3 ms·

Light rail is ~$27 million/mile and subway is ~$290 million/mile, if you look at the numbers for the latest finished projects in Finland. American infrastructur

Light rail is ~$27 million/mile and subway is ~$290 million/mile, if you look at the numbers for the latest finished projects in Finland. American infrastructure is unreasonably expensive because, for a number of reasons, Americans lack the ability and interest to build it efficiently. Dense cities are common around the world. In most of them, the infrastructure is not particularly expensive.

cyberax 3y ago
> Light rail is ~$27 million/mile and subway is ~$290 million/mile, if you look at the numbers for the latest finished projects in Finland. Finland is tiny. Even Helsinki is a bit less dense than Seattle, and almost 10 times less dense than Manhattan. So yep, sparse cities are much cheaper and efficient than dense cities. That's exactly my point. The sparser, the better.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  Your comparison is based on administrative borders rather than on the cities themselves. If you compare population densities in urban areas (as listed in Wikipedia), Seattle has 3600 people / square mile, Helsinki has 4800 people / square mile, and NYC has 6000 people / square mile. Typical Helsinki consists of medium-density residential areas separated by large parks and forested areas. The urban core is dense but not particularly tall. The kind of suburban sprawl you often see in American cities, with massive areas with a low population density but little undeveloped land, is largely missing.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > Your comparison is based on administrative borders rather than on the cities themselves. "Urban areas" are poorly defined in many cases. In some cases (e.g. "Greater Houston Area") they match what people think about "Houston", Seattle metro area does not. > The kind of suburban sprawl you often see in American cities, with massive areas with a low population density but little undeveloped land, is largely missing. Yes, and? Helsinki is still sparsely populated, so new infrastructure is cheap enough. The costs go up, once the density increases.
    - jltsiren 3y ago
      Administrative borders are arbitrary and rarely have anything to do with the actual borders of the city. Population density figures should be reported as averages over people rather than averages over land. They are usually not, because it's difficult to calculate them that way. If you have a residential area with 20k people in a square mile next to an undeveloped square mile, the population density is usually reported as 10k people / square mile. But from the perspective of the people living there, as well as for the purposes of infrastructure construction, the actual population density is closer to 20k people / square mile.

cyberax 3y ago

> Light rail is ~$27 million/mile and subway is ~$290 million/mile, if you look at the numbers for the latest finished projects in Finland. Finland is tiny. Even Helsinki is a bit less dense than Seattle, and almost 10 times less dense than Manhattan. So yep, sparse cities are much cheaper and efficient than dense cities. That's exactly my point. The sparser, the better.

jltsiren 3y ago
Your comparison is based on administrative borders rather than on the cities themselves. If you compare population densities in urban areas (as listed in Wikipedia), Seattle has 3600 people / square mile, Helsinki has 4800 people / square mile, and NYC has 6000 people / square mile. Typical Helsinki consists of medium-density residential areas separated by large parks and forested areas. The urban core is dense but not particularly tall. The kind of suburban sprawl you often see in American cities, with massive areas with a low population density but little undeveloped land, is largely missing.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > Your comparison is based on administrative borders rather than on the cities themselves. "Urban areas" are poorly defined in many cases. In some cases (e.g. "Greater Houston Area") they match what people think about "Houston", Seattle metro area does not. > The kind of suburban sprawl you often see in American cities, with massive areas with a low population density but little undeveloped land, is largely missing. Yes, and? Helsinki is still sparsely populated, so new infrastructure is cheap enough. The costs go up, once the density increases.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    Administrative borders are arbitrary and rarely have anything to do with the actual borders of the city. Population density figures should be reported as averages over people rather than averages over land. They are usually not, because it's difficult to calculate them that way. If you have a residential area with 20k people in a square mile next to an undeveloped square mile, the population density is usually reported as 10k people / square mile. But from the perspective of the people living there, as well as for the purposes of infrastructure construction, the actual population density is closer to 20k people / square mile.