How To IMPROVE America's Bad Transit Networks 

"Boredom: Our Public Spaces CRISIS" is out now! Give it aview! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-556d5Xy1l6c.html

I think city planners in the US understood exactly one phrase from European city planners: "If you do not drive to work, you do not need a car." So they design the transit lines exclusively for the people who currently drive a car to work. The problem is that that phrase is only valid with walkable access to amenities and carsharing.

I’ve lived in Tokyo for the last 3 years and I’ve been spoiled by an amazing public transportation system. I am so sad that I have to go back to America next year lol Houston’s public transportation system is a joke and I wish we’d spend money on stuff like more bus routes and metro rails than on the astrodome

Great video! I'm going to be going to the twin cities for college later this year and I can't wait to see real-time improvement while I'm there. I'm not going to have a car, so I hope to have input on public transportation projects.

Yes, we need transit all over our urban areas! Especially for those of us who don't drive 🙋‍♂️ But centering transit and especially rapid transit around downtowns is not a mistake or the big problem-enabling transfers between rapid transit and many frequent reliable bus routes is a lot more powerful than trying to connect as many places as possible directly. Network hubs work better when they're in dense areas that people live and work in anyway, and in Minnesota today that means downtowns more than anywhere else. And differently scaled cities call for different networks: for example, Chicago could really use a semicircular rail line away from downtown, while in Minneapolis-Saint Paul I can't see anything of the sort being useful anytime soon, if ever. Learning how things work in different countries is revealing in a lot of ways: what Metro Transit calls "arterial BRT"-pay before boarding, wider spacing, better stops, priority and dedicated lanes here and there-in Europe can be *every* bus. We should demand more! By the way: one of the main benefits of the Orange Line is exactly allowing more city to suburb travel, and that's been in mind the entire time!

Exactly! I want to ditch my car and live off transit, but to do that, I need to not only be able to get to work but also be able to get to the store, entertainment, my friends places, and also regional and national connections to travel. Honestly, I think Chicago is doing pretty well. The L does cover most the city. All it needs to become top tier is to add a new circle line that intersects all the current lines. Other than that though, Chicago has regional rail and has pretty good Amtrak connections throughout the Midwest. I'm moving there this year and I'm hoping I can totally ditch my car 🤞🏻

On the whole, I obviously agree with your sentiments regarding where we should be building transit infrastructure. I love how you clearly have a love for the twin cities, they deserve great transit, just like everywhere else!! But I do have some clarifications I'd like to make regarding Chicago, if you'd permit me. :) Chicago's train system is very old, and as a result does brank out from the core, yet there is hope. First, the bus system is too often left out of maps like this, the bus system itself actually has pretty great coverage of the city as a whole, especially in comparison to other U.S. cities (but BRT would be great!). Also, although it is happening far later than it should have, the red line is being extended to the far south side beyond 95th. Does the system have issues? Yes, this is America after all. We should have a 'semi-circle' L line connecting the branches far west and south ( #ChicagoSilverLine ) and there should be express service in directions other than north... But I think that the base criticism is slightly misplaced because of how old Chicago's system is in comparison to the other systems primarily featured. All this is to say, I still really like the video as a whole!

I saw MARTA’s rail map and clicked so fast lol … I hate that city transits in America center everything around business and not the movement of people and the lives they want to build. London does a great job of connecting communities. We should be more like them…

This is why I think Denver's R and L lines are great initiatives. The R line connects the city of Aurora to the southern Denver suburbs and the A line to the airport. Aurora is the most diverse city in CO and has been traditionally underserved. Giving Aurora it's own rail line that doesn't directly connect to the cbd provides much more efficient local transport, and only 1 transfer will get you downtown. Same goes for the L line. Once fully completed, it will connect the cbd to the traditionally diverse area of five points to the growing RiNo arts district and ultimately to commuter rail. Our bus system is still atrocious though.

Great video, and you raise some excellent points. However, I think you may have missed a key issue. In many cities, those underserved areas don't have easy transit options by design. In my opinion, it's because the more affluent neighborhoods appreciate the isolation and segregation built in to the existing networks. I'm not saying it's right--I agree with your position--but it's a factor that needs to be taken into account.

Hi! I live in the Twin Cities and have been here for about 38 of my 55 years, and I am a transit enthusiast and historian. Kudos to you for publicizing this stuff! I think we need a bus from Burnsville to Minneapolis that goes via 35W but uses the Highway 121 cutoff and comes into the city on Lyndale, providing access to South Minneapolis and transfers. I also think the Red Line should be extended up Cedar into Minneapolis and going either Downtown or to the University of Minnesota.

I like the video aand generally agree, but wanted to bring up two points. First is land use, for so many years downtowns and adjacent areas were restricted in what could be built there, meaning that stuff like grocery stores doctor's offices and department stores weren't really located there anymore. So maybe an equally useful thing to do is to really concentrate stuff near transit nodes, stuff like clinics, mid market retail, malls even meaning that more destinations that people need to get to are within easy reach of the highest quality transit. Secondly I think the priority of transit construction should be radial lines to downtown first, circumferential lines to other areas second. And I would say many agencies are following that pattern, its just that we're decades behind schedule.

Finally! Someone talked about it! These days, it's not just housing in the suburbs, but jobs as well. Many office and industrial parks aren't in the downtown core, but in the suburbs. Effectively, transit needs to be more of a grid or a web as opposed to a "hub and spoke" design, as there are a lot of places people need to go other than downtown!

I'm a firm believer in loop routes. Loop routes are always one of the most used routes because it fills this need. Moscow has 3. Beijing is building a 3rd. London has one, Tokyo has one. They fill a need. Chicago has one in Downtown, but this still requires a DT trip. Chicago could use a semi loop going from the Northside to the Southside that goes through the West side. Basically an Outer Chicago semi loop, Minneapolis could use a a full loop, so could Denver, so could Atlanta, so could DC, LA, etc.

Follow my twitter page for more analysis about urban design 👀 twitter.com/AjTabura?t=U4KOLWnu6_4_To4A-OwZFg&s=09

Love what you’re doing man, keep it up !

Good video, I originally clicked because I saw an Atlanta map (where I live) but had fun learning about Minneapolis. I think one think overlooked when mentioning that transit better serves rich people even though poor people use it more is that, since we are so transit starved, once new transit is built even in a poor neighborhood, because transit is so valuable that the neighborhood turns into a higher income neighborhood, so the problem of transit serving only rich people is kinda a self fulfilling prophecy.

I fully agree with you. As a twin cities resident myself there are several lines that aren’t under consideration that could majorly change connections in the twin cities. LRT along the midtown greenway and then along grand or summit to St. Paul, LRT along the southern 494 corridor, and the Dan Patch regional rail service would be huge in expanding suburb to suburb transit options. This should be done along with continue expansion of the arterial BRT network and would go a long ways towards building a truly comprehensive transit system.

Great video. Having lived in Boston for a couple years now, it’s clear that the main subway mainly connects the center of the city with straight shots out of the city. While some bus lines do offer routes that run perpendicular to the subway lines, I’ve only rode the bus a handful of times, just because the routes are so difficult to understand. In Boston’s bus case, I think most people use the bus for commutes to work or to take regular routes, just because its so complicated to understand

I love that you are bringing attention to the twin cities! I love it here, and I’m glad that we are investing more in transit. As you pointed out, metro transit really misses some serious opportunities in order to appeal to suburbanites as opposed to serving major areas like uptown which would undoubtedly have MASSIVE ridership for a light rail line. It’s clear to me though that our leadership sees car dependent development as unsustainable, and they are trying to invest in new means of transportation. Great video, sir. I subbed on your last video and I am pleased to say I have not been disappointed your content :).

Switzerland: "You wann drive your truck which has non essential or time sensitive goods loaded through our country? HAHAHAHAHAAAAA Yea, no, not gonna happen your truck takes the train or you can leave" USA: YOU GET A HIGHWAY LANE!! YOU GET A HIGHWA LANE. EVERYONE GETS A HIGHWAY LANE EACH!!!!!!!

Incredible insights. I've produced my own extensive video on the Orange Line itself and will make the case that the Orange Line is one phase in Minnesota's bus rapid transit plans. The Orange Line is limited by its servicing to the downtown 35W corridor, but it was replacing the existing 535 express bus route. The Twin Cities are going to implement arterial bus rapid transit lines like on Lake Street, but also a branch line plan on American Boulevard to Mall of America which is sorely and desperately needed. Your point about needing circular transit lines is very true about American infrastructure, and could easily be done in the twin cities with the circumferential and pervasive existing freeway network that unfortunately got thrown into our cities. Inter suburban trips should be prioritized and rapid transit corridors should be built to make connections in every single underserved area. The Orange Line is indeed just a step in the right direction and part of a greater plan of expansion. Mixed use Redevelopments on American Boulevard where the Orange Line now serves are proof enough of this. People want transit that serves the modern day, and not just downtown commuters. Thanks for this content. It would be awesome to make a video collab on some Minnesota transit content :D

I'm moving to Boston in a few months, and I have a metro stop within walking distance from my future apartment. Their whole metro system is actually very efficient, especially for a system that dates back to the late 1890s. I'm also close to an Amtrak/commuter rail station as well, so I won't need to own a car. Boston does transit right.

It's true. In Portland, the busiest bus line is the 72, which runs on the east side, north/south, mainly on 82nd Ave and it doesn't go anywhere near downtown. It gets more riders than some of the light rail lines that run downtown.

It seems the purpose of the branching transit lines is to assist people who commute from the suburbs to get to and from work in the city without having to deal with finding a parking spot downtown. The suburban stations tend to have a lot of parking, so people will usually just park there and go into work. Basically, it's for people who already have cars, the important people. The thing about other activity centers outside the central business district is that they all still tend to have lots of parking available, so people will just drive their cars there. Yeah, some poor people will be left out, but so what? They tend to commit crimes, they don't have a lot of money to spend, and so they're just not that valued. A lot of people with cars would rather not have to deal with them, so why enable them to go to the activity centers people with cars like to go?

Please explain how WMATA green line and Marta green and blue line do not serve minority communities.

As a resident of Tallinn, Estonia, it's sad to see that the issue which plagues our public transportation system the most also exists in many American cities. We have free and high-quality network connecting every part of town to downtown, yet connections between different districts, though existent, fail to cover for the huge variety of trips made between these districts: usually you would simply have to go through downtown. One of the worst examples of this is the connection between my home and my middle school: it was only a 20-minute trip by car, yet by public transport the trip would take over an hour... It's sad to see that no changes have been made for all this time.

This is the reason why we need high quality rail transit on the Midtown Greenway corridor (not a single track streetcar)

Why do you look like Hayley Kiyoko at the Scooby Doo live action TV movies?

These BRT Lines need to be overlapping on all Highway corridors in suburban areas especially crosstown suburb to suburb services new rail lines in the US should be unmanned automated low speed maglev lines and or suspended monorail lines especially in areas with no light rail lines and regional rail lines need to be frequent as express service to BRT local rapid or local maglev regional rail networks can act as de facto terminals for high speed rail lines reducing the need for giant terminals instead using several stations in a metro area while acting like super express transit for local people and intercity service for others

Also help minor like me who too young own a car or can't afford it.

Denver's light rail lines all rely heavily on existing corridors, in the more residential south it uses freeway corridors while in the industrial north heavier lines can use existing rail corridors. The problem is all these corridors funnel downtown with the exception of the I-225. It's possible that if the freeways we're built around the city instead of straight through then Denver would have more suburb to suburb rail service.

I would say "take out the minority" aspect of your video to get more people on our side. You need to make our case for trains to be for all and not just one segment of the population.

Many transit lines were not built as transit lines. They were privately owned freight lines that had passenger lines of business. Starting the 50s and through the 70s these private roads stopped providing passenger service. Passenger service has always been a money loser. In steps the government to fill the gap and you get Amtrak (Federal) and your local commuter lines (State/City). Metra, MARC, SEPTA, and so on all operation on rail that was already there when they began. These lines all inherited rolling stock that the freight lines no longer needed and run with trackage rights (they own very little or no track). Profitable passenger lines in this country are almost certainly not going to happen. Private companies realized this shortly after WWII with the advent of the interstate highway. The infrastructure needs are too great. It's not just about building the track, it's about getting the right of way. Cities simply do not have the ability to make this happen. Buses however can simply run on existing roads. Buses are far more practical. Buses that are used M-F for the work rush can be repurposed after hours or on weekends for needed surges in traffic (sports events, concerts, holiday shopping). Trains must have tracks and stations. Buses can go anywhere there is a road and stop where they wish. Simply look at why short line rail roads exist. Lines like CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, and others sell off low traffic lines. The cost of maintaining miles of track for very few customers doesn't make sense. Passengers are just freight. Governments will run commuters lines on existing track where the loss is manageable, but they will almost never take on the role of builder or full out owner.

Some people can’t drive because of visual or other disabilities. Public transit in suburbs would be just as valuable as large cities.

Uh, what?!? the CTA is not "bad transit". Like, it could be better sure, but it is actually fantastic and I dislike it being called 'bad transit' very much. Just saying. Other than that, great content.

Pretty much sums up how I feel about public transit in the US. Living in Tokyo or Singapore, I am able to go anywhere in the city via train and bus. Living in LA taking public transit feels like I have to go out of my way and even then I can't go to key places outside of downtown or to a friend's house. As much as I like cars and driving I absolutely hate having to drive every where especially in places where winters are cold and snow is common. Good video, thanks for summarizing my thoughts on why public transit in the US sucks.

It’s centered on downtown area because that’s where the demand is and that’s where revenue is generated. To place somewhere where there is little foot traffic provides no value considering the millions it will cost to build a transit network and the maintenance.

That's where circle lines come in. But at the end of the day, the demand has to be there for them to justify it.

I think that you know you have done great work when rich people use public transport because its save enough. Ok I have a bit a different view to that as a Swiss with relatives in the USA. Think that Zurich with its S-Bahn and Streetcar is an almost perfect example.

Do you think there will be good transit systems without first building up density in those areas? I feel like city planners won't prioritize those areas without density.

Very good discussion of the problems! In Hamburg, Germany, we also have the problem that most rail transit lines focus on the city center. Or authorities plan another underground line - U5 - which will cost 8 billions of Euro (i.e., 8 x 10^9). And this line will also lead to central station and back to outer quarters. Tangential connections or outer rings are only served by bus lines without priority lanes. So their average speed is much lower, compared to underground and suburban trains. This is not only a social question. We have got rather the problem that Hamburg central station is already handling much more traffic than it could handle reasonably - and in some years even more passengers will get there by the new underground line. On your maps I saw that Denver plans to build a circle on the eastern side of downtown, that seems a better approach from my point of view.

4:36 actually you need to go to downtown for that trip. For that trip you can take the 21 to the A Line which don’t require you to go to downtown. I will say though that Minneapolis and St. Paul do need more crosstown lines, especially north of Lowry Avenue in north and northeast Minneapolis, south of 46th street in south Minneapolis and east of arcade street in east St. Paul and crosstown routes in west side(the neighborhood) in St. Paul

One of the conversations were having in Denver around the long overdue plans to create an arterial BRT network is how to best implement it? The first project is on Colfax and is going to be a center running gold standard BRT, which is awesome! And there are two more corridors in the planning stages that are likely to be side running (federal and Colorado). There are a lot of advocates, pushing for a more quick build BRT lite for other arterials so we can reap the network effect benefits sooner instead of waiting for money to go full BRT. I’m on the fence because I worry about BRT creep and a subpar service not attracting riders. But it seems like Minneapolis is seeing excellent ridership on their arterial BRTs which aren’t gold standard for the most part. That makes me think getting more BRT implemented faster, even if they’re BRT lite can be a good strategy. Any thoughts?

This is true. Transit that bypasses downtown can allow easy suburb-to-suburb travel. However, as funding transit takes time, there's still a need to help low-income families get around independently and reliability. Therefore, providing subsidies to own and maintain automobiles enables their mobility in the interim. Meanwhile, we could work on improving transit links for everybody. However, I know this approach is unpopular due to not reducing overall emissions immediately and the fact that it still supports automobility. Those are my two cents. Thank you, @AJTabura, for an insightful video on the case of public transit serving all places in the city to give people freedom of mobility.

I’m a Minneapolis resident. I think that we need to build our light rail more like trams and streetcars.

We'll get there, but it will take time. However, if there was more federal funding, it could happen much sooner. Funding is key in building a comprehensive Metro system, but most cities don't have the financial capacity to do that in a timely way. The only way to expedite this is with substantially more federal funding. The kind of funding given to states and cities to build out the national highway system in the 59-60s. We need to make this a national program for transit rail of all kinds including city metros, regional rail, long commuter passenger rail, and HSR. A coordinated national program. We need to find a great group of national politicians from across the country from both major parties to promote this. It's been long overdue because the piecemeal approach being valiantly attempted by local jurisdictions in different states and cities is nowhere near enough to adequately meet the growing needs of a modernizing society like ours. We've been asleep at the wheel for too long.

I love living in Minnesota but one problem that needs fixing in the twin cities is the amount of car centric urban sprawl in the cities, while we can’t get rid of the suburbs, we can make them better with better transit and more walkability. I am happy my home town of Apple Valley has a top notch transit station downtown but the one problem with Apple valley is the stroads but I think that can be fixed. I think one policy idea for urban policy is banning strip mallls and building mixed use public shopping centers with apartments above to make more density and if anything it will probably be welcomed to do this since it would make the suburbs nicer places to live by getting rid of these tacky places for shopping and making better places to enjoy the day at.

To be fair, I think your missing a key data point. You look at various suburbs, but did you look at suburb property value? The higher the wealth of an area the lower the probability those riders will actually use public transportation. So why spend limited resources on projects that go thru weathy neighborhoods and provide no benefit for the system as a whole. Secondly, with those wealthy neighborhoods comes a thing called NIMBY. The richer the area the more likely these folks will stall a project and will eventually lead to the projects failure. Think LA's Subway thru west LA. It was fought tooth and nail by NIMBY people from Beverly Hills etc.... Thirdly, it is easier for planners to create a hub and spoke system initially. Why? You can't build a great system or build a strong structure without a strong back. Public transportation is finally being realized and being developed in the USA. So the hybrid system of a central "backbone" of various lines leading to a center hub is easy to market AND provide various interconnections. With the development of a "backbone" system this allows planners to then start looking at building transit with "loop lines" and providing regional connectivity. A great example of this is the BART and SF Muni of the Bay Area. BART connects the whole region (backbone), where as SF Muni connects to all the various areas of the City of San Fransisco (arteries).

Living in Houston, notorious for its car centric infrastructure, I can personally tell you that in order to bike to my nearest high school, I have to cross an INTERSTATE HIGHWAY with cars going upwards of 50 mph. As a nation we need to change

Man, nice video but I've got some bad news for American cities' bare likelihood to have effective public transportation. And no, I'm not pointing the obvious that you can't have a city that large by area serviced by a handful of lines, no it's far deeper than that. The fact that American cities currently have a laughable coverage (%) of public transportation over their ares (given that stops supposedly service the 1/4 mile radius around it; or at least that's how it's seen in Europe - the textbook of urban planning and public transit); and that Americans lacks super basic understanding of concepts of urban planning (excellent example: the tram in Downtown Milwaukee like... what the actual f is that teeny tiny line gonna do on a city scale?!?! it's like a bad joke; completely irrelevant for 99% of the city). Here comes the actual, I could say almost unfixable issues. One of them is completely unfixable, the latter, however, is. Although... near impossible given the American way of things. 1) your cities are just too damn f large in area. The obsession of Americans over owning land and having space (backyards, frontyards, large area single-storey house) and disgust in living in a building with other households is costing you all way too much. Why? Because of simple geometry. You say in this video that interchanging lines is troubling. Well, guess what, even for an European city which is compact, way higher in density and with incomparably better transportation, from one point on (size-wise) it becomes practically impossible to go from any given point to any other given point without switching lines. Why? Because the larger a city, the WAY WAY WAY more possible connection there are to be made. If the city X has let's say 100 "spots" that makes 100x99=9900 needed connections and the city Y is twice larger in size and has 200 "spots" it doesn't have twice as many needed connections to be made. It has 200x199 and that's FOUR times more. If the city Z is 10 times larger in size, that means it needs 100 times more connections. See where I'm going? Two things. You cannot possibly have any large city anywhere in the world to have all direct connections from anywhere to everywhere, it's completely impossible, only smaller cities can have that because their land area is so small (or in comfortable shape) that like 20 lines literally cover the whole city. The larger a city is, the more practically impossible to apply it is, even if a city decides to be a public transportation heaven. Interchanging is completely unavoidable and the problem is only in the people's minds and their unwillingness to deal with it as if it's some hell (of course, the low frequency of vehicles on a line contributes a lot to why people find it undesirable). So yes, since American cities already ARE made to be humongous (for example in Europe, a city with the population of Minneapolis St. Paul metro area would be like 10 times more compact which makes connectivity like 100 times easier and almost never would a public transportation line would struggle with absurdly low passenger usage percentage because... density... a 10 mile line in a European city would cover the homes and businesses of like 10 times more people, at least) and that's a fact we cannot change, one thing that can be changed (with a radical change of concepts/mindsets) is: 2) your cities are planned with way too rigid zoning. Rigid zoning is only needed regarding dirty industrial (for... logical, healthy, ecological reasons, you don't want a nasty factory chimney right outside your home or office). Pretty much every other functionality can be a neighbour to any other. That way you won't have the nearest grocery store 5 miles away (I will never understand why you've done this to yourselves) which requires such a looong journey just to pick up 2 things. You won't have to go to downtown for the nearest cinema and won't have to drive 10 miles to a shopping center. Imagine having almost everything (the more common things) within a mile. You cannot imagine how much this would alleviate your cities if each district had its own mini downtown with a diversity of businesses there (at the same time jobs and services to use when you're not at work), instead of being tens of sq. miles of low density residential only and one street (miles away from most of the homes) with some commercial zoning. Just imagine... corner shops splattered evenly within the residential district... mixed uses mid-rise buildings along the main streets/boulevards, more jobs within walking distance or 4-5 stops away on a district bus line which all of a sudden doesn't need to connect you to anything and everything in the city because you have an instance of that a lot nearer...

Goodness gracious young man. You HAD to go for the HARD SELL...Use Black folks to show how much they need it.

I think it would help if you provide examples of international good transit network.

Atlanta should expand it transit in areas where it’s already approved…. Fulton, Dekalb, and Clayton county…. It should’ve been a main heavy rail line around the entire 285…. Commuter rail down 75 to Macon….. and even a few branches around the interior of Atlanta….. BRT is great but I feel like in a few years they’ll be a need for something else. I also think also think alot of cities are going BRT right now because it’s easier to acquire the land then eventually those lines can be converted to light rail or heavy in some cities…. The DOT would already open the land the BRT routes run so converting them won’t be much of a hassle

BRT/bRT in Minneapolis is a start, but it is still a bus. We can't and won't get people who don't already use Metro Transit to use these routes, since they're downright confusing and buses are inherently (and historically) not going to be reliable. There is a huge stigma that buses hold. LRT is for mass movement of the most amount of people possible, it acts like a highway for getting people in and out of our city asap. LRT is for suburbanites (and they cost laughably too much like the constantly inflated cost of the Green Line Extension or the still not built Blue Line Extension). I live in Old Town and work in North Loop, though taking a bus just isn't realistic. I walk across the bridge, even when the air is so cold it hurts. The only way to get more people out of their cars or on foot is to make the streets safer to walk, and to make physical tracks for the transit lines, aka Streetcars. Our city was literally built because of streetcars, the built environment is still there. Streetcar networks are much better for local neighborhood routes, and show that high physical investment in our public streetscapes is important. BRT can never accomplish the same.

Pleasantly surprised this vid involved the twin cities. metro mobility does a good job- defiantly better than other cities in NA. I'm living in Denver rn and the only thing good they have here is their light rail, and even that I have to walk 45 minutes to get to the station from my campus. A lot of the time I miss mlps and our bike paths. I didn't take the bus often, but had countless friends that did, and my mom would take the orange line into work every day from south mlps. That being said, I totally agree that the current system doesn't do enough to get everyone where they need to go. And sometimes its a two steps forward one step back sort of thing, like with the recent widening of 35w.

Transit systems must include local trips and people also need to understand they must connect to services at hubs and not a "one seat journey" like most cities. Our system could be much better but we have buses who compete with train services

Phoenix which has bad light rail, has a great bus system, since Phoenix is a grid, the bus lines are just one street, so you get almost anywhere without having to go into downtown, but they need to improve on the frequency that the buses come, which is definitely needed

The problem is that there probably is only minimal demand to go from any particular low density suburb to another particular low density suburb. So you hub and spoke the system through the highest demand area, downtown.

The Auto industries will fight tooth and nails preventing comprehensive public transit systems for all Americans.

Can't you just Uber when you need to visit your dentist? Stop complaining when you don't wanna drive a car. You save a lot of $$ for not owning a car already.

But with buslinies you wont get any people out of the car. driving with a bus is uncomfortable and slow.... you need light rail or street cars....

By focusing on identities such as minorities and low income people you reinforce the belief that public transit doesn't concern most people, whereas the analysis should revolve around the long term cost-benefit analysis of public transit vs car infrastructure for the city (and country) as a whole.

Fellow Minnesotan! Hello from Alexandria. Subscribed.

good job with this video, I'm in New York which is probably the best example in the entire country and even we still have some work to do with connecting the dry parts

My city has a nice Light Rail line that they want to get rid of because they said it's too expensive to maintain. I can't understand this since it has been in operation with continuous upgrades and updates for over 100 years. And now they want to get rid of it?

another upside is that it will lower pressure on the city centers. If all transit goes through the central city, that's where all the activity will be, and the housing there will be insanely expensive. But if public transit goes everywhere, then it reduces the demand to live in the center of a city. Because yes, some people love being in the center of a city, but others just live there because they want easy access to transit.

You should keep posting videos! Your voice and format have the potential to make a difference.

Aw hell yeah more videos about public transit. Also great timing on the opening shot, that's quality!

it's great that transit lines can take us to our jobs in downtown and stuff, means less cars during rush hour traffic, but... that's often times the only place the transit can take you, wanna go to the store? wanna go to a park in a different neighborhood, or to visit friends or to a nearby bar or something... sucks to be you, gotta own a car cos the bus doesn't go there. actually, why should I even have to take the bus to get groceries, that stuff should be at walking distance, but just in case the nearby store doesn't have what I need. that's why I love loop lines.

We need to do away with comparing “minorities” to white people. It’s not productive and causes division especially to poor white people which make up a good part of the low income communities. We can have another discussion about that. The real problem to address is low income because anyone can be poor. We are all American. And you’re right about the designs. The spoke designs worked well in the 20th century. Mostly because the urban communities were closer to the downtowns. And in today’s day and age, downtowns don’t offer much. And most people that live urban communities often commute away from downtown and to the suburbs. when cities were being built for cars, they used the grid layout because it was efficient. That’s the way our transit networks should be built nowadays. The orange line should go through downtown and more north. Dc has a great network when it comes to reaching all parts of the city

I think that America should take inspiration from Europe on this one, I mean look at Paris. Most of the time, driving a car is longer than taking the metro or tram or train or bus. By the way ''le pass Navigo'' (a card that allows you to take any public transportation mean near Paris) is fabulous. I know that everything is not perfect, but the least I can say is that the variety of transportation means is great when the mean that is chosen is adapted to people's needs. I think Paris transportation system is good at it. RMTransport video on this topic explains it well. Anyway the video was nice. I hope American cities are gonna follow this path...

1:35 Why bring race into this? It's better to drive so get more people driving than using public transport that requires timetables and limited to departure locations

While I agree the transit in America is bad they need to take notes from European cities, unfortunately the politics can be behind this.

Look at the legacy systems & their original maps. We moved people very well a century ago. The template is there.

honestly just extend and make everything bigger and longer

THE ROLE OF LOOP LINES THAT NO ONE TALKS ABOUT IS IT ALLOWS FOR MORE THAN ONE CENTER 2 A CITY WITCH MEANS LESS TRAFFIC IN CONSINTRATED PLACES AND LESS CARS ARE NEEDED BECAUSE MAJOR IMPORTANT INFRUSTRUCTURE IS LOT CLOSER!!!!

0:38 That's a point. New York addresses this problem, and Moscow builds a nice solution.

I was a long term public transit user for most of my life the system I used 1- was designed to only take people to the centre of the city and then only knowledge workers not people who bring tools at work 2- would not allow me to carry vary many groceries, so I could not take advantage of volume discounts 3- only ran frequently ( more then once an hour ) during 8-6 M-F so if you ere not a standard office worker it was almost unusable ( needing to transfer on busses that come every 90 minutes if the transfers are not perfect means spending hours go to and from work and requiring getting t work an hour or more early to ensure I am not late ) 4-was actually remarkably expensive with a round trip cost of over $5 but not usable 24/7 and had many rules about what you could bring on the bus ( including tools I needed t work that might be perceived as dangerous ) 5-was extremely unreliable with service being frequently suspended by storms or protests or other evens SO now I have an ICE car and its all so much easier

Totally agree, thats why I like the new interborough express in New York it really helps people that dont need to go to manhattan, but between brooklyn and queens

Downtown LA to Artesia? Nobody wants to go to Artesia! You ought to be the law in Los Angeles.

Cool video. Earned my follow. Also nice KSG poster.

First step to improve public transit is to abolish NEPA

Nice job making everything about Race 👍🏻

I like you. You're a sensible ass person. Keep on keeping it real bro 💯😊

Sure, building a network is great, but there are other things that come along with this. In my city, the network idea is already a thing since the points of interest of the city are kind of exploded all over the place. My city faces multiple transit problems, several of which are of its own making. The biggest is the numerous twists and turns that lines need to negotiate in order to get to their destinations. The city has allowed developers to build Americanised suburbs which only have a few exists on main thoroughfares and have with streets that twist and turn. The result is bus routes which are highly inefficient. The street network just does not lend itself to efficient public transit. Given just how bad some of the routes are, walking there, I can actually beat the bus to most of the locations I frequently visit... Yeah, it is really that bad. The other major problem that my city has is that it used to have a clock face bus system. It abandoned that system sometime in the early 2000s. I do not have a vehicle. I used to ride the bus regularly. I no longer do. Having to check when the bus is going to be at the corner of the street every time I want to go somewhere is that little extra step which has pushed me off. I absolutely cannot be bothered to do that every time there is somewhere I want to be. I either find another way to get what I want, ask myself if I really need it, or just make due with what I have. I am very fortunate to have a small grocery store within walking distance.

Lmfao what do Atlanta metro think they are Boston with the orange and green line 3ct

Where I live, rapid transit kind of creates gentrification. In Toronto, properties that were near or on transit lines have higher value than those outside, and thus kind of gentrifies the area... In the end it doesn't actually help the poor, it makes them move away

The bus couldn't pulled up at a better time 😂 great video!

It's also not uncommon for people to live in a suburb and work in another suburb. Having to go into downtown and then back out to get to another suburb doesn't do much good.

How does COVID and WFH change the game?

This is a great video, subbed! Would love to collaborate sometime.

Knew that thumbnail marta map looked famililar

I definitely agree that there is a lack of public transit access within the outskirts of the cities. If I want to go to Roseville or south Minneapolis from the umn campus, there is public transit access though but the time takes to get there; it takes an hour or two. Also I like how you wore an orange hoodie when you were at the orange line stops haha

Alright here's the big question: what can I do to make these things happen? I'm a suburban homeowner and I am forced to drive everywhere and it's butts

More transit youtubers. YAY! Subscribed

Other side note: You saying that a station in the middle in the freeway is really good kind of discredits you. It is not a place anyone really wants to be unless they really have to. Theses kinds of stations tend to be hard to access. Their location implies that you are necessarily going to need at least 2 transfers to get to where you want. Putting stations in the middle of a freeway can sometime works, but generally speaking, they should be avoided like the plague.

Disagree with your comment about Chicago. I live here and don’t have a car and the public transit easily gets me anywhere I need to go. The El lines run largely through places people live and the gaps are filled in by busses or a short walk. My biggest complaint would be that bus service becomes infrequent the later it gets, so planning around that is annoying (especially in cold Chicago winters). Some people aren’t privileged enough to pay for a cab or Uber. I think Metra is more the culprit you are looking for, and they also serve a purpose. Don’t forget the suburban Pace bus company. If you overlaid all these networks I think it would paint a better picture than just looking at a map of the El for 2 seconds and calling it bad.

I agree with your sentiments. A network with branches out of the core and radial/circular links is the ideal goal. All I would say is, you have to start somewhere! The U.S. is playing serious catch up at the moment. You can't make a network overnight. Starting with lines from the CBD to the suburbs is the first step, but it shouldn't stop there.

another huge issue in north american transit is that we are making everything BRT or LRT even when it makes no sense to do so even in the context of the lines created. north american cities are sprawling, and we need types of transit that can combat that, namely we need to see more high order transit, especially regional Rail and light (or sometimes heavy) metro.