6 ms·

At least in this case one of the destinations could theoretically be visited without a car (assuming these are just tourists to the Vegas Strip). Whereas anoth

At least in this case one of the destinations could theoretically be visited without a car (assuming these are just tourists to the Vegas Strip). Whereas another certain California rail project literally transports you from [place you need car] to [place you need car]. Which I don’t think I need to explain why that is silly. The root cause of this is blue states often get Euro public transport envy — yet they don’t understand Europe has 3X the population density (and subsequent urbanization) of the US. Obviously public transport would start to make a lot more sense if you 3X’d the population in the same land area. IMO fetishizing the European way of life is a bit silly, given density comes with its own problems (ie nobody having kids). In fact, there was this German guy in the 1930s who led the killing of millions of people partly to get more “living space”, so European density does have its downsides for…shall we say…stability. In fact, Europe has roughly the same amount of people today as it had in 1939. Meanwhile the US has more than doubled.

preisschild 3y ago
The US definitely could embrace some of those ideas. Its not "too big". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REni8Oi1QJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REni8Oi1QJQ
- pembrook 3y ago
  I think it's interesting that this is an emotional trigger topic for HN (along with anything having to do with right to repair, digital privacy, etc). In most things, if you post a comment with points of discussion you get a thoughtful response here. However on HN trigger topics, you get emotionally downvoted and nobody wants to engage in discussion. Instead of linking to a youtube video from the r/fuckcars filter bubble, is there any succinct points to refute why a 3X greater population density would not naturally result in greater public transportation formation? Or is it just the "dumb americans" and their "evil car culture?" With no further investigation of the first-principles reasons that culture was formed?
  - melling 3y ago
    What’s the population density of Madrid and Barcelona compared to Los Angeles and San Francisco? i’ve been using this example for about a decade. of course, that route didn’t exist 20 years ago when I took Madrid to Seville. I can’t imagine what the population density of Seville is. it would help if you give us the numbers you’re working with. I sure hope you aren’t doing the population density of the entire country. That’s a common mistake.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    HN'ers love fixed rail for some reason. It doesn't make any sense -- if there's a less progressive transportation modality I can't imagine what it would be -- but it's axiomatic. If you value your karma score you'll back away smiling and reach for the doorknob.
    - theluketaylor 3y ago
      > if there's a less progressive transportation modality I can't imagine what it would be Genuinely curious what is meant by this since if I was asked what the most progressive ideal city layout was I'd respond with extensive, highly connected, frequent metro lines with islands of density around the stations that included plenty of non-market rate housing options within easy walk of each station. When more housing is needed extend the lines and start a whole new island of density. Make sure plenty of public green space is accessible from the metros just beyond the density islands. Inter-city connections would be broadly similar, just zoomed out. Each city an island of density connected by fast and frequent rail.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Progressive to me means, simply, "That which leaves the most options open for the most people." Creating hardwired infrastructure to transport people from one place where they don't want to be to another place where they don't want to be, over timespans measured in decades for construction and a good part of a century to pay off, at a time when technology is delivering more options for individual mobility concurrent with other options that render commuting and travel less relevant, doesn't strike me as progressive.
rayiner 3y ago
> The root cause of this is blue states often get Euro public transport envy The root cause is that blue state Americans are still toxically individualist and anti-social and can’t undertake collective projects for shit. Europeans are at least somewhat orderly—in part because in several countries the disorderly anti-social people left for America: https://www.ft.com/content/dd212e0f-508a-3171-824c-d6076ae19fbd https://www.ft.com/content/dd212e0f-508a-3171-824c-d6076ae19.... If you’re built like a linebacker, you should give up your dreams of becoming a world-class ballet dancer. Likewise, blue states should give up the delusion that they can build large scale public projects like Europeans and Asians.
- skhunted 3y ago
  … blue state Americans are still toxically individualist and anti-social… You’ve got the wrong color unless you think right leaning Americans are even worse than this description. … should give up the delusion that they can build large scale public projects… The highway system is a counterexample.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
    > unless you think right leaning Americans are even worse than this description That does seem to be exactly the point. Notice the word "still".
    - skhunted 3y ago
      I wasn’t sure becuase it seems to me that if the description applies to Democrats and Republicans then just saying Americans would be a better phrasing (given that a large majority of Americans fall into one of these two camps). Singling out blue states is weird if it also applies to red states.
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        The Dems are building the rail, Republicans associated with hyperindividualism
vshade 3y ago
Spain has similar population, area and climate to California, and even though it has less GDP it has built some good high speed trains infrastructure. I can see your point if the alternative is travelling by car, but if you're going to take planes the train can be a viable option. There are plenty of big urban centres in California that can support public transit.
panick21_ 3y ago
You actually have to start somewhere. High Speed Rail is the backbone of the rail and public transport network for the next 100 years. > yet they don’t understand Europe has 3X the population density Aggregated statistic comparison are completely meaningless. They might serve in a low-quality online rant but not much more then that. California has many cities over 500k people and some with many millions connect in a line. The idea that there isn't enough population density is total nonsense. Switzerland has towns with 100 people in low density areas that have regular public transport. The idea that cities like LA and Bay Area are to small or not dense enough is insane. > IMO fetishizing the European way of life is a bit silly, given density comes with its own problems Again, you totally misusing density statistics and that invalids your whole argument completely. > comes with its own problems (ie nobody having kids). In fact, there was this German guy in the 1930s who led the killing of millions of people partly to get more “living space”, so European density does have its downsides for…shall we say…stability. What complete and other nonsense are you peddling now? Nothing said here makes any sense at all. hing Hitler was a zero-sum thinker who didn't believe in density and that's why he thought conquering more land was a good idea. Also invoking Hilter and Genocide in a argument about trains in California is such a insane thing do. It shows that you have no interest in real debate and rather spout inflammatory nonsense about Hitler. > In fact, Europe has roughly the same amount of people today as it had in 1939. At least try to look up basic statistics: 558,000,000 -> 746,225,356 And to somehow relate this to some argument about density doesn't make any sense anyway so its completely idiotic to bring it up in an argument about trains in California.
- pembrook 3y ago
  I'm sorry you feel it's inflammatory to question urbanization & public transport as panaceas. First, aggregated statistics matter a lot, especially when examining the history of why humans have clustered in the US the way they have. Second, nobody is saying public transport doesn't make sense inside the most dense US cities like LA, SF, etc (yes NYC exists). The issue is the network beyond those areas, due to suburbanization. The topic of this thread is building high speed rail to a suburban desert location. Third, when discussing internet people's fetishization of European density over American suburban sprawl, its not crazy to bring up downsides -- of which there are many. It's true, the German desire for territorial expansion (and resulting World Wars and Genocides) were a direct result of perceived overpopulation. I dunno...I would call that a downside? I know it's impossible to understand for an internet person in 2024, but childless urban living wasn't always cool and aspirational. Why do you think the automobile found such strong product-market-fit in the 1900s. > At least try to look up basic statistics: 558,000,000 -> 746,225,356 If we want to argue of the semantics of "roughly the same," I'd say 35% growth qualifies when comparing a US population that grew 250% over the same time and a world that grew by 400%.

preisschild 3y ago

The US definitely could embrace some of those ideas. Its not "too big". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REni8Oi1QJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REni8Oi1QJQ

pembrook 3y ago
I think it's interesting that this is an emotional trigger topic for HN (along with anything having to do with right to repair, digital privacy, etc). In most things, if you post a comment with points of discussion you get a thoughtful response here. However on HN trigger topics, you get emotionally downvoted and nobody wants to engage in discussion. Instead of linking to a youtube video from the r/fuckcars filter bubble, is there any succinct points to refute why a 3X greater population density would not naturally result in greater public transportation formation? Or is it just the "dumb americans" and their "evil car culture?" With no further investigation of the first-principles reasons that culture was formed?
- melling 3y ago
  What’s the population density of Madrid and Barcelona compared to Los Angeles and San Francisco? i’ve been using this example for about a decade. of course, that route didn’t exist 20 years ago when I took Madrid to Seville. I can’t imagine what the population density of Seville is. it would help if you give us the numbers you’re working with. I sure hope you aren’t doing the population density of the entire country. That’s a common mistake.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  HN'ers love fixed rail for some reason. It doesn't make any sense -- if there's a less progressive transportation modality I can't imagine what it would be -- but it's axiomatic. If you value your karma score you'll back away smiling and reach for the doorknob.
  - theluketaylor 3y ago
    > if there's a less progressive transportation modality I can't imagine what it would be Genuinely curious what is meant by this since if I was asked what the most progressive ideal city layout was I'd respond with extensive, highly connected, frequent metro lines with islands of density around the stations that included plenty of non-market rate housing options within easy walk of each station. When more housing is needed extend the lines and start a whole new island of density. Make sure plenty of public green space is accessible from the metros just beyond the density islands. Inter-city connections would be broadly similar, just zoomed out. Each city an island of density connected by fast and frequent rail.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Progressive to me means, simply, "That which leaves the most options open for the most people." Creating hardwired infrastructure to transport people from one place where they don't want to be to another place where they don't want to be, over timespans measured in decades for construction and a good part of a century to pay off, at a time when technology is delivering more options for individual mobility concurrent with other options that render commuting and travel less relevant, doesn't strike me as progressive.

rayiner 3y ago

> The root cause of this is blue states often get Euro public transport envy The root cause is that blue state Americans are still toxically individualist and anti-social and can’t undertake collective projects for shit. Europeans are at least somewhat orderly—in part because in several countries the disorderly anti-social people left for America: https://www.ft.com/content/dd212e0f-508a-3171-824c-d6076ae19fbd https://www.ft.com/content/dd212e0f-508a-3171-824c-d6076ae19.... If you’re built like a linebacker, you should give up your dreams of becoming a world-class ballet dancer. Likewise, blue states should give up the delusion that they can build large scale public projects like Europeans and Asians.

skhunted 3y ago
… blue state Americans are still toxically individualist and anti-social… You’ve got the wrong color unless you think right leaning Americans are even worse than this description. … should give up the delusion that they can build large scale public projects… The highway system is a counterexample.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  > unless you think right leaning Americans are even worse than this description That does seem to be exactly the point. Notice the word "still".
  - skhunted 3y ago
    I wasn’t sure becuase it seems to me that if the description applies to Democrats and Republicans then just saying Americans would be a better phrasing (given that a large majority of Americans fall into one of these two camps). Singling out blue states is weird if it also applies to red states.
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      The Dems are building the rail, Republicans associated with hyperindividualism

vshade 3y ago

Spain has similar population, area and climate to California, and even though it has less GDP it has built some good high speed trains infrastructure. I can see your point if the alternative is travelling by car, but if you're going to take planes the train can be a viable option. There are plenty of big urban centres in California that can support public transit.

panick21_ 3y ago

You actually have to start somewhere. High Speed Rail is the backbone of the rail and public transport network for the next 100 years. > yet they don’t understand Europe has 3X the population density Aggregated statistic comparison are completely meaningless. They might serve in a low-quality online rant but not much more then that. California has many cities over 500k people and some with many millions connect in a line. The idea that there isn't enough population density is total nonsense. Switzerland has towns with 100 people in low density areas that have regular public transport. The idea that cities like LA and Bay Area are to small or not dense enough is insane. > IMO fetishizing the European way of life is a bit silly, given density comes with its own problems Again, you totally misusing density statistics and that invalids your whole argument completely. > comes with its own problems (ie nobody having kids). In fact, there was this German guy in the 1930s who led the killing of millions of people partly to get more “living space”, so European density does have its downsides for…shall we say…stability. What complete and other nonsense are you peddling now? Nothing said here makes any sense at all. hing Hitler was a zero-sum thinker who didn't believe in density and that's why he thought conquering more land was a good idea. Also invoking Hilter and Genocide in a argument about trains in California is such a insane thing do. It shows that you have no interest in real debate and rather spout inflammatory nonsense about Hitler. > In fact, Europe has roughly the same amount of people today as it had in 1939. At least try to look up basic statistics: 558,000,000 -> 746,225,356 And to somehow relate this to some argument about density doesn't make any sense anyway so its completely idiotic to bring it up in an argument about trains in California.

pembrook 3y ago
I'm sorry you feel it's inflammatory to question urbanization & public transport as panaceas. First, aggregated statistics matter a lot, especially when examining the history of why humans have clustered in the US the way they have. Second, nobody is saying public transport doesn't make sense inside the most dense US cities like LA, SF, etc (yes NYC exists). The issue is the network beyond those areas, due to suburbanization. The topic of this thread is building high speed rail to a suburban desert location. Third, when discussing internet people's fetishization of European density over American suburban sprawl, its not crazy to bring up downsides -- of which there are many. It's true, the German desire for territorial expansion (and resulting World Wars and Genocides) were a direct result of perceived overpopulation. I dunno...I would call that a downside? I know it's impossible to understand for an internet person in 2024, but childless urban living wasn't always cool and aspirational. Why do you think the automobile found such strong product-market-fit in the 1900s. > At least try to look up basic statistics: 558,000,000 -> 746,225,356 If we want to argue of the semantics of "roughly the same," I'd say 35% growth qualifies when comparing a US population that grew 250% over the same time and a world that grew by 400%.