If I were to speculate, I'd say that perhaps it might only be feasible in small & dense cities with low traffic, as such high frequency requires a lot of resources.

Was born in a small city with frequent public transportation (5-10 minutes for most routes). As I moved to larger & more congested cities, public transport became less convenient and the schedule more erratic.

▲

williamdclt 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Definitely not only small cities. Only dense cities maybe, but I'm not sure that the causality link is in the direction you present: big european cities are dense in part _because_ of public transport. They couldn't be so dense without it, you'd need much more car infrastructure (roads, parking lots) which already decreases density, and people would more readily live further out given they'd already need a car anyway.

▲

extraextra 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's obviously a virtuous cycle, but in the case of European cities, they are the way they are because they began when walking was the preferred mode of transport ("preferred" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence, I know). The most luxurious transport option back then was a horse carriage, which is not much faster than walking. Everything had to be close to everything, streets had to be narrow.

Another important feature that makes public transport suitable is that they developed concentrically, having only one city center.

With such city planning in mind, public transport is the only rational way to move around lots of people on narrow streets.

	▲	eldaisfish 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		North American cities very much were built around walking and trams. The US auto companies paid for the destruction of tram lines with the long term goal of selling more cars.

▲

asdff an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

European cities, geographically at least, are a lot smaller than american cities. A dozen or two miles across only for the urban area before you get to the rural parts generally. Berlin has a smaller footprint than a lot of rust belt cities for example. Amsterdam is downright tiny by american standards, maybe even smaller than Toledo, OH. What is more is the road capacity is significantly overbuilt in the US, even in cities like Toledo. A lot of americans have a car based frame of reference where they expect to go arbitrary 30 mile distances in about 30 mins.

▲

nemomarx 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Tokyo manages a very tight schedule and they're enormous, so it can't only be scale that matters. And how do you fund effective transit in a smaller city with less of a tax base?

	▲	extraextra 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I haven't visited Tokyo, but I definitely plan to. Regarding your question, if the city is made up mostly of apartment buildings & parks, with limited parking space available, almost everyone uses public transport. There is obviously a trade-off between how pedestrian-friendly or car-friendly a city can be, thus if a city goes hard in the pedestrian-friendly (removing parking spaces, narrowing streets in the center etc.) direction, public transport becomes very attractive & convenient. Having a car becomes a burden.
	▲	thenthenthen 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Rail plus property model like in Hong Kong could be one (‘tax free’ zone…)

▲

druskacik 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't it the opposite? Larger city -> denser population -> more public transport demand -> better public transport?

	▲	asdff an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Better doesn’t always follow. Nyc has had constant public transit demand but there’s been barely any expansion since public takeover of the private subways.