3 ms·

Yes that's one of the big distinctions. Even American cities that existed then are drastically different and larger than they were back then. I mean even in

Yes that's one of the big distinctions. Even American cities that existed then are drastically different and larger than they were back then. I mean even in NYC in 1850s, 42nd street was practically "uptown" and what we now call "uptown" was farmland. Brooklyn & Queens which are now the population centers of NYC with ~2.5M residents each had a grand total of under 200K back then. At the time Manhattan had 500K residents (2.5x BK&QNS 200K) while it has 1.7M now (1/3 the ~5M across BK&QNS now). So the population center even within our biggest city has completely shifted from the time our railroads were built out.

porridgeraisin 1y ago
Yep this is what happened in my home city in india as well. Our property which my ancestors purchased for dirt cheap on the outskirts of the city is now smack in the center and valued higher. Populations have also shifted. We always had a good train network around here. When the shift happened though, the "hub" stations have not really moved. Today the main stations are still where the old center of town was. As a result, taking the train for me is a bit like going to the airport you're gonna have to take a 30min trip(without traffic) and 60min trip(with traffic) or a 30min metro (crowded) or a 45min (but less punctual and gets full too often) bus/suburban train to reach the station. As I type this, the city keeps expanding on one side, so in a decade's time, there will be a new city center, closer to the airport, but further and further away from the hub station. I'll have to wait and see if they change the hub station to a more central one at that point.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Transit is one place where I'll say authoritarianism and central planning are superior. 1. Identify direction of expansion 2. Buy / eminent domain land 3. Build transit 4. Develop area The laissez faire model of urban planning sucks, because it acquires necessary infrastructure after the land needed has already increased in price.
  - steveBK123 1y ago
    Not just increased in price, but the area is now filled with NIMBYs who would benefit and yet will whinge .. therefore immobilizing any attempt to improve transit.
senkora 1y ago
You may enjoy this video showing the expansion of NYC over time from the first Dutch settlement to the present day: https://youtu.be/f6U7YFPrz6Y https://youtu.be/f6U7YFPrz6Y 1842 is at 2:55 in the video.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
evanelias 1y ago
> Even American cities that existed then are drastically different and larger than they were back then. Another major issue is the way transit authorities tend to be governed and funded in the US. They're often prone to political disagreements between cities and suburbs, or between city and state governments, or between multiple states. The two-party system doesn't exactly lead to coalition-building. Take Philly for example: SEPTA regional rail has been through-running since the mid 80s, which is great, and the network is fairly well-aligned with population centers and employment centers. But year after year, SEPTA is consistently in a state of utter crisis, typically due to lack of funding.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  I think another tension aside from the pure source of funding is just the whole transit philosophy differences. In the US, at least in coastal cities, we sometimes seem more concerned that transit be cheap than that it be good. Transit in NYC is so cheap as to be almost free, especially considering something like 50% of bus riders beat the fare. NYC subway fare is unlimited distance and about half the price of a London zone 1 fare. This is despite white collar jobs in NYC often paying 2x the equivalent London wage. So instead of funding with usage fees at all (and say subsidizing/discounting for those in need), we just set ridiculously low fares and then try to go after higher incomes in the region with income tax levies, which is obviously unpopular. Per BBC graphic / data provided by TfL for example, London Underground is 72% funded by fares vs 38% in NYC.
  - rangestransform 1y ago
    There’s a weird bipartisan agreement that spans the US, that transit should serve as welfare for the poor especially, instead of being transportation for the rich and poor alike.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    I can think of a couple of factors that lead to this state. One is: what is the cost of trying to collect those lost fares, will it even pay for itself? The same reason library fines are sometimes stopped, it costs more to collect than they will get. The other is that transportation money comes out of the same big bucket, it will cost too much to add lanes for cars, so they try to incentivize more people to take transit instead.

porridgeraisin 1y ago

Yep this is what happened in my home city in india as well. Our property which my ancestors purchased for dirt cheap on the outskirts of the city is now smack in the center and valued higher. Populations have also shifted. We always had a good train network around here. When the shift happened though, the "hub" stations have not really moved. Today the main stations are still where the old center of town was. As a result, taking the train for me is a bit like going to the airport you're gonna have to take a 30min trip(without traffic) and 60min trip(with traffic) or a 30min metro (crowded) or a 45min (but less punctual and gets full too often) bus/suburban train to reach the station. As I type this, the city keeps expanding on one side, so in a decade's time, there will be a new city center, closer to the airport, but further and further away from the hub station. I'll have to wait and see if they change the hub station to a more central one at that point.

ethbr1 1y ago
Transit is one place where I'll say authoritarianism and central planning are superior. 1. Identify direction of expansion 2. Buy / eminent domain land 3. Build transit 4. Develop area The laissez faire model of urban planning sucks, because it acquires necessary infrastructure after the land needed has already increased in price.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  Not just increased in price, but the area is now filled with NIMBYs who would benefit and yet will whinge .. therefore immobilizing any attempt to improve transit.

senkora 1y ago

You may enjoy this video showing the expansion of NYC over time from the first Dutch settlement to the present day: https://youtu.be/f6U7YFPrz6Y https://youtu.be/f6U7YFPrz6Y 1842 is at 2:55 in the video.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

evanelias 1y ago

> Even American cities that existed then are drastically different and larger than they were back then. Another major issue is the way transit authorities tend to be governed and funded in the US. They're often prone to political disagreements between cities and suburbs, or between city and state governments, or between multiple states. The two-party system doesn't exactly lead to coalition-building. Take Philly for example: SEPTA regional rail has been through-running since the mid 80s, which is great, and the network is fairly well-aligned with population centers and employment centers. But year after year, SEPTA is consistently in a state of utter crisis, typically due to lack of funding.

steveBK123 1y ago
I think another tension aside from the pure source of funding is just the whole transit philosophy differences. In the US, at least in coastal cities, we sometimes seem more concerned that transit be cheap than that it be good. Transit in NYC is so cheap as to be almost free, especially considering something like 50% of bus riders beat the fare. NYC subway fare is unlimited distance and about half the price of a London zone 1 fare. This is despite white collar jobs in NYC often paying 2x the equivalent London wage. So instead of funding with usage fees at all (and say subsidizing/discounting for those in need), we just set ridiculously low fares and then try to go after higher incomes in the region with income tax levies, which is obviously unpopular. Per BBC graphic / data provided by TfL for example, London Underground is 72% funded by fares vs 38% in NYC.
- rangestransform 1y ago
  There’s a weird bipartisan agreement that spans the US, that transit should serve as welfare for the poor especially, instead of being transportation for the rich and poor alike.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  I can think of a couple of factors that lead to this state. One is: what is the cost of trying to collect those lost fares, will it even pay for itself? The same reason library fines are sometimes stopped, it costs more to collect than they will get. The other is that transportation money comes out of the same big bucket, it will cost too much to add lanes for cars, so they try to incentivize more people to take transit instead.