4 ms·

> The US has a population density of 33 people per square kilometer; Yes, and they are evenly spread out across the country, right? What you conveniently leav

> The US has a population density of 33 people per square kilometer; Yes, and they are evenly spread out across the country, right? What you conveniently leave out, and which turns all these kinds of arguments based on a "total area / total population" numbers into absurd exercises in futility in showing anything useful, is that you have some few mega regions: http://osnetdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2050_Map_Megaregions2008_150.png http://osnetdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2050_Map_Me... Even a country like Germany has extremely uneven population, never mind countries like China or Russia. There is nothing special in the situation the US finds itself in at all - especially not since the enormous population shifts of the 20th century from rural areas to cities. When I lived in the US (for a decade), the area I lived in was the SF Bay Area, several places. This is far more densely populated than area in Germany where I grew up (former East Germany). And yet, I could not do anything or get anywhere without a car. It has next to nothing to do with population density - in the US you are forced to drive for distances where you would walk, use a bike or public transit in areas with less pop. density in other countries. Even during my brief first visit to the US end of the last millennium, which was a three month tour of the continental US (NY to Alaska, to Arizona, CA to FL) the "must... use... car!!!" bug got to me too. Towards the end I caught myself getting into the car and driving <200 feet to drop some waste into a wastebasket (from the car window of course) on a shopping mall parking lot... it seemed the natural thing to do, I had to deliberately catch myself and consciously think about what the hell I was doing to recognize the absurdity. After only two months in the country.

reissbaker 9y ago
> Yes, and they are evenly spread out across the country, right? Not evenly — but the population in the US is in fact much more geographically dispersed than in most of Europe, India, and East Asia. These measurements are not what you claim ("total area / total population"); here is a map of population density per square kilometer over the globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File:World_population_density_1994_-_with_equator.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File... It's true that there are a few areas in the US that have high density. But from a federal funding standpoint, the US unfortunately has to contend with the fact that its population is widely dispersed over a large area compared to most other highly developed nations.
- ItsMe000001 9y ago
  The image you link to does not support your assertion: The US looks "speckled" because there is a lot of empty space, which does not have to be connected. So the others that are all-red have it actually worse. Asia has a lot more people too, so yes, that leads to higher density - but that's hardly an advantage to have to deal with over a billion people instead of a few hundred millions. They still are just as distributed - plus there are a lot fewer gaps of nothing in between! It is easier to cross over nothingness than to path a way through non-stop population, as any effort that tries to build new infrastructure through populated areas that ends up mired with legal and ownership issues and protests demonstrates. It also does not explain the car addiction at all, because it would make much more sense to connect wide-spread centers using trains, for example. Also, most transport is local - and as far as it is not combining it into larger "packages" (train, ship, large trucks) would be more efficient. I'm also a bit amazed at your response. Your initial comment, the one I replied to, is only about comparing total area and total population. I find it at least a little bit disingenuous how you dug deep to come up with a new version of the argument. I find the effort in many comments to point out how the US is "special" and "different" from all the rest of the world very weird. I would not find it as weird if it looked like a detached analysis, but it seems to be mostly emotional. Why? So strange. What's the big deal, what do you lose, if you come to the conclusion that it's of course true that all problems are local and none are completely the same, the variability and the base problems are not actually different? What's the big deal? Isn't it enough to look for "exceptionalism" in the achievements and possibilities, why does it have to also be true for such mundane stuff at any cost (e.g. suffering quality of arguments)?
  - romwell 9y ago
    Not defending the OP (or continuing their line of thought), but here's an exclusivity argument for why it's difficult to build public transport infrastructure in the US. The US is special because its cities were either built to be pedestrian-hostile, or were made so during the Depression years when the transport companies went bust. Now, in addition to the mindset shift, I think you'd need to rebuild entire cities/metroplexes to make the public transport work. Case in point: the South Bay Area, where I live now. Sure, you can add trains (at a huge cost). But once you get off the train station, where do you go? The sidewalks are those narrow strips separating the roadway from the parking lots adjacent to stores, they are no joy to walk on, and it will take you forever. Where in Europe you have: [store][sidewalk][roadway, 2 lanes][sidewalk][store] Here, you have: [business][parking lot][impenetrable hedge][sidewalk][roadway, 3 lanes][uncrossable median][roadway, 3 lanes][sidewalk][impenetrable hedge][parking lot][business] Then, due to the zoning regulations you don't have stores and cafes right next to place where people live - you have huge blocks with nothing in them but houses, houses, houses. Ditto for business districts. It's not enough to have public transport, one needs to rethink entire cities from ground up to make them walkable, bikeable - and accessible by public transport - even if it exists. Another case in point: Seattle. Lacking a good train system, they made the buses work with dedicated bus lanes, which make the buses fast - faster than traffic. This works because the city has not been developed in the sad way I described above. As for the suburban wasteland, which makes up huge chunks of the US population-wise, you can throw all your trains and buses at it, and it will be but a drop in the bucket. Disclaimer: lived half my life in the US, half my life in urban Ukraine. Big fan of public transport, but drive most of the time - and when I don't, I bike, outrunning public transportation in most cases on distances up to 6 miles or so. EDIT: see the urban sprawl point below[1]: [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16918434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16918434

reissbaker 9y ago

> Yes, and they are evenly spread out across the country, right? Not evenly — but the population in the US is in fact much more geographically dispersed than in most of Europe, India, and East Asia. These measurements are not what you claim ("total area / total population"); here is a map of population density per square kilometer over the globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File:World_population_density_1994_-_with_equator.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File... It's true that there are a few areas in the US that have high density. But from a federal funding standpoint, the US unfortunately has to contend with the fact that its population is widely dispersed over a large area compared to most other highly developed nations.

ItsMe000001 9y ago
The image you link to does not support your assertion: The US looks "speckled" because there is a lot of empty space, which does not have to be connected. So the others that are all-red have it actually worse. Asia has a lot more people too, so yes, that leads to higher density - but that's hardly an advantage to have to deal with over a billion people instead of a few hundred millions. They still are just as distributed - plus there are a lot fewer gaps of nothing in between! It is easier to cross over nothingness than to path a way through non-stop population, as any effort that tries to build new infrastructure through populated areas that ends up mired with legal and ownership issues and protests demonstrates. It also does not explain the car addiction at all, because it would make much more sense to connect wide-spread centers using trains, for example. Also, most transport is local - and as far as it is not combining it into larger "packages" (train, ship, large trucks) would be more efficient. I'm also a bit amazed at your response. Your initial comment, the one I replied to, is only about comparing total area and total population. I find it at least a little bit disingenuous how you dug deep to come up with a new version of the argument. I find the effort in many comments to point out how the US is "special" and "different" from all the rest of the world very weird. I would not find it as weird if it looked like a detached analysis, but it seems to be mostly emotional. Why? So strange. What's the big deal, what do you lose, if you come to the conclusion that it's of course true that all problems are local and none are completely the same, the variability and the base problems are not actually different? What's the big deal? Isn't it enough to look for "exceptionalism" in the achievements and possibilities, why does it have to also be true for such mundane stuff at any cost (e.g. suffering quality of arguments)?
- romwell 9y ago
  Not defending the OP (or continuing their line of thought), but here's an exclusivity argument for why it's difficult to build public transport infrastructure in the US. The US is special because its cities were either built to be pedestrian-hostile, or were made so during the Depression years when the transport companies went bust. Now, in addition to the mindset shift, I think you'd need to rebuild entire cities/metroplexes to make the public transport work. Case in point: the South Bay Area, where I live now. Sure, you can add trains (at a huge cost). But once you get off the train station, where do you go? The sidewalks are those narrow strips separating the roadway from the parking lots adjacent to stores, they are no joy to walk on, and it will take you forever. Where in Europe you have: [store][sidewalk][roadway, 2 lanes][sidewalk][store] Here, you have: [business][parking lot][impenetrable hedge][sidewalk][roadway, 3 lanes][uncrossable median][roadway, 3 lanes][sidewalk][impenetrable hedge][parking lot][business] Then, due to the zoning regulations you don't have stores and cafes right next to place where people live - you have huge blocks with nothing in them but houses, houses, houses. Ditto for business districts. It's not enough to have public transport, one needs to rethink entire cities from ground up to make them walkable, bikeable - and accessible by public transport - even if it exists. Another case in point: Seattle. Lacking a good train system, they made the buses work with dedicated bus lanes, which make the buses fast - faster than traffic. This works because the city has not been developed in the sad way I described above. As for the suburban wasteland, which makes up huge chunks of the US population-wise, you can throw all your trains and buses at it, and it will be but a drop in the bucket. Disclaimer: lived half my life in the US, half my life in urban Ukraine. Big fan of public transport, but drive most of the time - and when I don't, I bike, outrunning public transportation in most cases on distances up to 6 miles or so. EDIT: see the urban sprawl point below[1]: [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16918434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16918434