USA Public Transit Brookings Report:

[The Grim Squeaker]

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0 ... ansit.aspx
Commentary of the report

Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America
Cities, Transportation
Adie Tomer, Senior Research Analyst, Metropolitan Policy Program
Elizabeth Kneebone, Senior Research Associate, Metropolitan Policy Program
Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program
Alan Berube, Senior Fellow and Research Director, Metropolitan Policy Program
The Brookings Institution
MAY 12, 2011 —
Public transit is a critical part of the economic and social fabric of metropolitan areas. Nearly 30 million trips are made every day using public transit. Almost all of these trips occur in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas, which account for over 95 percent of all transit passenger miles traveled. People take transit for any number of reasons, but one of the most common is to get to work.
View launch event highlights, featuring Cabinet secretaries Ray LaHood and Shaun Donovan »

However, when it comes to the question of how effectively transit connects people and jobs within and across these metropolitan areas, strikingly little is known. With governments at all levels considering deep budget cuts, it is increasingly important to understand not just the location and frequency of transit service, but ultimately how well transit aligns with where people work and live. To better understand these issues, the Metropolitan Policy Program developed a comprehensive database that provides the first comparable, detailed look at transit coverage and connectivity across and within the nation’s major metro areas.

An analysis of data from 371 transit providers in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas reveals that:

Nearly 70 percent of large metropolitan residents live in neighborhoods with access to transit service of some kind. Transit coverage is highest in Western metro areas such as Honolulu and Los Angeles, and lowest in Southern metro areas such as Chattanooga and Greenville. Regardless of region, residents of cities and lower-income neighborhoods have better access to transit than residents of suburbs and middle/higher-income neighborhoods.

In neighborhoods covered by transit, morning rush hour service occurs about once every 10 minutes for the typical metropolitan commuter. In less than one quarter of large metro areas (23), however, is this typical service frequency, or “headway,” under 10 minutes. These include very large metro areas such as New York, Los Angeles, Houston, and Washington. Transit services city residents on average almost twice as frequently as suburban residents.

The typical metropolitan resident can reach about 30 percent of jobs in their metropolitan area via transit in 90 minutes. Job access differs considerably across metro areas, from 60 percent in Honolulu to just 7 percent in Palm Bay, reflecting variable transit coverage levels and service frequencies, and variable levels of employment and population decentralization. Among very large metro areas, the share of jobs accessible via transit ranges from 37 percent in Washington and New York to 16 percent in Miami.

About one-quarter of jobs in low- and middle-skill industries are accessible via transit within 90 minutes for the typical metropolitan commuter, compared to one-third of jobs in high-skill industries. This reflects the higher concentration of high-skill jobs in cities, which are uniformly better served by transit. It also points to potentially large accessibility problems for workers in growing low-income suburban communities, who on average can access only about 22 percent of metropolitan jobs in low- and middle-skill industries for which they may be most qualified.

Fifteen of the 20 metro areas that rank highest on a combined score of transit coverage and job access are in the West. Top performers include metro areas with noted transit systems such as New York, Portland, San Francisco, and Washington, but also Salt Lake City, Tucson, Fresno, and Las Vegas. Conversely, 15 of the 20 metro areas that rank lowest are in the South.

These trends have three broad implications for leaders at the local, regional, state, and national levels. Transportation leaders should make access to jobs an explicit priority in their spending and service decisions, especially given the budget pressures they face. Metro leaders should coordinate strategies regarding land use, economic development, and housing with transit decisions in order to ensure that transit reaches more people and more jobs efficiently. And federal officials should collect and disseminate standardized transit data to enable public, private, and non-profit actors to make more informed decisions and ultimately maximize the benefits of transit for labor markets.

Full report (PDF):
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/ ... ransit.pdf

[madd0ct0r]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

[folti78]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

Somebody who can't find work closer and lacks the funds or the will to move ... And 3 hours of commute is quite the average here in Hungary. Ok our mass transit sucks more each year...

[kaeneth]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

I've had to do it in SoCal traffic (in a car). So ya...its quite possible.

[Lonestar]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

Yo.

[Zaune]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

If those 90 minutes consist largely of drinking coffee, checking your email on your laptop and generally chilling out then I'd say that was pretty reasonable, especially if it enables you to live somewhere cheaper than London or New York.

[weemadando]

A lot of people I know commute 90 minutes each way each day. Welcome to the shitty public transport and the lack of urban planning that is Melbourne.

[Alferd Packer]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

About 8 million people in the NY metro area. Hell, some of them commute from even further out. Port Jervis is a 95-mile ride to Hoboken, taking over two hours, and they run twelve trains a day in each direction during the week.

Commuting via train is awesome. You read a book, watch Youtube on your phone, maybe snag a beer for the ride home. I've been re-watching Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes these last few weeks. Sometimes I intersperse it with a book from the library. It's way better than impotently raging at traffic.

[AMT]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

About 8 million people in the NY metro area. Hell, some of them commute from even further out. Port Jervis is a 95-mile ride to Hoboken, taking over two hours, and they run twelve trains a day in each direction during the week.

Commuting via train is awesome. You read a book, watch Youtube on your phone, maybe snag a beer for the ride home. I've been re-watching Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes these last few weeks. Sometimes I intersperse it with a book from the library. It's way better than impotently raging at traffic.

If it's a choice between driving and the train, I'd choose train every time all other things being equal. Like others have said, you can relax, catch up on work, or generally do whatever. Especially with larger cities on the Eastern Seaboard such as NYC and Boston. I'd say the only reason why it isn't more widespread is just because of the car culture and lack of quality mass transit which we could build. And should. Infrastructure is a good thing to invest in.

[LaCroix]

120 each way.

By car. Across a border.

But I share with my wife, by now she even takes over the early driving, while I do the night drive. So everyone of us gets the limousine treatment once a day.

I'd love to take the train, but it takes over three hours each way, with a 15 minutes drive to, where I'd have to leave my car in a bumfuck nowhere train station in the gypsy territory of western Hungary. And then I'd have to walk home at night.

Sadly, the Hungarian part of the train ride is 40km, a single rail layout with trains passing each other at stations, and it takes only about 45min. The Austrian side is 45km or thereabout,takes nearly three hours. (And cost like 5 times the Hungarian fee)

In the end, we'd pay 50€ per day in transit by train, while a car cost me (including service costs) 10€/100km for both (25€ per day), including the convenience factor when we do the shopping.

Transit for couples is usually cheaper by car. Train only works better if both have to go in different directions or if you're single.

[Rahvin]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

When I used public transit it took me about 90 minutes in the morning and 2 hrs in the evening for my commute - and that's assuming nothing got delayed. Several times my evening commute took more than 3 hrs because I had to wait until another bus because of a delay in a previous bus or train, and by that time they had switched to the slower evening schedule.

The same trip took about 15 minutes by car, up to 45 in rush-hour traffic.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I commute to school because housing is too expensive in the urban areas, and my wife and I both worked up in Lancaster. It's 60 minutes by car each way with no traffic; 90 minutes with traffic. If I took public transportation it would take five hours a day, assuming there were no late trains or missed connections, which happen fairly frequently. Additionally, I could not take evening classes because the trains stop running early, so I would be stranded in another city hours away from my hometown. I do wish I could take a train rather than drive, but that's life. So many people make similar choices, because housing, education, and work are often not located within an hour's drive of each other.

[FSTargetDrone]

Not sure if we talked about it, but remember when Florida Governor Rick Scott turned down returned all kinds of money from the government to use for high speed rail? The Northeast part of the country got the majority of the money he rejected:

U.S. Northeast Wins Biggest Part of Florida’s Rejected Fast-Train Grants

By Lisa Caruso

Mon May 09 13:14:45 GMT 2011

The U.S. government awarded $795 million to increase rail speeds between Boston and Washington, the largest share of the more than $2 billion in high-speed rail grants that Florida rejected in February.

Amtrak won $450 million, the U.S. Department of Transportation said in an e-mail statement today. The national passenger rail service got money to increase capacity and improve trip times between Philadelphia and New York. These funds will allow Amtrak to start bringing trains that can run 220 miles per hour to the Northeast Corridor.

“Amtrak made money last year, ridership was up last year - - they’re providing a good service,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. The investment in infrastructure and equipment “will make Amtrak a better system.”

While Amtrak’s net loss widened to $1.31 billion for the year ended September 2010, the Acela Express line that runs between Boston and Washington had revenue that exceeded operating expenses by 42 percent.

Trains between New York and Philadelphia will run as fast as 160 mph, Al Engel, Amtrak’s vice president for high-speed rail, said in an interview. Speeds on that segment will increase in three to five years, LaHood said on MSNBC today.

The U.S. expects Amtrak’s ridership to rise this year, LaHood said on Bloomberg Television today.

High-speed rail projects will create thousands of U.S. jobs, LaHood said.

Midwest, California

Midwestern states got $404.1 million and California won $300 million toward the 800-mile line it plans to build from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The department allocated $336.2 million for California and the Midwest to buy American-built rail cars and locomotives.

“I’m encouraged by those awards,” Thomas Hart, vice president for government affairs and general counsel for the Washington-based U.S. High Speed Rail Association, said in a telephone interview. “The Northeast Corridor had been lagging but now it is their turn” for significant funding.

He also praised the award of $196.5 million to Michigan to bring trains that can run 110 mph between Chicago and Detroit, reducing trip times by half an hour.

The grant “will bring jobs, it will bring innovation to the depressed Michigan market, and it will feed into the Chicago hub that will be the centerpiece” for high-speed rail service in the Midwest, he said.
Orlando to Tampa

Twenty-four states, the District of Columbia and Amtrak submitted more than 90 applications by April 4 for a share of the high-speed rail grants Florida rejected.

Republican Governor Rick Scott returned the $2.4 billion Florida had been awarded to build a new high-speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa.

The April 15 budget deal between Congress and President Barack Obama to fund the government through September 30 cut $400 million from the rail account, leaving the Transportation Department with $2 billion to redistribute.

Congress and President Barack Obama have been debating his plan to connect 80 percent of the U.S. population to fast trains within 25 years. The high-speed rail program has received $10.1 billion since its creation in 2009. Obama wants to spend another $53 billion over the next six years, while Republicans in Congress are trying to eliminate the program.

Wisconsin, which returned $810 million last fall after Republican Scott Walker was elected governor, had sought $150 million to improve an existing line between Chicago and Milwaukee. It got nothing.

Thanks Florida!

[madd0ct0r]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

yup, that'd be me

Maybe I've just been spoilt. At the moment my commute is about 1hr (by car). Get to site for 8.30 am. leave about 6-6.30 pm (with frequent overtime to 10pm or later). 6 days a week.

Bearing in mind I'm normally asleep at 10pm, that doesn't leave a whole lot of time outside of work. I don't think i'd cope if another hour was added to the day. As it is I've lost weight and resemble a zombie most of the time.


One previous job I had the same length commute, but by rail. It was an 5 day 8 hour office job, so I wasn't physically exasuted the same way either. That was ok. get a coffee, read a book, write some stuff.

when the then-girlfriend got job on the same street and landlord kicked up a fuss about us, we just moved to be 5 min walk away from our jobs. convenient.

[salm]

Maybe I've just been spoilt.

Nah, you´re not. The absolute maximum commuting time i´m willing to accept is 45 minutes each way. And, to be honest, i find that´s pushing it. Wasting more than an hour just to get to and from your job just makes my fingernails curl. Let alone 3 hours. It´s such a waste of time. 3 hours, come on, that´s over 30% of a normal work day.

I don´t think i know anybody in RL who commutes longer than 45 minutes per way. Most commute significantly less.

[[R_H]]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

If those 90 minutes consist largely of drinking coffee, checking your email on your laptop and generally chilling out then I'd say that was pretty reasonable, especially if it enables you to live somewhere cheaper than London or New York.

I used to commute about 45 to 60 minutes each way using light rail, the bus and walking , no relaxing or chilling out occured (in the rail portion of my commute). If I was lucky, I'd have a seat, but even then there was barely any room.

From last September, up until this March I was commuting 2 hours by train each day. During peak hours, if you're lucky you'd get a seat (I commuted before the peak hours in the morning and evening), but even outside those hours, it wasn't very comfortable. It was difficult to work, mainly because of the lack of table space (mostly just tiny little ledges only accessible to the window seats) and the side to side motion of the train (good luck reading or writing with that going on). This was in second class. If I was working, I'd definitely spring for first class, so much more room and usually empty.

[salm]

who the hell is willing to commute 90mins each way for a job?

If those 90 minutes consist largely of drinking coffee, checking your email on your laptop and generally chilling out then I'd say that was pretty reasonable, especially if it enables you to live somewhere cheaper than London or New York.

I used to commute about 45 to 60 minutes each way using light rail, the bus and walking , no relaxing or chilling out occured (in the rail portion of my commute). If I was lucky, I'd have a seat, but even then there was barely any room.

From last September, up until this March I was commuting 2 hours by train each day. During peak hours, if you're lucky you'd get a seat (I commuted before the peak hours in the morning and evening), but even outside those hours, it wasn't very comfortable. It was difficult to work, mainly because of the lack of table space (mostly just tiny little ledges only accessible to the window seats) and the side to side motion of the train (good luck reading or writing with that going on). This was in second class. If I was working, I'd definitely spring for first class, so much more room and usually empty.

Indeed, working on a computer in smaller trains is next to impossible. The only trains around here you can use for that are IC and ICE as well as the various foreign equivalents like the French TGV and the Italian ETR.

[Zaune]

I did use the word "if" in that statement, and I dare say Britain isn't the only country in the world where it's a pretty big "if". (Though in fairness to our much-maligned railway network, airline-style tray tables that can accommodate a modest-sized laptop are now almost universal.) My point was that the more comfortable the conditions of a commute, the longer people will be prepared to endure it in order to get to work.

[[R_H]]

I did use the word "if" in that statement, and I dare say Britain isn't the only country in the world where it's a pretty big "if". (Though in fairness to our much-maligned railway network, airline-style tray tables that can accommodate a modest-sized laptop are now almost universal.) My point was that the more comfortable the conditions of a commute, the longer people will be prepared to endure it in order to get to work.

I agree. Even if it's not as nice as you described, it's still better than having to drive.

Indeed, working on a computer in smaller trains is next to impossible. The only trains around here you can use for that are IC and ICE as well as the various foreign equivalents like the French TGV and the Italian ETR.

Well, outside of peak hours, the SBB uses older cars (even on the route I was using, which a direct connection every 30 minutes between two cities), and they're absolutely terrible, in terms of being able to work in them, and the state they're in, especially when compared to the TGV and ICE.

The newer ones are OK, the one type has airplane-style trays for the twoer seats, the fourers aren't good though; the other type (double story) is good if you're in the upper deck of the restaurant cars.

[weemadando]

Oh man Salm, I rode first class on an ICE and can confirm that all travel should be that wonderfully convenient, comfortable and swish.

[salm]

Never bin on a first class trip but i just got two frequent railer mileage second to first class ticket upgrades for free.

There are also some negative aspects in trains. Last winter i had to travel from Stuttgart to Munich quite often and the winter was so cold that the rails froze up or the power lines or trees fell on the tracks or other annoyances making train travel infuriating due to hour long delays.
Unfortunately we have this idiotic law that prohibits bus companies from setting up intercity connections between places that are serviced by railway.
In the winter it´s often more convenient to use an internet car pool service. People who travel to another city put their phone number on the web and you can call them and ask for a ride. Usually you pay them 5 or so Euro per 100km making it a lot cheaper than going by train. The downside of that is that it´s possible to get idiot drivers or people who put 3 people in the backseat of a Ford Fiesta. Also women traveling alone often don´t feel really safe traveling with strangers in a car. But for students and other young people the car pool services has become a real alternative.

[folti78]

Maybe I've just been spoilt.

Nah, you´re not. The absolute maximum commuting time i´m willing to accept is 45 minutes each way. And, to be honest, i find that´s pushing it. Wasting more than an hour just to get to and from your job just makes my fingernails curl. Let alone 3 hours. It´s such a waste of time. 3 hours, come on, that´s over 30% of a normal work day.

I don´t think i know anybody in RL who commutes longer than 45 minutes per way. Most commute significantly less.

Nah you are spoilt too. Meanwhile I remembered that when I used the mass transit to get to work in Budapest, it usually took 50-80minutes to get there and the similarly to get back to my apartment. It was a ~7-8km ride on the bus and I was very lucky that both my apartment and my workplace are located in downtown. If I had to commute from some outlying district this time can be doubled. Compared to this, it takes 15-20 min by car (barring congestions) and 30 min by bike.

The buses usually crammed by people especially during the rush hours, no AC during summer.

[Alferd Packer]

I don't even mind delays all that much. I have a 3G phone, which is good enough for basic Youtubing, Pandora, satellite radio, as well as any web browsing I'd care to do. In a year and change, I'll have a 4G phone and I'll be able to stream Netflix during the entire length of my commute. So there's a delay on the tracks; just gives me more time to screw around on the internet.

Now, I can see how, as recently as a couple of years ago, commuting a long way via train could be maddening and frustrating, especially during delays, because the average person didn't have a whole lot to distract himself. Now with the ubiquity of smartphones, and 3G coverage, the mass transit commuter has basically the entire internet to keep himself occupied during his ride.

[Patrick Degan]

Not sure if we talked about it, but remember when Florida Governor Rick Scott turned down returned all kinds of money from the government to use for high speed rail? The Northeast part of the country got the majority of the money he rejected.

Thanks Florida!

And Wisconsin and Ohio as well. It's a waste of time to expect stupid conservatives to ever understand the concept of value. Cost is all they know, all they care about, and all they obsess over.

[Alphawolf55]

I don't even mind delays all that much. I have a 3G phone, which is good enough for basic Youtubing, Pandora, satellite radio, as well as any web browsing I'd care to do. In a year and change, I'll have a 4G phone and I'll be able to stream Netflix during the entire length of my commute. So there's a delay on the tracks; just gives me more time to screw around on the internet.

Now, I can see how, as recently as a couple of years ago, commuting a long way via train could be maddening and frustrating, especially during delays, because the average person didn't have a whole lot to distract himself. Now with the ubiquity of smartphones, and 3G coverage, the mass transit commuter has basically the entire internet to keep himself occupied during his ride.

Except for when you know, that delay is going to cause you to be late for work. Most businesses in the NYC for example don't care if you're train was especially slow that day, the only time they might forgive it is when there's heavy construction, literal train shut down (with proof from the MTA) or major service change due to someone needing medical attention