4 ms·
How come no one ever looks at population density? US cities have very low density compared to other cities in other countries. New York is the exception, and
by treflop 2y ago
How come no one ever looks at population density?
US cities have very low density compared to other cities in other countries.
New York is the exception, and their transit isn't that bad. But it's still lower than other major cities.
- bongodongobob 2y agoRight. That and the fact they'll want to connect two cites that are 2-3 hours away by car and neither city is walkable. So it takes longer to get there and then you have to rent a car when you get there anyway.
- tsunagatta 2y agoThe tail wags the dog a little in this case; you could equally say that America’s chosen mode of transport forces lower density: large parking lots and wide roads take up a lot of space where people could otherwise live and work. Wide roads also make it harder to walk around locations, making transit less inviting since walking itself is less inviting.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y agoThe interstate highway system is largely to blame. As it expanded, It usurped rail travel that only effectively served a smaller number of established cities. It is more convenient to drive shortish distances within a region than to hassle with train schedules and the problem of getting transport from the station to the final destination. This then assisted the growth of post-war cities that were mere backwaters 75 years ago.
- treflop 2y agoIn my opinion, it's largely because American cities are new. If you are building a new city, you do not start with high density. Individual developers start with the cheapest build out because no one will pay a premium for a multi-level structure until cheap single-level builds are exhausted. Then as centuries pass, because there is no more undeveloped land, the city is forced to redevelop existing plots and increase density. Many Asian and Western cities are hundreds or thousands of years old. America's transit woes is because we live in a new country with new cities in previously mostly uninhabited land.
- nunez 2y agos/uninhabitated/stolen/
- mrkstu 2y agoremind me again where land exists that wasn’t appropriated from someone else by the current occupants?
- 0xBDB 2y agoThe United States. Well, some of it anyway. Due to smallpox spread from Mexico, 90 percent of the native population was gone in most areas at least a half-century before Jamestown was settled. A lot of what white people 'stole' was genuinely uninhabited.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoAustralia and Canada have similar urban densities and slightly better transit options. I mean, we can definitely do better even if we can’t be Tokyo exactly.
- galdosdi 2y agoNot in the northeast. NYC, DC, Philly, Baltimore, Boston, New Brunswick, New Haven, Newark, etc -- I-95 forms a spine of density sufficient to support anything western Europe has -- if we were willing to do it.
- treflop 2y agoThe Northeast Corridor density is 894/sq mi Paris metro is 1,800/sq mi London metro is 7,430/sq mi Philly is 11,749/sq mi Paris is 52,000/sq mi
- DiogenesKynikos 2y agoYou're comparing a vast corridor connecting half of the Atlantic Seaboard [0] with individual cities. The US East coast between DC and Boston has 3x the population density of France (and has a larger total population). Yet France has the TGV, with many long stretches of 300 km/h traffic, and all the Northeast US has is Acela. 0. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boswash.png#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boswash.png#mw-jum...
- galdosdi 2y agoA big difference you're missing is the I-95 corridor is linear, so you have huge pockets of density all close together along just one single highway / train line, which makes it easier to connect than randomly spread out. Philly is kind of a podunk city for the northeast yet it is denser than metro London, which is arguably one of the top 3 cities in the world. You are kind of proving my point!