4 ms·

The problem with mass transit in the US is that the US has a lot of wide open spaces and most places do not have the population density to make it economically

The problem with mass transit in the US is that the US has a lot of wide open spaces and most places do not have the population density to make it economically feasable. In Atlanta, for example, many parts have been removing car lanes for bike lanes and parking has become a real problem in some neighborhoods. Places that used to be free to park in charge a small fortune at times and there are not as many options to park your car in these areas. Instead of doing development with adequate parking, they don't provide enough and charge a fortune for what we have. Between the climate and the poor mass transit it is the worst of both worlds but hey. When I was visiting downtown Austin recently it seemed like a similar story from what I observed.

onetoo 3y ago
I'm not from the US, but I do follow the issue due to the US-centric nature of internet culture. From what I understand, it is a bit of a catch-22: - You cannot make public transport a feasible option because - Most places do not have the population density required because - Places are designed in a car-centric manner, with strict zoning laws that enforce low-density suburbia because - Everyone has a car because - Public transport sucks because - You cannot make public transport a feasible option because To me, the solution to the problem you state is not more parking, but less cars. Break the cycle.
- pandaman 3y ago
  The reasoning is reverted: people want houses where they won't be bothered by neighbors and won't bother neighbors thus they limit density via zoning. They don't build houses on big lots just so they had a reason to drive.
TulliusCicero 3y ago
It's true that low density handicaps us in some ways, but 1. That's an entirely intentional choice. A big country means you'll inevitably have lots of space between cities, not within them. Our metro areas are low density due to zoning regulations that we intentionally chose. Most residential areas in the US, building densely is literally illegal. 2. You could still have decent biking in many suburban and urban areas even with current density levels. Just takes protected bike lanes and intersections (and the occasional off street trail) but we don't do that. Instead you get painted bike lanes in the door zone as drivers buzz you two feet away. Of course hardly anybody bikes in those circumstances, they don't have a death wish. In my native bay area, I'd see painted, unprotected bike lanes on goddamn expressways where cars are going 50+ mph, it's completely insane! Who the hell thought this was a good idea?? That's how dumb and bad bike infrastructure commonly is in the US, it's one step away from Futurama-style suicide booths.

onetoo 3y ago

I'm not from the US, but I do follow the issue due to the US-centric nature of internet culture. From what I understand, it is a bit of a catch-22: - You cannot make public transport a feasible option because - Most places do not have the population density required because - Places are designed in a car-centric manner, with strict zoning laws that enforce low-density suburbia because - Everyone has a car because - Public transport sucks because - You cannot make public transport a feasible option because To me, the solution to the problem you state is not more parking, but less cars. Break the cycle.

pandaman 3y ago
The reasoning is reverted: people want houses where they won't be bothered by neighbors and won't bother neighbors thus they limit density via zoning. They don't build houses on big lots just so they had a reason to drive.

TulliusCicero 3y ago

It's true that low density handicaps us in some ways, but 1. That's an entirely intentional choice. A big country means you'll inevitably have lots of space between cities, not within them. Our metro areas are low density due to zoning regulations that we intentionally chose. Most residential areas in the US, building densely is literally illegal. 2. You could still have decent biking in many suburban and urban areas even with current density levels. Just takes protected bike lanes and intersections (and the occasional off street trail) but we don't do that. Instead you get painted bike lanes in the door zone as drivers buzz you two feet away. Of course hardly anybody bikes in those circumstances, they don't have a death wish. In my native bay area, I'd see painted, unprotected bike lanes on goddamn expressways where cars are going 50+ mph, it's completely insane! Who the hell thought this was a good idea?? That's how dumb and bad bike infrastructure commonly is in the US, it's one step away from Futurama-style suicide booths.