4 ms·

Public transit only works when the stops are all in high density areas. Most the the US is not suitable for it. We might improve it in areas where it makes sens

Public transit only works when the stops are all in high density areas. Most the the US is not suitable for it. We might improve it in areas where it makes sense though.

xvedejas 4y ago
I used to think this, but you'd be amazed how many small towns in Europe have train stations. The eastern third of the US is high enough density for this, we've just chosen to put our money into interstates and the like instead.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Trains take you from one place where you don't want to be to another place where you don't want to be. They are not a substitute for privately-owned transportation, except perhaps in dystopian fiction.
  - TexanFeller 4y ago
    They work wonderfully in extremely dense places like London and Tokyo, but they're awful absolutely everywhere else. Definitely nothing in America that compares to foreign trains yet, it would take us 50 years to come close to catching up.
  - danenania 4y ago
    Trains connecting town centers obviously can’t solve everyone’s transportation needs, but they can help to enable a car-free or reduced-car lifestyle for those who want that and are willing to design their lives around it. Even if that’s only, say, 10% of the population in less dense areas, it could still make a significant impact on traffic and emissions as well giving an economic boost to downtown areas, since there’s now a reason for people to live near them.
  - crote 4y ago
    And that's why you are supposed to design your environment. One railway station is in the suburbs, the other is in a high-density office park. Problem solved!
  - rgmerk 4y ago
    Hop on a plane and visit Europe, or Japan. You can take public transport pretty much anywhere you want to go. It’s clean, safe, and generally reasonably priced. The downside is that houses are smaller and more closely packed. By American standards, the kitchens and bedrooms are cramped. But dystopia? Hardly.
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      I live in the US. The US isn't Europe, or Japan.
vidarh 4y ago
Plenty of stations I travelled between as a child (in Norway) were pretty much a bit of pavement next to the track, and no station building. Sometimes minutes from the nearest house. Public transit can relieve / reduce the need for car traffic a whole lot of places too low density to completely remove the need for cars.
- shagie 4y ago
  Norway is 148 mi^2 and Montana is 147 mi^2 (and for a comparison on the other extreme Japan is 145 mi^2) Norway has an overall population density of 38/mi^2 (15/km^2) and a map with that distribution - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norway_population_density_per_municipality_in_2016-no.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norway_population_de... Montana has a population density of 6.86/mi^2 (2.65/km^2) - and an interactive map of it: https://statisticalatlas.com/state/Montana/Population https://statisticalatlas.com/state/Montana/Population Japan has a population density of 900/mi^2 or 326/km^2 There are large portions of the US that are larger than European countries and have very low population densities in comparison.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Now check the population distribution of US states and even the lowest density US states have most of their population in areas with far higher population density than places in Norway served by trains. Yes, it's not a solution for everywhere. It's not a solution for everywhere in Norway either. But the point was not that. The point was that contrary to the comment I replied to, it is perfectly viable to serve areas that are quite low density. When you consider the low density areas in Norway that are served by trains, the proportion of the US population that lives in lower density regions is tiny.
    - shagie 4y ago
      It is viable if those areas are close enough to a place with enough population to service them. A lot of the United States is that low density area with a drive of an hour or two to the next municipality with a population of 5000 or more. It isn't going to be practical to run a rail out to most of those places with anything resembling a regular schedule. The difference is that in Norway the distance between an area with sparse population and a city with a few thousand people is much smaller. It can make sense to run trains to all the cities in Norway that have a population of more than 5000 people - that gets you 100 cities (looking at it, a lot of them are impractical in terms of "you will need to take a ferry or fly"), but we've still got 100 cities there. The 100th largest municipality in Norway with a population of 5000 would be the 20th largest city in Montana. The 100th largest municipality in Montana has a population of 237. The population portion may be accurate... and that can be solved by fixing New York, Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles. Once you go beyond those metro areas trying to provide regular public transportation of any sort becomes impractical. If one sticks to the eastern seaboard, ok - it might be doable. Trying to do regular and reliable public transportation to the small towns comparable to the sizes served in Norway becomes difficult west of the Appalachian mountains.
esalman 4y ago
Exactly, and you don't need to invest tons of $$ on EVs to solve that. ICE vehicles should be acceptable in rural areas. In fact, you'll probably have hard time convincing rural folks to switch to EVs.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > In fact, you'll probably have hard time convincing rural folks to switch to EVs. I don't think it'd be as hard as you suggest. Even grid power (let alone off-grid power) is far more accessible to even the ruralest of ruralites than a gas station. Another decades' worth of improvements on vehicle range/horsepower/affordability and off-grid power generation/storage/affordability would be more than enough to convince folks that EVs are a sufficiently-practical choice.

Public transit only works when the stops are all in high density areas. Most the the US is not suitable for it. We might improve it in areas where it makes sense though.

xvedejas 4y ago

I used to think this, but you'd be amazed how many small towns in Europe have train stations. The eastern third of the US is high enough density for this, we've just chosen to put our money into interstates and the like instead.

CamperBob2 4y ago
Trains take you from one place where you don't want to be to another place where you don't want to be. They are not a substitute for privately-owned transportation, except perhaps in dystopian fiction.
- TexanFeller 4y ago
  They work wonderfully in extremely dense places like London and Tokyo, but they're awful absolutely everywhere else. Definitely nothing in America that compares to foreign trains yet, it would take us 50 years to come close to catching up.
- danenania 4y ago
  Trains connecting town centers obviously can’t solve everyone’s transportation needs, but they can help to enable a car-free or reduced-car lifestyle for those who want that and are willing to design their lives around it. Even if that’s only, say, 10% of the population in less dense areas, it could still make a significant impact on traffic and emissions as well giving an economic boost to downtown areas, since there’s now a reason for people to live near them.
- crote 4y ago
  And that's why you are supposed to design your environment. One railway station is in the suburbs, the other is in a high-density office park. Problem solved!
- rgmerk 4y ago
  Hop on a plane and visit Europe, or Japan. You can take public transport pretty much anywhere you want to go. It’s clean, safe, and generally reasonably priced. The downside is that houses are smaller and more closely packed. By American standards, the kitchens and bedrooms are cramped. But dystopia? Hardly.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    I live in the US. The US isn't Europe, or Japan.

vidarh 4y ago

Plenty of stations I travelled between as a child (in Norway) were pretty much a bit of pavement next to the track, and no station building. Sometimes minutes from the nearest house. Public transit can relieve / reduce the need for car traffic a whole lot of places too low density to completely remove the need for cars.

shagie 4y ago
Norway is 148 mi^2 and Montana is 147 mi^2 (and for a comparison on the other extreme Japan is 145 mi^2) Norway has an overall population density of 38/mi^2 (15/km^2) and a map with that distribution - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norway_population_density_per_municipality_in_2016-no.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norway_population_de... Montana has a population density of 6.86/mi^2 (2.65/km^2) - and an interactive map of it: https://statisticalatlas.com/state/Montana/Population https://statisticalatlas.com/state/Montana/Population Japan has a population density of 900/mi^2 or 326/km^2 There are large portions of the US that are larger than European countries and have very low population densities in comparison.
- vidarh 4y ago
  Now check the population distribution of US states and even the lowest density US states have most of their population in areas with far higher population density than places in Norway served by trains. Yes, it's not a solution for everywhere. It's not a solution for everywhere in Norway either. But the point was not that. The point was that contrary to the comment I replied to, it is perfectly viable to serve areas that are quite low density. When you consider the low density areas in Norway that are served by trains, the proportion of the US population that lives in lower density regions is tiny.
  - shagie 4y ago
    It is viable if those areas are close enough to a place with enough population to service them. A lot of the United States is that low density area with a drive of an hour or two to the next municipality with a population of 5000 or more. It isn't going to be practical to run a rail out to most of those places with anything resembling a regular schedule. The difference is that in Norway the distance between an area with sparse population and a city with a few thousand people is much smaller. It can make sense to run trains to all the cities in Norway that have a population of more than 5000 people - that gets you 100 cities (looking at it, a lot of them are impractical in terms of "you will need to take a ferry or fly"), but we've still got 100 cities there. The 100th largest municipality in Norway with a population of 5000 would be the 20th largest city in Montana. The 100th largest municipality in Montana has a population of 237. The population portion may be accurate... and that can be solved by fixing New York, Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles. Once you go beyond those metro areas trying to provide regular public transportation of any sort becomes impractical. If one sticks to the eastern seaboard, ok - it might be doable. Trying to do regular and reliable public transportation to the small towns comparable to the sizes served in Norway becomes difficult west of the Appalachian mountains.

esalman 4y ago

Exactly, and you don't need to invest tons of $$ on EVs to solve that. ICE vehicles should be acceptable in rural areas. In fact, you'll probably have hard time convincing rural folks to switch to EVs.

yellowapple 4y ago
> In fact, you'll probably have hard time convincing rural folks to switch to EVs. I don't think it'd be as hard as you suggest. Even grid power (let alone off-grid power) is far more accessible to even the ruralest of ruralites than a gas station. Another decades' worth of improvements on vehicle range/horsepower/affordability and off-grid power generation/storage/affordability would be more than enough to convince folks that EVs are a sufficiently-practical choice.