4 ms·

Here we go again. Let me compare a gigantic country that was industrialized over one hundred years ago with much smaller and more recently developed countries.

Here we go again. Let me compare a gigantic country that was industrialized over one hundred years ago with much smaller and more recently developed countries. It’s not that we don’t have things that need fixed and maintained, but the hyperventilating about it is overdone at this point.

danans 8y ago
US states and major metropolitan areas are the comparable entities to the countries and cities mentioned in the article, and those have significantly worse infrastructure than their counterparts in Europe and Asia. Western european countries and cities industrialized even before US states and cities. They just had very different development priorities, that were formed partly around their historical pre-automobile population density. But it turns out that the US model (low density sprawl) has a much higher per capita long-term maintenance and replacement cost. In many cases, that cost outstrips the infrastructure's productivity in the long term. For more background on this: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ Of course the US has plenty of neglected infrastructure in high density areas, too. That's a complex subject, having to do with decades of urban disinvestment.
Swizec 8y ago
Fair, America as a whole may be vast and mostly empty, but what about the megalopolises? The whole Bay Area has more people than many European countries in a muuuuuuch smaller geography and public transit still sucks. Most of the east coast is now so densely populated you can almost go north to south without ever leaving what one might call “a city/suburbs”, tens if not hundreds of millions of residents in a pretty damn small area when you think about it. Public transit still sucks from what I hear. Granted, everyone always says their public transit sucks and that seems interesting too.
lucb1e 8y ago
The "decades newer" argument is mentioned in the article. I don't know if it's true or false, but please read at least the article before responding with a common argument.
ergothus 8y ago
> with much smaller and more recently developed countries. I'll give you that European countries are smaller, though in this case I don't see the relevance (talking about trains, sure, talking about major AIRPORTS - doesn't hold), but I don't see "more recently developed". Europe covers a range, sure, but a good chunk of it has been developed at the same general pace as North American countries. > It’s not that we don’t have things that need fixed and maintained, but the hyperventilating about it is overdone at this point. Until I actually see anything changing, I can't agree. I don't particular advocate "hyperventilating", but I just watched the country (within the past decade or so) twice pass major tax cuts and move through a period of extremely cheap borrowing and not invest in known infrastructure maintenance needs. We're not even breaking even on the issue.
fredley 8y ago
> much smaller and more recently developed countries Like China?
- theredbox 8y ago
  You mean all those densely populated cities of 5m+ people that china has?
- twoheadedboy 8y ago
  > more recently developed countries Yes, like China.
- joshuaheard 8y ago
  FTFY: with much smaller and more recently developed areas of countries. Leave Chinese cities and go into the countryside and there are primarily dirt roads.
  - aylmao 8y ago
    I mean, to be fair they do have more and bigger cities than the US. China apparently has 102 cities with population over 1 million vs the US's 10 [1]. If we consider "megacities", they are at 15 vs the US's two (NYC and LA) [2]. In fact this is interesting, because although its population is huge in terms of the rest of nations-- about "a full Brazil" bigger than all of North America, and Europe (including Russia) combined [4]-- to put things in another perspective, we're talking about a country that's just 4.3 times the size of the US [3], yet it has 10x more cities and 7x more megacities. This makes me think it's less rural than the US, which probably yields more focus on cities and less investment in rural areas. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity [3]: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+china+%2F+population+of+usa https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+china+%2... [4]: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+china+-+(population+of+north+america+%2B+population+of+europe+%2B+population+of+brazil) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+china+-+...

danans 8y ago

US states and major metropolitan areas are the comparable entities to the countries and cities mentioned in the article, and those have significantly worse infrastructure than their counterparts in Europe and Asia. Western european countries and cities industrialized even before US states and cities. They just had very different development priorities, that were formed partly around their historical pre-automobile population density. But it turns out that the US model (low density sprawl) has a much higher per capita long-term maintenance and replacement cost. In many cases, that cost outstrips the infrastructure's productivity in the long term. For more background on this: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ Of course the US has plenty of neglected infrastructure in high density areas, too. That's a complex subject, having to do with decades of urban disinvestment.

Swizec 8y ago

Fair, America as a whole may be vast and mostly empty, but what about the megalopolises? The whole Bay Area has more people than many European countries in a muuuuuuch smaller geography and public transit still sucks. Most of the east coast is now so densely populated you can almost go north to south without ever leaving what one might call “a city/suburbs”, tens if not hundreds of millions of residents in a pretty damn small area when you think about it. Public transit still sucks from what I hear. Granted, everyone always says their public transit sucks and that seems interesting too.

lucb1e 8y ago

The "decades newer" argument is mentioned in the article. I don't know if it's true or false, but please read at least the article before responding with a common argument.

ergothus 8y ago

> with much smaller and more recently developed countries. I'll give you that European countries are smaller, though in this case I don't see the relevance (talking about trains, sure, talking about major AIRPORTS - doesn't hold), but I don't see "more recently developed". Europe covers a range, sure, but a good chunk of it has been developed at the same general pace as North American countries. > It’s not that we don’t have things that need fixed and maintained, but the hyperventilating about it is overdone at this point. Until I actually see anything changing, I can't agree. I don't particular advocate "hyperventilating", but I just watched the country (within the past decade or so) twice pass major tax cuts and move through a period of extremely cheap borrowing and not invest in known infrastructure maintenance needs. We're not even breaking even on the issue.

fredley 8y ago

> much smaller and more recently developed countries Like China?

theredbox 8y ago
You mean all those densely populated cities of 5m+ people that china has?
twoheadedboy 8y ago
> more recently developed countries Yes, like China.
joshuaheard 8y ago
FTFY: with much smaller and more recently developed areas of countries. Leave Chinese cities and go into the countryside and there are primarily dirt roads.
- aylmao 8y ago
  I mean, to be fair they do have more and bigger cities than the US. China apparently has 102 cities with population over 1 million vs the US's 10 [1]. If we consider "megacities", they are at 15 vs the US's two (NYC and LA) [2]. In fact this is interesting, because although its population is huge in terms of the rest of nations-- about "a full Brazil" bigger than all of North America, and Europe (including Russia) combined [4]-- to put things in another perspective, we're talking about a country that's just 4.3 times the size of the US [3], yet it has 10x more cities and 7x more megacities. This makes me think it's less rural than the US, which probably yields more focus on cities and less investment in rural areas. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity [3]: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+china+%2F+population+of+usa https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+china+%2... [4]: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+china+-+(population+of+north+america+%2B+population+of+europe+%2B+population+of+brazil) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+china+-+...