transport?
A tram route that runs primarily down city streets is a massive waste of money. Trams only make sense if the majority of the route is grade separated.
Paris is not a tramway city at all ! Old network was 100% removed, the current "network" is really more single independent lines (with each a different standard train length and width) to complement metro and train lines or upgrade from a bus line where it makes sense.
It is hard to summarize what America needs because the cities are so different. I'll try anyway: Improve things in order:
1) Focus on operations first. Make sure the trains and buses run frequently and without major delays. Even in New York (which could justify spending hundreds of billions on new subway lines) getting to a "Six Minute City" would be far more important than any extension.
2) Focus on quality, not quantity. That doesn't mean fancy stations, but stations in the right place. Build where it makes sense to build. If you aren't running buses every ten minutes along a corridor, you probably don't need to build a subway there.
3) Rail won't solve all of your problems. In most cities, more people will ride the buses than ride the trains. Make sure the trains and buses work together well.
4) If you have existing rail you can leverage, do so. If not, look to buses as a way to serve suburbs and connect cities.
5) Look to models around the world that match your city. Chances are, they won't be in Europe (simply because most U. S. cities don't have the density). Most American cities should look to Vancouver. In many cases, American cities should smaller, simply because they lack the density of Vancouver (even if they have people in the region). It is better to start small than overbuild (see 2).
So many cities in the US became private transit centered; spend more money on roads and infrastructure for cars than maintaining streetcars and bus metwork. Most of this stemmed from the push of the big three auto makers and politicians pushing for jobs. Jobs inaking steel, automobiles, building roadways, homes, schools, shopping centers and suburbs. Very little went back into redeveloping and revitalizing the inner city core. By the 1970's you drove from the suburbs, into the city, parked your car in a garage and worked all day in one of the pre WW II buildings or one of the early fifties ones. Then business and industry decided to move to the suburbs so the workers no longer had to commute as far and land was cheaper for developing and local governments were willing to give everything from tax breaks to development funding. Now many of those towns are looking at empty buildings, dwindling revenues and urban problems in the suburbs. The only way out of this is through regional planning and cooperative development. If you have the housing stock, but lack jobs you have to look at what skills your workers have. It does not do any good to attract an employer if there is a shortage of workers skilled for those jobs wothout plans for educating or training them. Then you have to understand that the larger the metropolitan area the greater.the transportation issues without cooperative planning and development. Commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, busses and highways are all critical but the jobs have to be there. If there isn't jobs the infrastructure doesn't matter.
Anecdotally speaking it seems like the united states suffers a lot from a lack of technical know how and capacity for building tunnels. In my home city of baltimore there's a proposed light rail line that may involve a tunnel but the tunnel itself adds on several billion dollars and extra years to the project, despite being critically necessary for a dense downtown area where street level running just wouldn't be possible.
That's false. Many American cities have been tunneling successfully for decades. Los Angeles has done a lot of tunneling in expanding their Metro system since 1990s.
@@mrxman581It is, however, extremely expensive and slow here. Seattle spent over $3 billion to dig two miles of tunnel for the SR99 project, and it took six years to complete (originally estimate was 14 months.)
Thank you Unions and liberal bureaucrats.
@@DwynNWynns I think a lot of people lose track of the fact that older systems, like New York's, were built when there were no worker protections, life was cheap, and it was acceptable for a big project to have a death toll.
Geologist here (and admittedly without any experience in construction/civil engineering). I've always thought that the main reason why LA and San Francisco never developed an extensive subway network is seismic hazard. In other words, it's hard to ensure that all those tunnels won't collapse in case of a big earthquake. In fact, I always thought that Vancouver (our city) chose the Skytrain over an actual subway for the same reason. Am I wrong on that?
no expert here but as an LA transit enthusiast I've actually always heard, from reliable sources, that a subway tunnel is actually by far the safest place during an earthquake
@@trowftd Thanks for the answer. If that's the case, let's hope LA and San Francisco will catch up and develop their subway networks.
BART is often used as an example of a usable public transit system, but it's a truly awful system. It's slow, it's noisy, and its dirty. Security is a mixed bag too with some people afraid to ride through certain cities. Just saying, building is one thing, maintaining is another.
Are you going to talk about the major renovations at Philly 30th Street Station.
Any journey that is less than 3 hour flight away is an ideal candidate to replace with high speed rail.
Brightline west is a really good idea, when people are stuck in traffic as the train flies past as they get into LA
BLW won't go to LA. CAHSR is the much more important HSR project in the USA and the first true HSR to be built. BLW is still vaporware.
As long as it is people choice as to which method they used. But as always when liberal thing their idea as so good that they wanted to ban and mandate what to force people to do what they want. Look at european banning short hop flights.
@@phillipbanes5484 If I'm going to want a car when I get to that location two and a half hours away I might as well drive the car I already have and spend money on instead of hassling with securing transportation to there and paying for it, securing transportation while there and paying for it, and securing transportation from there back to home and paying for it; plus, having my car also answers the question of where to secure things I acquire while there.
The problem was never that Americans don't want public transit. It's that Americans are saying "Heck yeah! I want public transit to be better! It'll make traveling around so much easier!... Just don't put the rails too close to where I live because I don't want my property value to potentially maybe not really change because of little bit of train noise." Americans are all hypocrites. We want things, but we won't ever allow good ideas to happen if there's even the tiniest chance it could slightly inconvenience us as individuals.
@@phillipbanes5484 Agreed! America is also built better for driving and flying. Thats why even though the U.S. has bad public transit compared to Europe and Asia, America had the most impressive highway system and aviation system.
I disagree to an extant. Your quotes are typically coming from two different types of people. Anyone whos saying "we don't want rails to to my house" are not the same people who say " I want public transit" and anyone who doesn't want rails near them most likely never wanted public transit to begin with. The only people who might be hypocrites are the ones in the big cities who complained about the construction noise but deliberately choose to live in the city and voted for public transit.
Why is Chicago never mentioned? Is it the Toronto / Chicago mini-rivalry or is the latter just that much father behind than Seattle, Austin, LA, Philly, Toronto, Denver, etc.?
I do bring it up, it is in a disappointing place given how little it’s building relative to other cities and the size of its existing system
@@RMTransit Fair enough. We are building a $3B extension through the least dense area of the city instead of the circle line everyone begs for. Would love to know why Chicago is giving away its lead to its 'competition' on the continent.
On a side note, how is it that if there’s something on fire, its always in Chicago?
I really like the part about transit professionals working with international organizations. Good public transit should be viewed as a pillar of modern societies, so everyone should learn about the latest innovations. It is the norm for so many other professions.
indeed it would be a good thing for North America.
but i think there are 2 (main) problems that prevents it.
- like in a previous RMTransit was mentioned: federal money isn't allowed to be used to buy non-US made busses.
so instead of being able to buy the best fit vehicle for the best price, US cities have to buy an American made vehicle.
and the makers don't have any incentive to build better vehicles because they don't have to compete for the market.
- the America is the greatest mindset/indoctrination, to many US-Americans still think their way is the best way.
and because they are so set in their thinking of being be best, they don't see a point in looking at the rest of the world. because if you're the best at everything, those other places won't have anything that would interest you.
@@ChristiaanHW There are definitely obstacles. They have to start somewhere. As Reese said in the video, it is not just one thing.
They do that already. Well, at least in Los Angeles and California.
@@ChristiaanHWActually what he said about buying American is not correct. There are exceptions, and it's on a case by case basis.
Many people and companies have been hired from abroad to to work on public transit projects in the USA.
@@mrxman581 That’s good to hear. Of course, quality and frequency are important too.
I love NYC transit but man does the MTA depress the hell out of me
From the thumbnail I thought maybe there was an idea to connect the Bible belt together through funding from churches or something.
Please no ideological arguments.
Land Value Tax would help if not outright fix many of the problems mentioned in this video. Henry George was right and _Progress and Poverty_ is gospel
That's one way but I think I have a better way
As an immigrant from Hong Kong, the reluctance and roadblocks of building more rail systems in America has always been baffling to me. When I was a kid in the 90s in HK, we already had electronic tap payment (Octopus card) and a really robust light rail and subway system to the point where taxis and car ownership are unnecessary luxuries. The short bits of walking between the stations and destinations kept people physically healthy as well. In 2024, I have not seen anything in the US that can hold a candle to what I experienced in the mid-90s in HK. I love the car culture and driving, and my favorite domestic vacations generally consist of road trips. That said, being stuck in traffic and getting frustrated on the daily commute isn't it. Folks in the US tend to focus on short term monetary gains/savings, but almost never consider the irrefutable fact that better transit can provide a huge boost to the economy, so much that the initial investment is negligible in the long run. The only reason why we have so much roads instead was largely due to the lobbying and propaganda by car manufacturers and oil companies in the post WWII era, and cities are going bankrupt just trying to repair and maintain those roads. The infrastructure is so terrible that the next best thing we have to a high speed rail network are Teslas on autopilot. Create the problem, sell the solution. Classic American innovation.
your point about trams is so true but a bit heartbreaking. I love trams and their aesthetic but they are by no means the most efficient way to move as many people around as fast possible, which is the main purpose transit should serve. it's an unfortunate truth
Could you do an episode on Ireland please. We were just put number 2 in the world on a list of worst traffic issues.
Modern Transportation to Transform Our Region
South Carolina's first mass transit system.
"What and where to build" is a huge part of it. Few things have unified locals in the area of Milwaukee, Wisconsin like their hatred of The Hop, the very limited, very dumb old-fashioned on-rails streetcar the city built serving a tiny chunk of its downtown and not even planning to eventually get to venues like American Family Insurance Field or the Fiserv Forum, much less to or from any of the suburbs or less expensive neighborhoods. I guess if you want to go from the Third Ward to... a pretty empty stretch of Ogden Ave., you're in luck. If you want to actually get anywhere you might want to go, or if you want to get home from one of those places, and "home" isn't an expensive downtown high rise, you're out of luck. Meanwhile, the MCTS buses are just as useless as ever despite all the transit funding that went into the Hop.
Seriously, never met anyone in this metro area who doesn't just laugh or cry when reminded of The Hop.
A few points that I think the video missed:
Some people actively don't want public transit, or even connected bike lanes or multiuse pathways, for security or mixing reasons. As in, it's not the money, but rather that they don't want it to happen at all. And, I think they find ways to scuttle, without necessarily admitting that's what they're doing. Recall the video of the city council member for whom stopping a pathway 200m before it connected with other stuff, was the cross she was going to die on. Notice how many pathways stop a few hundred meters short of connecting, and there's usually a "reason", but given how much that scuppers the utility of the pathway, never a good, actual reason, other than scuppering. Or how transit lines like Boston's Blue line stop just before they'd connect with another line. Or how even an enormous transportation project like the Big Dig somehow didn't connect, or better unify, North and South stations, even though it literally ran from one to the other. And how many transit stops connect easily to pathways, for easy pleasant last mile, rather than dumping out on a roaring thoroughfare that's hard to cross and unpleasant. Having transit not connect, or not have coverage, is an active goal that some put their shoulders into.
Another is high speed rail. Until there's good, ubiquitous, frequent transit in cities, HSR has little point except as a park and ride car-plus project, while absorbing eye watering amounts that would provide proper comprehensive rapid transit for an entire ten million person metropolis. It does little for climate change until there's good transit enabling door to door, and it does little for people's ability to get from A to B via transit, until there's transit that enables door to door. HSR is expensive tokenism, until the rest is in good shape, and probably holds it back. America, at least, should go all in on urban transit, including pathways and bike paths separated safely for getting to and from transit without getting run over. And then HSR, when there's something to connect to. (Though for many city pairs, aviation with sustainable aviation fuel, which already exists and only needs to drop in price by half to match kerosene (jet fuel), will still be the practical option.). As a bonus, by then, for the cost, one could probably get maglev, which the Japanese have been steadily progressing, making it viable to connect a much larger set of cities. (Maglev has of course been in service in Shanghai for two decades, so it's really a matter of refinement rather than achieving anything wholly new.). But even if there's never maglev, urban transit first, then HSR, is the right way. Let Brightline do what they want in the meantime.
If there were two cities without good transit but with a flight connection, HSR would divert passengers from the flight regardless of the lack of transit. That's true of Houston and Dallas. Flying is the worst possible transport in terms of emissions, so even without a local network those HSR lines would make a giant climate impact.
With regards to aviation fuel, keep in mind that we haven't even created sustainable *car* fuel yet, and jet fuel is another level more refined than regular gasoline. Clean jet fuel isn't viable any time soon, but airlines hype it up because they know if that truth was generally understood their entire industry would have no right to exist. The sustainable jet fuel talking point is just propaganda
The maglev train in China is a tiny route to an airport. It doesn't go any faster than many regular HSR trains. Maglev technology hasn't been well tested for the long distance required of HSR. The HSR train being built in California will be faster than the Maglev in China.
Thank God for that.
@@azd685 Stop using Emissions as a get out of jail card. Yelling "emission" to imposed your fantasies is not helping the argument. Aviation fuel and car fuel are the most efficient deliveries of stored energies into mechanical energies yet. It is not your or the government to decided which mode of transportation of the worst possible way to get anywhere. The people decided that. You liberal are so fund of voting excepting when it really count in the choice people make in their daily live. Stop using fearmongering of "Climate change" to impost your dictatorial Utopia.
could u pls make a video about the busan metro. i am a huge fan and luv ur vids!
Denver’s rail is so frustrating. They have these lovely new trains and great stops but they go no where. If you look at a map the rail lines go around the border of Denver are there is basically no service within the city (where most people live). This puts Denver in a situation where those who live in more densely populated areas in the city need to drive places and people who live in the sprawling suburbs have state of the art stations and trains. It makes no sense.
It drives me nuts that it feels like DC's Metro is always under the gun. Like service is always on the edge of being cut.
I am not sure how metros would work with America's low density cities. Metros are typically seen as being for high density cities rather than places where population density is around 3,000 to 5,000 people per square mile. Durham, NC has a population density of around 2,500 per square mile.
Agreed. His implication of only building subways, especially in the USA, is ridiculous especially when there is very little federal funding support at the local level.
In Los Angeles, they've been very good at balancing need vs funding availability. In a perfect world, building only subway lines would be best, but the world isn't perfect as we all know including the guy who made this video.
Los Angeles has built a Metro system that relies mostly on partially grade separated (underground, aerial, and at grade) light rail lines with a dedicated ROW. The tracks don't share the same section of the road with cars as you have with trams/streetcars. LA has 4 light rail lines and 2 subway lines. There are three main reasons LA has relied more on building light rail lines.
1. Los Angeles is very spread out. It covers about 4800 square miles. LA Metro is responsible for public transit of both the city of LA and County.
2. Cost. Building subways is much more expensive. Had LA only built subways, the system would be half the size it is today serving many less areas of the County.
3. Weather. Because LA has more of a Mediterranean climate, building outdoor light rail lines makes sense since the weather is mild and it's less expensive to build.
He also mentioned suburban rail.
0:08 that’s actually the skyline of Raleigh, not Durham. I expect compensation for this error via video about transit in the Raleigh-Durham area, perhaps about the cancelled Chapel Hill-Durham tram line.
The new logo threw me off for a bit, like, which channel is this, cool logo
IndyGo has been proposing the Green Line to be some sort of Commuter type rail for years now, but they’ve constantly been held back. The Green line is supposed to run between Noblesville and Indianapolis.
Hasn't the Indiana state legislature dictated that IndyGo shall not build any rail transit whatsoever?
Oh, and you guys once had the best interurban and trolley network in the US. What happened?
*My partner's from Indiana and has bought a two volume set on the history of Indiana, that's how I found out.
@@edwardmiessner6502 They only instated the ban on LRT as far as I remember. They didn’t ban all modes of transport that uses rail.
@@edwardmiessner6502 oh and the Inter urban trolley network infrastructure got ripped up, just like the rest of this god forsaken country
Just say girlfriend or wife! WTF is a 'partner' and why has it suddenly become hip and trendy?
>Durham NC
>Shows what appears to be either Winston Salem or Raleigh
Transit in Philadelphia- and the rest of Pennsylvania- could be so much better if it was better funded. I have read several transit studies for transit agencies in PA that basically say "we would love to expand, but we can't afford it." Very frustrating, because PA has so many walkable towns and cities that lend themselves better to transit than driving.
I disagree that there are problems of equal importance affecting transit building in America. The #1 problem is cost. And it's far and away the one that most needs to be dealt with.
I'm not sure expecting or demanding those who are in charge of public transit actually use the systems they are in charge of is entirely credentialism. If these people have no vested interest in the success of the system because they can afford to use something else, and if not using it means they approve plans that are impractical or just look nice on paper, then the transit system will suffer.
Where I live the minister of transportation has a government car and driver, and the people in charge of mass transit also drive, and there are bugs in the system that if they had to deal with regularly would have been changed years ago. Instead, there's no one to talk to and complain about it. Many of these issues are ones that can be solved relatively easily and cheaply, this isn't some major overhaul they need to do.
I believe the most significant challenge facing public transportation development in North America, especially the United States, is likely the population density, which subsequently leads to cost issues. As a Chinese individual, I've observed that in recent years, due to economic downturns, the widespread construction of urban rail transit in Chinese cities has come to an end. Governments now prioritize the operational costs and benefits of a single rail line in a city. Obtaining approval for new lines has become quite challenging. However, when comparing, the population density in Chinese cities is already considerably higher than that in North American cities.
Many new residents in Chinese cities reside in high-rise apartments, often 30 floors or higher, forming communities that generate a substantial passenger flow for public transportation. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the suburban living pattern in North America is problematic. After all, this type of single-family dwelling environment is much preferable compared to high-rise apartments in China. However, the extremely low population density in North America brings its own set of challenges.
Even if buses operate in these low-density communities, there is a high probability of them running at a loss. To attract individuals who used to commute by car to switch to public transportation, there must be sufficient appeal. This means that ticket prices cannot be too high, and service frequencies must be maintained at a reasonable density-I believe anything beyond 15 minutes is inconvenient.
If you've played Cities: Skylines, you'll notice that running public transportation in low-density communities results in a significant number of vehicles running empty if the service frequency is high. On the other hand, if the frequency is too low, it won't attract passengers. The high operating costs associated with high service frequency lead to increased ticket prices, but high ticket prices can discourage potential passengers. This creates a situation where the government has to provide substantial subsidies. However, in these low-density communities, no matter how much you try to cultivate ridership, there's a limit. In the long run, government subsidies may not be a good choice, ultimately leading to slow progress in public transportation development in North American cities, as the car remains the most convenient mode of transportation due to this living pattern.
PS：This message is translated by Chat-GPT, because my English is really suck :(
Translation is okay, makes sense to me who only reads and speaks English any more, having lost other language skill through non-use of it. Talking about low density population and the not using of public transit, I live in a farming town of population around 6,000 which is about 30 miles from the nearest city. Even if there was public transportation to that city I would still use my car because I'm going to go shopping at five different places spread around the city and need somewhere to store the things I bought while I travel between shopping locations. That can't be done on a bus or tram.
My city's tram tracks are still in place in some places, as they were simply paved over, but buses replaced all of them AND in most cases the streets aren't even made for cars, much less buses or other transit. 😂 Imagine a Rust Belt city that's made up of several villages & towns that decided to incorporate together and so there's no uniform street plan and patchwork repairs of 1800's infrastructure that modern city planners don't know how to modernize and if it just needs to be removed. 😩 It's called Buffalo, NY and it's a mess but I love it anyway.
A big issue I don't see being talked about is that US cities are already built for cars, meaning extremely spread out and sprawling. Building transit for that is a lot harder than building transit for cities that are already fairly dense to begin with.
Exactly. And this guy knows this, but pointing out those obvious real-world issues don't support his narrative. Same goes with how systems are funded in the USA. He just ignores those realities which is why I've concluded much of his observations and solutions are irrelevant in the end.
For example, in Los Angeles many of the ROWs that were used by the yellow and red car trollies were used to build many of the freeways in the city and county.
Having a more researched discussion of removing freeways in cities like LA and how that could improve public transit options, would be much more useful and interesting.
@@mrxman581if you think Reece’s videos are so “irrevelant”, why even bother watching? Better yet, why even bother taking the time to comment and talk trash? Here’s a solution: hit the “unsubscribe” button.
Funny, I don't know of a single US city that is built after the invention of car.
Australia. Enough said.
@kiddo817
Anyone claiming the US is doomed is just one of those arrogant NJB fanboys.
BTW, the best example in the world for expanding usable transit quickly is Moscow, Russia. It's shocking how much they have expanded their metro, suburban trains, and buses in just 15 years including converting trolley buses to battery electric busses, all many times faster than any US city.
Have any one figure out the cost of running the Moscow much laud system. Lucky for US citizens most public projects are not vanity project of a dictator.
@@DwynNWynns A common response when you can't see the whole picture. Labor is cheap in Russia and, yes, things happen a lot faster when there's no opposition. But still, an all-new 70 kilometer underground loop around the city with 31 new stations all within about 10 or 12 years is amazing by any standards. This can't be matched in the West.
And, btw, 2/3 of the worlds countries are authoritarian,; you can't hate everyone and expect peace in the world.
@@jre617 Imagine that, thing goes much faster when you don't have to consult thousand of stackholders from citizens, unions, local businesses to federal/states/cities/local districts/judges because any opposition to the power that be is not good for you health.
FYI - I am not hating on anyone, I also don't care to have authoritarian system that is not mine.
PS The US through private industries connected of a sizable continent, through mountains, and high deserts in less then a decades, and go on to built track covering the entire country (part of it twice after the unfortunate affair in 1864) more then a 100 years ago
@@DwynNWynns Well, I'm not sure what your point is. No one wants authoritarianism. My point is there is so much disagreement in the US now, nothing gets done, and if it does, its way too expensive and then not always maintained properly. Busses are cheapest. Just do busses.
@@jre617 My point is you all say you don't want authoritarianism but you advocated method and result that only authoritarism can produce. Your people literally foam at the month for CCP China and Singapore.
With all due respect Reese, I don't think the argument about China's rapid building of transit infrastructure in comparison to the slow trickle in the US holds weight. This is especially true when the reason the PRC's building so quickly is because it is coming at the expense of safety. The term "tofu dregs" exists among online circles in China for a reason and it is to describe some of the country's big infrastructure projects, especially in regards to transit, because of the shoddy materials being used and lax requirements that exist to rush these projects through. A lot of the time, these massive thrown up metros are being built as a prestige project rather than a functional piece of infrastructure that will last for decades and the biggest issue with regards to that is drainage. The lack of proper drainage in most Chinese metros is frightening and the most horrific case of it was during 2021 Henan floods in the city of Zhengzhou, where passengers were trapped inside the metro and hundreds drowned due to the PRC failing to require adequate drainage systems for the city's metro and the city at large. I agree with a lot of the other points and the overall message in your video, but I just want to caution using China as a model North America should look to when building our metros.
A key issue with US transit is the problem of building low capacity transit. I like light rail, but it cant “fix traffic” in LA or Dallas as its capacity is too low. Another isssue is the unwillingness of multiple agencies to collaborate or try new solutions/operating patterns. (Cough cough NJT, LIRR)
It depends on execution. Not all light rail lines are equal. In Los Angeles, it's the only choice for many routes mostly having to do with available funding, something Reece continually ignores when arguing for his "solutions."
In LA it's not about replacing the use of a car completely or even a majority of the time. But if people used their cars 40% less, that would be a huge change in quality of life.
The light rail lines in Los Angeles are all partially grade separated. Some of them significantly so. In fact, the C line is completely grade separated. Top speed on them is 55 mph.
There are different ways to increase capacity on a line. LA Metro just increased the frequency of the trains across both subway and light rail lines. They are also plans to incorporate signal prioritization on the light rail lines to increase the overall average speed on the lines.
However, there are plans to build more subways too.
@@mrxman581 I think that LA has its good and its bad. The Purple line and Sepulveda line (if it’s heavy rail) are good projects. But some lines like the Crenshaw line and A line extension are questionable. I think that there needs to be more of a commuter rail focus in some areas. If the San Bernardino line was better than an A line extension would be unnecessary. And while going to the airport is good, nobody will transfer 3 times with their bags.