To keep millennials, cities are going to need to improve their transit options, a new study suggests.
http://t4america.org/2014/04/22/survey-to-recruit-and-keep-millennials-give-them-walkable-places-with-good-transit-and-other-options/
The study, released by the Rockefeller Foundation and Transportation for America, suggests four in five millennials (those aged 18-34) want multiple options for getting to school, work and other daily destinations. Right now, most cities aren't doing a very good job: the majority of respondents in all but the three largest cities studied — Chicago, New York City and San Francisco — said options weren't good enough where they lived.
A few more takeaways from the study:
•54 percent of those interviewed said they'd be willing to move to a different city with better transit options.
•46 percent said they'd consider giving up their car if they had a range of transit options.
•Among those who don't own a car, 70 percent said they couldn't afford to live in an area without transit.
•A large majority, 91 percent, said "investing in quality public transportation systems creates more jobs and improves the economy."
In the release, the director of Transportation for America, James Corless, suggested it was in cities' best interest to keep improving transit.
"The talented young workforce that every region is trying to recruit expects to live in places where they can find walkable neighborhoods with convenient access to public transportation. Providing those travel and living options will be the key to future economic success."
Quote from: finehoe on April 24, 2014, 10:06:42 AM
"The talented young workforce that every region is trying to recruit expects to live in places where they can find walkable neighborhoods with convenient access to public transportation. Providing those travel and living options will be the key to future economic success."
Are you listening, Jacksonville?
^ yes many are
The love of and endless curiosity over the "freedom machine" automobile that we Baby Boomers had is simply not there anymore. Young people want to get from point A to point B to do whatever they are setting out to do.
It doesn't have to be in a big fine car - it will work just as well in a big fine streetcar.
It's funny that a majority in SF didn't say transit options weren't sufficient. Yes, we have options, but they all kinda' suck, LoL. Most people around here have nothing but bad things to say about our transit at this point, which hasn't been expanded even though we've added 114,000 people in just 46 sq miles since 1990 (not even going to mention the Bay as a whole).
If you care about the future of walkability and transit in our region, please come to the Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan public meeting tonight, 5-7 p.m. at FSCJ Deerwood!
Quote from: stephendare on April 24, 2014, 12:35:30 PM
Quote from: IrvAdams on April 24, 2014, 11:34:41 AM
The love of and endless curiosity over the "freedom machine" automobile that we Baby Boomers had is simply not there anymore. Young people want to get from point A to point B to do whatever they are setting out to do.
It doesn't have to be in a big fine car - it will work just as well in a big fine streetcar.
Keep in mind that the baby boomer got cars when they were mechanically simple enough that teenagers could build them and maintain them. There were no federal regulations about the materials that the bodies were made out of, drinking and driving was hardly a serious offense, insurance was not mandatory and relatively rare, gas was 40 cents a gallon and most of the infrastructure that we presently pay for daily was not in existence.
There were no mandatory cancellations of your drivers license for lack of insurance or missed renewal dates, most streets didnt have lanes painted onto them, there were no fines for emissions, there wasnt an extra tax on gas, you didnt get a revoked drivers lisense for dui, non payment of fines, lack of insurance or failure to appear, and there wasnt a brisk business in towing other peoples cars that turned into officially sponsored chop shops that took your car, charged you storage fees, filed a lien against the vehicle and then sold it off for parts or to a wholesaler within a matter of a month.
The "Car Culture" has ceased to exist.
Absolutely. And that explains why, even at my age, given a good urban choice, I might even opt to give up the auto for the city. I'm tempted.
Quote from: IrvAdams on April 24, 2014, 01:00:57 PM
Absolutely. And that explains why, even at my age, given a good urban choice, I might even opt to give up the auto for the city. I'm tempted.
When the right infrastructure exists, it's really not that hard. When I lived in DC, I didn't have car, and rarely, if ever, missed it. I could walk to anything I needed, rode transit to work, could catch a cab with ease or use bikeshare. People talk about the "freedom" that an automobile gives you, but I felt much more free without one.
Quote from: simms3 on April 24, 2014, 11:41:15 AM
which hasn't been expanded even though we've added 114,000 people in just 46 sq miles since 1990 .
there have been several expansions since 1990....the Market street light rail line, Embarcadero trolley, and BART extension to the airport come to mind.
I heard the current JTA chief on the Melissa Ross program the other day. I'm not so impressed.
I heard promises that real-time transit information will be available when their schedules are revised. My response: Why wait? My other response: Why does their website say Next Bus will be implemented by the end of 2014?
http://www.jtafla.com/Blueprint2020/FAQ/RealTimePassInfoFAQ.pdf
... and why just Next Bus? I've been using Transit Times + for my trips to Boston and Washington and find it superior to Next Bus. Transit Times +, by the way is already available for Miami, Tampa, and Orlando. What's holding JTA back other than inertia, laziness, and stupidity?
JTA's website has all kinds of whiz-bang stuff pushing all the right buttons for transit advocates. Here's an example:
http://futureplans.jtafla.com/TOD/Pages/default.aspx
But look at their record on TOD. The logical place for implementing it would be Rosa Parks, where they have a flood of customers who would want to buy something. Next-door is a JTA parking lot. Wouldn't it be prudent for them to build a retail facility there that would integrate with Rosa Parks and move the parking elsewhere?
I really want to be encouraged, but I continue to be disappointed.
Quote from: finehoe on April 24, 2014, 01:21:45 PM
Quote from: IrvAdams on April 24, 2014, 01:00:57 PM
Absolutely. And that explains why, even at my age, given a good urban choice, I might even opt to give up the auto for the city. I'm tempted.
When the right infrastructure exists, it's really not that hard. When I lived in DC, I didn't have car, and rarely, if ever, missed it. I could walk to anything I needed, rode transit to work, could catch a cab with ease or use bikeshare. People talk about the "freedom" that an automobile gives you, but I felt much more free without one.
Yep. We'll be living in DC all summer & looking forward to going truly carless again. We're not even bringing our cars into the city. Why bother?
And I feel like that's the great dupe of the boomer generation (among other things) & they fell for it hook, line & sinker. The car racket is just the opposite. Being chained to a never ending abyss of monthly payments, insurance, maintenance, fuel, tickets, etc is hardly any sane person's idea of "freedom".
You can say a lot of things about Gen Xers & Yers, but they know bullshit when they see it. The car culture (and everything built around it, including much of the 'burbs) are in for a rude awakening once they get a little older.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 24, 2014, 01:26:31 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 24, 2014, 11:41:15 AM
which hasn't been expanded even though we've added 114,000 people in just 46 sq miles since 1990 .
there have been several expansions since 1990....the Market street light rail line, Embarcadero trolley, and BART extension to the airport come to mind.
Well tell that to people like myself who live here. Transit in SF is very inadequate for a city its size/density. The Embarcadero trolley is nothing but a tourist line that no local would use (you would only know that if you lived here). The BART extension to both SFO and Oakland is nice...but not useful for day to day, and BART means nothing to most city residents since it doesn't really serve the city itself, more the suburbs - bringing them into the city.
MUNI metro under Market came into being when streetcars were converted to LRT, in 1980. I think you're thinking of the T Third, which is the least used and currently most useless line through Mission Bay into Dogpatch and points beyond. It does serve the under-served Bayview area, which is good, and Mission Bay is being built now. It will serve the Warriors' new arena when it opens, which has everyone terrified because we know it won't have the capacity to do so (really only BART will and the unfortunately politics and rising costs got in the way of the Warriors locating near BART).
Quote from: simms3 on April 24, 2014, 03:06:52 PM
The Embarcadero trolley is nothing but a tourist line that no local would use (you would only know that if you lived here).
I include the light rail on past the ballpark as part of the Embarcadero...that's hardly a tourist trolley
^^^That's the T Third I mentioned. The point of that line is really to serve Mission Bay (UC now), UCSF Mission Bay campus, Dogpatch, and Bayview, as well as connecting the system rather inconveniently to Caltrains (a better connection will be made once Central Subway finishes and shortcuts across part of town to that area, connecting to T Third). Even though a brief section of it travels along the Embarcadero, it doesn't "serve" the Embarcadero area like you think. And even if it did, that would not make it any more useful.
The vast majority of city residents have no direct access to LRT, and instead use the buses/trolley buses. Ridership numbers correlate this if you want to look at Q4 2013 APTA reports.
Avg Daily Weekday Ridership #s, Linked
LRT - 214,600
Bus - 499,000 (includes E and F heritage streetcar lines, which are a small segment of this number and tourist driven)
CableCar (90% tourist driven) - 22,800
At SF's density, the split between rail and bus should be more 50-50 in my opinion, with a gradual transition over to more rail usage, since it's a lot more efficient at moving crowds, which occur naturally with greater density. As it stands, MUNI has horrible coverage, and we all think it should be expanded immensely. We all think BART needs a new line down Geary and the city will soon have to build a new Transbay Tube since the one we have now is reaching capacity (however, the powers that be are not even close to prepared to undertake that).
Tufsu, I know this is your "area", per se (and normally I would defer), but I'm at least decently educated on the topic of transit and I'm a daily rider of SF's transit options, so just take it from me ;)
Anyway, back to my original point, I was surprised that this poll included SF as a city where the majority didn't think that transit options weren't sufficient. The amount of complaining you hear here in the city you'd think MUNI was a crime. Count me in as someone who definitely thinks transit could be better here, especially as we add 10,000 people a year and continue to get rid of street parking and force developers to not include much if any parking. You can't force getting rid of the car and increasing density without substantially improving transit. That's basic logic.
The city itself spends $165M annually on homeless services. I think we need to look after the needy, but I think there's also a reason that SF is basically the country's dumping ground for the homeless (you think there are that many in Jax?!?!). I think at least a portion of that money should start going to tax paying residents who are being forced to take inadequate transit due to SFMTA's and the City's general neglect.
I echo what seems to be the general consensus around here.
Simms, I was gonna say that you're overthinking this, especially without knowing the context of the wording, which was taken from a summary of a report about a study.
So I actually went to look at the survey results, and yeah that wording is really not indicative of what really was asked or answered. The results actually do not show individual cities, but rather pre-determined groups of cities based on transit infrastructure. NYC, Chicago and San Fran were grouped together as the three "mature systems."
Take a look yourself, but as it pertains to this specific topic, the question was (I'm paraphrasing to take it out of the survey format):
"Tell me how you would rate your city in providing a convenient and reliable public transportation system?
excellent, good, just fair, or poor."
For the Mature Systems it went: Excellent (17%), good (50%), just fair (26%), or poor (6%).
http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/RF-Millennials-Survey-Topline.pdf
Ok, so respondents from those 3 cities together answered 67% positively (good or excellent)...etc. Ok, that makes sense. Technically, for all we know, SF respondents could have answered "poor" or "just fair" the bulk of the time, but when lumped with respondents from NYC and Chicago it would have swung upwards, if that was the case.
What's interesting about this study is how few respondents from the 3 "mature system" cities answered "Excellent". I think if you polled visitors to NYC from Jax or Atlanta or most cities, even SF, more people would say that the MTA is "excellent", however, New Yorkers who must rely on it don't seem to share that same opinion. It's all relative. Another poster from another thread who was having a side back and forth with me brought up that folks from Jax would probably be blown away by the awesome SF MUNI + BART system. I can tell you, we as residents are not blown away :P
Quote from: simms3 on April 25, 2014, 12:31:51 AM
Tufsu, I know this is your "area", per se (and normally I would defer), but I'm at least decently educated on the topic of transit and I'm a daily rider of SF's transit options, so just take it from me ;)
I just wanted to make the point that there have been transit improvements in SF over the past 20+ years. Now I agree that MUNI and BART aren't necessarily keeping up with demand, but that's a problem of transit systems all over the country....and yes, that even includes JTA.
^^^Well if you want to get technical. ;)
If you really examine the top cities with the highest transit ridership and lowest car ownership in this country (NYC, DC, Boston, SF, Chicago, Philly), I think you'd see that while SF is the 2nd most dense city of these and the Bay Area in general is the 1st or 2nd most dense metro area in the country (and growing like DC's), the transit systems are dismally inadequate.
There is going to be a ballot measure that we vote on this year brought forth by someone (we have governance by referendum here) called "Restore SF's Transportation Balance" that calls for the city to focus on making driving easier and more convenient and restoring parking.
Some quotes to consider from advanced transit users here, as we plan our own transit in Jax:
QuoteMy partner and I own a car for good reason. Transit sucks in this city. Regardless, I have a monthly MUNI pass to ride to and from work every weekday while he takes the car to commute from the Sunset to the Marina (15 min drive versus 45+ min on MUNI).
What we need is more investment in real transit. Hell, I never gave owning a car a thought when I lived in NYC or Washington, DC. Here, it's different. Let's see..should I take MUNI all the way from the west side of town to 4th/King (requiring a transfer along the way) to hop on Caltrain to head to SJ for a delightful 2 hour minimum trip OR drive 50 min.
QuoteThe truth of the matter is that transit is miserable here, and is extremely difficult for most locations. I own a car and so does my GF. We will continue to pay through the nose for the privilege, not because we are out to kill the environment or are bad urbanites or whatever, but because for our commute needs, public transit (both in the city and in the greater area) is not adequate. In fact, not even close.
And I do use MUNI, but to say it is so comprehensive that driving is unnecessary is completely untrue. Case in point? It took me 40 minutes on the 22 last week to get to Fillmore/Chestnut from 16th/Valencia. The drive time on Google Maps? 9 minutes. As long as it is more efficient and easier to drive from place to place in the city than it is to take MUNI, people will continue to buy and use cars.
You want to eliminate cars from SF? Do something about transport. Stop trying to legislate away demand for cars. It will happen, and quite naturally, when people don't need them.
Not to mention that just because your lifestyle allows you to live car free does not mean it is a valid lifestyle for others. At large here is a healthy does of ableism, agism, anti-family policies, and a complete disregard for tradespeople as varied as plumbers, architects, realtors, contractors, property managers, inspectors, etc that need to get from place to place quickly. Sort of funny that the proponents are progressiveness who theoretically take the underserved needs of the community into account...SF is not just a city of single-people who are healthy, relatively young, and live close enough to work to eliminate car ridership.
If you want people to choose to abandon car ownership, come up with a transit system that works.
QuoteAs someone above said, removing parking while building 10 muni lines would be a good idea, otherwise, removing parking spaces while doing nothing else useful is a self centered and entitled move by a very privileged segment of the population.
QuoteThis is what happens when you REFUSE to allow off street private parking to be built, remove street parking spaces, spend all your time and money on bike lanes, and then wonder why the majority of San Franciscans are fed up.
Imagine if the SFMTA had spent all their time and money on improving MUNI, instead of punishing drivers and basically acted as a a better paying alternative for SFBC staffers, many of whom move on to MTA managment six figure jobs after "putting in their time" at the bike coalition. The MTA needs to concentrate on MUNI, not on making part time resident Leah Shahum happy.
QuoteIt all started back a few years ago when a bunch of bike activists and some city officials went to Amsterdam, saw the bikes and said "lets be just like them".
Without.
Any.
Thought.
QuoteWhat's crazy is that it's frequently heard here and elsewhere that "people don't have a right to live in San Francisco if they can't afford it. If the rent on a 300 square foot studio is $2000 a month, so be it."
Yet the idea that anyone should have to pay $2000 a month for a 300 square foot parking space-- or $200 a month, or $20 a month-- seems to drive the same people bananas. I mean, upthread you have someone saying "I do think RPP are over priced." They cost $8 a month. $8.
QuoteHow about a competing ballot measure titled
"Fix Muni First"
That actually funds muni improvements, breaks the muni union which is strangling it, removes 1/2 of all muni stops (so muni moves twice as fast), and dramatically expands BRT network through the city, as the quickest and cheapest way to improve service. (we can start underground more things too, but that is slower and costs a lot).
Question: would you give up some space on streets for cars (to make room for BRT) if it came with vastly improved and efficient public transit system?
Who wants to write the ballot measure?
Which is an excellent point, because most MUNI lines stop at every single block (which I think has to do with the hills and serving old people), however, it's painful. Not enough express buses.
As progressive as the people are here, you'd think you'd never hear such an overwhelming response, but this is what you get when you have our transit in our situation.
And some comments from the peanut gallery when the Warriors moved to Mission Bay:
QuoteThats the worst news today. Transit to this site is worse than pier 30. I was hoping something interesting will happen on the salesforce site
Quotethis is why we can't have nice things. now it's even farther from BART! the idiots who banded together to try and block this are killing this city's growth. i would loved to have this on those decrepit piers. They should have at least let it go up for a vote (which is sad that that's even a possibility).
QuoteHopefully it will put pressure on the city to underground Caltrain and improve the T-Third.
QuoteTransit concerns are very real here. Should be hilarious people trying to use the 2 car T line trains. Maybe that will point out to citizens how silly light rail is in a city this dense? I mean it makes sense in Portland, Salt Lake City, but spending money to have 'transit' in a city that outgrew that form of transportation in literally the early 20th century, doesn't make sense. I picture people walking from Caltrain, bart...well only the T will go there.
That said, great decision to move the stadium.
QuoteGood god, this new location is TWO MILES from BART. Wow, this is actually going to be a congestion apocalypse.
QuoteTransit first my ass. This is FAR from regional transit.
QuoteT-line can only support two car trains which is woefully inadequate. Someone commented on the E line which is even lower capacity.
This is not a great location for regional transit.
Perhaps the best the city can do is to start running redundant modern LRT all along the water front but I am not hopeful they will do anything
When people say the T line will be "ramped up" not sure what they mean. Being near BART is way better. GSW is a regional team and I am not sure how the fans from the East Bay will get to this location
QuoteT-Third's frequency will be more than double once central subway is completed. The peak frequency should be about once every 4 minute if I remember right. The increase is due to expected increase in ridership in the new segment that it serves. Not sure how Warrior game will affect this.
Caltrain is also accessible to Pier 30. The Salesforce site is only a little bit closer to Caltrain.
I think the main loser will be people who could have walk to Pier 30, including all the workers in SF downtown and everyone who could have arrive in Embarcadero station.
QuoteYeah, I can see the "4-minute headways" on the T-line happening. Not. Also, if you think MUNI hoarding trains for Giants games is bad, imagine the T during Warriors games. 1-car trains, BTW. MUNI doesn't have enough in its fleet to run 2-car trains on the line.
Granted, the transit option sucks here for regional connections (BART, Caltrain), but the Fremont A's proposal would build a stadium not even remotely close to public transit.
QuoteIt's not just the 41 Warriors home games - it's the other 150 nights a year they're hoping for events.
That's what makes this location extremely frightening. A cleanly run T can still only handle two cars full every 4-5 minutes (the stations being dug out now only have a capacity of two cars), which is the absolute best case. Muni is more likely to only be able to handle two cars every 8-10 minutes.
That's a drop in the bucket compared to the capacity of BART. It's a travesty that we're allowing this to be built so far from BART.
I'll be out in force to try to kill this as a location - it would be much better to have them stay in Oakland, where at least there's decent transit access.
QuoteSpending public money to build a new caltrain station specifically for this arena? No way.
Caltrain is already overburdened on workdays when Giants game days are not happening. The whole bay area arena/stadium thing is a mess, unless billions are spent on public transit....which will never happen. Therefore, I say no new arenas (and their minimum wage spillover jobs) anywhere. Zone for high density housing instead. (Yeah, I know I'm dreaming.)
It was actually even interesting for me to read people's comments...SF could actually be a good case study for Jax transit.