4 ms·

How realistic is that for a big country (USA) that is really big & sparsely populated in lots of spots outside of major metro areas? (Disclaimer: I’ve drive on

How realistic is that for a big country (USA) that is really big & sparsely populated in lots of spots outside of major metro areas? (Disclaimer: I’ve drive only 5k miles a year, and actually just sold my car, since I prefer walking & PT... but I live in a giant city where that’s a legit option)

baby 7y ago
It's not ultra realistic for less populated areas. But large cities have no excuses.
- scruple 7y ago
  Okay, but you have to define large, don't you? What is the population size you have in mind?
- tathougies 7y ago
  The united states only has a handful of 'large' cities. Most cities with larve populations are only populated because they encompass large geographies. A large city shouldn't be defined by population but by density and the united states has very few dense cities. Maybe only new York, Philadelphia, washington DC, San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston, and even some of those are a stretch.
  - baby 7y ago
    Density is a bad metric because it will always be low in the US due to how cities are built.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      But that's the ultimate problem to solve. Build dense cities, and people will (a) want to live there and (b) will want to use transit and (c) transit will make the most sense. The city density issue is one completely controlled by the government. Developers are incentivized to produce high-density housing, because it yields more money. Cities don't want it.
      - baby 7y ago
        Good point
benj111 7y ago
The sparse bits are by definition sparsely populated. And the size of the country is for most trips irrelevant. You don't drive across half your country just because. You drive to work, and the shops and you only have the same 24 hours in a day the same as everyone else, so its the same upper bound. This[1] suggests the US has fairly short commutes, so it would seem country size is irrelevant for that at least. [1] https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5219 https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5219
asdff 7y ago
Pretty much every major metro is lacking in transport so starting there is great. Halting development in wildlands and favoring growth around transit infrastructure is the next move. The sparsely populated areas are just that and are a drop in the bucket compared to people who live in areas that absolutely should have excellent transit and biking infrastructure.

baby 7y ago

It's not ultra realistic for less populated areas. But large cities have no excuses.

scruple 7y ago
Okay, but you have to define large, don't you? What is the population size you have in mind?
tathougies 7y ago
The united states only has a handful of 'large' cities. Most cities with larve populations are only populated because they encompass large geographies. A large city shouldn't be defined by population but by density and the united states has very few dense cities. Maybe only new York, Philadelphia, washington DC, San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston, and even some of those are a stretch.
- baby 7y ago
  Density is a bad metric because it will always be low in the US due to how cities are built.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    But that's the ultimate problem to solve. Build dense cities, and people will (a) want to live there and (b) will want to use transit and (c) transit will make the most sense. The city density issue is one completely controlled by the government. Developers are incentivized to produce high-density housing, because it yields more money. Cities don't want it.
    - baby 7y ago
      Good point

benj111 7y ago

The sparse bits are by definition sparsely populated. And the size of the country is for most trips irrelevant. You don't drive across half your country just because. You drive to work, and the shops and you only have the same 24 hours in a day the same as everyone else, so its the same upper bound. This[1] suggests the US has fairly short commutes, so it would seem country size is irrelevant for that at least. [1] https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5219 https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5219

asdff 7y ago

Pretty much every major metro is lacking in transport so starting there is great. Halting development in wildlands and favoring growth around transit infrastructure is the next move. The sparsely populated areas are just that and are a drop in the bucket compared to people who live in areas that absolutely should have excellent transit and biking infrastructure.