4 ms·

That's the problem isn't it? The US's obsession with personal automobiles allows it to build these sprawling suburban ghost towns, only to realize in post-boom-

by ng12 10y ago

That's the problem isn't it? The US's obsession with personal automobiles allows it to build these sprawling suburban ghost towns, only to realize in post-boom-times how terrible of a system it is.

sokoloff 10y ago
Is it the US obsession with cars that causes sprawling suburbs or the fact that we have such a radically lower population density inherent in the country? Think about countries with good to great train systems. I think Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Netherlands. Population density of 226, 196, 336, 498 people per km^2. United States is 33 people / km^2. Take all of Alaska's area away and make them all move to CONUS and it's still only 40 people / km^2. With a lower natural population density, it would be surprising if people didn't spread out, and with that sprawl comes the car over the train. It's hard to make the train work when the population is 5 to 12 times more spread out.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  What you are saying is true and not true. Most people in the US live in a few urban areas. Interconnecting these urban areas with trains is super hard. However, inside these urban areas the situation doesn't have to be that different from other countries urban areas. However, I believe that US suburbs are uniquely spread out and unwalkable largely due to boneheaded zoning.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- xorcist 10y ago
  You chose rather dense European countries for your example. Sweden has 21 people/km^2, Norway and Finland has 16 people/km^2. Both have working public transport. Which should show that the average population density of the country as a whole is mostly irrelevant.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    Yes, I chose rather dense countries, but I also chose countries where I've found that having a car is more of a liability than an asset. That's a rough metric I use for "is the rail and public transport system good?" Did I choose dense countries and declare that they had good public transport, or did I choose countries with good public transport and discover they were dense? I've never been to Scandinavia, so I have no experience to fairly judge.
- flukus 10y ago
  Average population density is irrelevant when the population isn't evenly distributed.
ghaff 10y ago
I live in an exurban town on a number of acres. Nothing about the area between here and a major metropolis resembles a "ghost town." Nor is it "terrible" nor has it been so through a number of economic cycles. And I've traveled to many different places in the world and my observation has been that, even in areas that have generally good train service, it by no means serves as anywhere to anywhere transportation.
ajmurmann 10y ago
It's also the terrible zoning. Residential areas must at all cost be devoid of shops, cafes, restaurants etc!
- mjevans 10y ago
  The suburban ones you're thinking of are actually too low density for that solution to work. A more Japanese approach (as mentioned several other times on HN within the last year and probably more before that), is roughly to zone by the 'nuisance impact' and also to plan local commutes along slopes of density (nuisance). So you can have a mixed commercial / high density residential district around the transit hub, and a casually walkable (for fit adults/kids) commute from there to lower density housing.

by ng12 10y ago

That's the problem isn't it? The US's obsession with personal automobiles allows it to build these sprawling suburban ghost towns, only to realize in post-boom-times how terrible of a system it is.

sokoloff 10y ago

Is it the US obsession with cars that causes sprawling suburbs or the fact that we have such a radically lower population density inherent in the country? Think about countries with good to great train systems. I think Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Netherlands. Population density of 226, 196, 336, 498 people per km^2. United States is 33 people / km^2. Take all of Alaska's area away and make them all move to CONUS and it's still only 40 people / km^2. With a lower natural population density, it would be surprising if people didn't spread out, and with that sprawl comes the car over the train. It's hard to make the train work when the population is 5 to 12 times more spread out.

ajmurmann 10y ago
What you are saying is true and not true. Most people in the US live in a few urban areas. Interconnecting these urban areas with trains is super hard. However, inside these urban areas the situation doesn't have to be that different from other countries urban areas. However, I believe that US suburbs are uniquely spread out and unwalkable largely due to boneheaded zoning.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
xorcist 10y ago
You chose rather dense European countries for your example. Sweden has 21 people/km^2, Norway and Finland has 16 people/km^2. Both have working public transport. Which should show that the average population density of the country as a whole is mostly irrelevant.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Yes, I chose rather dense countries, but I also chose countries where I've found that having a car is more of a liability than an asset. That's a rough metric I use for "is the rail and public transport system good?" Did I choose dense countries and declare that they had good public transport, or did I choose countries with good public transport and discover they were dense? I've never been to Scandinavia, so I have no experience to fairly judge.
flukus 10y ago
Average population density is irrelevant when the population isn't evenly distributed.

ghaff 10y ago

I live in an exurban town on a number of acres. Nothing about the area between here and a major metropolis resembles a "ghost town." Nor is it "terrible" nor has it been so through a number of economic cycles. And I've traveled to many different places in the world and my observation has been that, even in areas that have generally good train service, it by no means serves as anywhere to anywhere transportation.

ajmurmann 10y ago

It's also the terrible zoning. Residential areas must at all cost be devoid of shops, cafes, restaurants etc!

mjevans 10y ago
The suburban ones you're thinking of are actually too low density for that solution to work. A more Japanese approach (as mentioned several other times on HN within the last year and probably more before that), is roughly to zone by the 'nuisance impact' and also to plan local commutes along slopes of density (nuisance). So you can have a mixed commercial / high density residential district around the transit hub, and a casually walkable (for fit adults/kids) commute from there to lower density housing.