4 ms·

> As somone who's lived in different European and Japanese cities it just saddens me that highways replaced local public transport in many American cities rathe

by Goladus 11y ago

> As somone who's lived in different European and Japanese cities it just saddens me that highways replaced local public transport in many American cities rather than added to it. The population density and distribution of that density is massively different in Europe and Japan than in the US. For effective shared or public transit, you need transportation hubs that are a convenient distance from where people are and where they want to go. If people and population centers are very spread out, then the transit becomes both more expensive and less useful. Even if you can take rail between two population centers, odds are good that you'll still have to drive a long way to the train station then drive another long way to get where you're actually trying to go. Because there's not a lot of population, transit can't run frequently without being a massive waste of energy, so schedules become less convenient. Check out this density map: https://dhs.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/popdensity.png https://dhs.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/popdensi... Note how Europe is consistently dense over a very large area, with a core of highly dense areas all fairly close to each other like London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Munich, and Bern, while the adjacent regions like Italy, the Balkans, and even Poland have fairly consistent population density. In Japan, the density is highly concentrated on Honshu, and even then it's concentrated into certain cities and prefectures. The US, meanwhile, has only a few dense regions, mostly in the Northeast, with the rest of population centers spread out very large areas. Not coincidentally, those more densely populated cities tend to have more public transit than the average American city. There are notable exceptions, such as Los Angeles, but LA is not representative of most of the country.

brenschluss 11y ago
This is a chicken-and-egg problem. The US only has a few dense regions because suburban housing typologies strung together with highways have been dominant. If you consider that public transit makes areas walkable, creates street-level shops, restaurants, and cafes, and densifies areas as a result, then creating public transit is an argument for creating density.
- Goladus 11y ago
  This is a chicken-and-egg problem. Only if you ignore the fact that most of the US population centers developed long before the automobile. The US only has a few dense regions because suburban housing typologies strung together with highways have been dominant. Suburbs are largely a 20th century phenomenon and rail was very important in the history of the US. US population spread itself out for primarily for economic reasons (and also likely socio-political reasons).
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    The population centers, yes, but the population growth, and residential areas developed for it, largely after. Population of the US in 1900 was roughly 76 million. It's 316 million today. Auto ownership took off in the 1950s (after WWII and the post-war boom began). At that time, total population was 151 million, less than half that today. Both of the two most populous states in the U.S. (California and Texas) assumed that position well after the dominance of the Automobile. California in 1960, Texas in the 1990s. California's population has increased 3.6x since 1950, Texas has by 3.4x. The third-ranked state, New York, by 1.3x. Florida, set to surpass New York in the near future, has grown 7x in the same period. That's all post-auto era growth. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
    - Goladus 11y ago
      Still, the point is that the transportation systems in the US have co-evolved with the growth and spread of its population. So I suppose you could technically say it's a "chicken-egg" problem. But only in the sense that the "chicken-egg" actually does have a real answer and that answer is they evolved together. There were various major decisions made along the way along with millions of everyday choices made by individuals.
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        transportation systems in the US have co-evolved with the growth and spread of its population For the post-1950 period, I disagree. The car was established. Development followed auto-driven growth dynamics.
gone35 11y ago
The US, meanwhile, has only a few dense regions, mostly in the Northeast, with the rest of population centers spread out very large areas. [...] There are notable exceptions, such as Los Angeles, but LA is not representative of most of the country. Think again[1]. [1] http://persquaremile.com/2011/05/27/u-s-not-dense-enough-for-high-speed-rail-think-again/ http://persquaremile.com/2011/05/27/u-s-not-dense-enough-for...
- Goladus 11y ago
  I didn't say the US isn't dense enough for high-speed rail. My focus isn't limited to high-speed rail, but all manner of public transit. I also mentioned distribution of density as well as raw density. Most importantly, I was not addressing whether it can work or cannot work. That is not the question. The question is whether shared transit is and has been more convenient and cost-effective than roads, highways and automobiles. I am explaining why a simplistic comparison between the US and Europe is misguided. I am countering the point "I lived in Europe and their public transit was so great why can't we have that in the US?" Which everyone upvotes because they're starry-eyed idealists who haven't thought through the economics and messy details. Furthermore, I went beyond describing density as simply a number, but also referenced distribution of the density. The shape matters. Your article compares Spain to California. But their situations are far different. Spain is a less-dense adjacent to a dense region. A couple connections into France and a ferry to Italy and you've got bandwidth into the heart of the existing network in central Europe. California, on the other hand, is a denser region on the opposite side of deserts and mountain ranges. They could build a rail system for themselves, but unlike spain they wouldn't have the huge advantage of a cheap and easy connection into a large existing network. This all helps to explain why the US and Europe did not evolve the same manner of public transit systems. I see that China is looking to build a high-speed rail between Moscow and Beijing. [1] The relevant points: it does not exist yet; and China is booming. [1] http://rt.com/business/225131-russia-china-speed-railway/ http://rt.com/business/225131-russia-china-speed-railway/
  - m_mueller 11y ago
    I think your arguments against HSR are valid. That's not to say that I think HSR couldn't be effective in the US, but I do see there is a bigger hurdle compared to Europe/Japan, which either means you have to make it cheaper per mile of railway or the ROI will be further out. What I still don't see is how this all applies to local transport. If I understand you correctly, you claim that local transport options in Europe and the US cannot be compared. Why is that? And if so, how is it not an urban planning policy problem that was mostly produced in the post war era? Isn't it worth it to think about what could be improved?
m_mueller 11y ago
Your link seems to be down. Any mirrors? And btw. I wasn't even talking about HSR across country - this issue is debatable. What's IMO not debatable is the necessity of efficient local public transport within population centers, be it on (underground) rails, designated road lanes or street rails, I don't really care, as long as it's mass transport.
- Goladus 11y ago
  http://i.imgur.com/4UWghIE.png http://i.imgur.com/4UWghIE.png

by Goladus 11y ago

brenschluss 11y ago

This is a chicken-and-egg problem. The US only has a few dense regions because suburban housing typologies strung together with highways have been dominant. If you consider that public transit makes areas walkable, creates street-level shops, restaurants, and cafes, and densifies areas as a result, then creating public transit is an argument for creating density.

Goladus 11y ago
This is a chicken-and-egg problem. Only if you ignore the fact that most of the US population centers developed long before the automobile. The US only has a few dense regions because suburban housing typologies strung together with highways have been dominant. Suburbs are largely a 20th century phenomenon and rail was very important in the history of the US. US population spread itself out for primarily for economic reasons (and also likely socio-political reasons).
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  The population centers, yes, but the population growth, and residential areas developed for it, largely after. Population of the US in 1900 was roughly 76 million. It's 316 million today. Auto ownership took off in the 1950s (after WWII and the post-war boom began). At that time, total population was 151 million, less than half that today. Both of the two most populous states in the U.S. (California and Texas) assumed that position well after the dominance of the Automobile. California in 1960, Texas in the 1990s. California's population has increased 3.6x since 1950, Texas has by 3.4x. The third-ranked state, New York, by 1.3x. Florida, set to surpass New York in the near future, has grown 7x in the same period. That's all post-auto era growth. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
  - Goladus 11y ago
    Still, the point is that the transportation systems in the US have co-evolved with the growth and spread of its population. So I suppose you could technically say it's a "chicken-egg" problem. But only in the sense that the "chicken-egg" actually does have a real answer and that answer is they evolved together. There were various major decisions made along the way along with millions of everyday choices made by individuals.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      transportation systems in the US have co-evolved with the growth and spread of its population For the post-1950 period, I disagree. The car was established. Development followed auto-driven growth dynamics.

gone35 11y ago

The US, meanwhile, has only a few dense regions, mostly in the Northeast, with the rest of population centers spread out very large areas. [...] There are notable exceptions, such as Los Angeles, but LA is not representative of most of the country. Think again[1]. [1] http://persquaremile.com/2011/05/27/u-s-not-dense-enough-for-high-speed-rail-think-again/ http://persquaremile.com/2011/05/27/u-s-not-dense-enough-for...

Goladus 11y ago
I didn't say the US isn't dense enough for high-speed rail. My focus isn't limited to high-speed rail, but all manner of public transit. I also mentioned distribution of density as well as raw density. Most importantly, I was not addressing whether it can work or cannot work. That is not the question. The question is whether shared transit is and has been more convenient and cost-effective than roads, highways and automobiles. I am explaining why a simplistic comparison between the US and Europe is misguided. I am countering the point "I lived in Europe and their public transit was so great why can't we have that in the US?" Which everyone upvotes because they're starry-eyed idealists who haven't thought through the economics and messy details. Furthermore, I went beyond describing density as simply a number, but also referenced distribution of the density. The shape matters. Your article compares Spain to California. But their situations are far different. Spain is a less-dense adjacent to a dense region. A couple connections into France and a ferry to Italy and you've got bandwidth into the heart of the existing network in central Europe. California, on the other hand, is a denser region on the opposite side of deserts and mountain ranges. They could build a rail system for themselves, but unlike spain they wouldn't have the huge advantage of a cheap and easy connection into a large existing network. This all helps to explain why the US and Europe did not evolve the same manner of public transit systems. I see that China is looking to build a high-speed rail between Moscow and Beijing. [1] The relevant points: it does not exist yet; and China is booming. [1] http://rt.com/business/225131-russia-china-speed-railway/ http://rt.com/business/225131-russia-china-speed-railway/
- m_mueller 11y ago
  I think your arguments against HSR are valid. That's not to say that I think HSR couldn't be effective in the US, but I do see there is a bigger hurdle compared to Europe/Japan, which either means you have to make it cheaper per mile of railway or the ROI will be further out. What I still don't see is how this all applies to local transport. If I understand you correctly, you claim that local transport options in Europe and the US cannot be compared. Why is that? And if so, how is it not an urban planning policy problem that was mostly produced in the post war era? Isn't it worth it to think about what could be improved?

m_mueller 11y ago

Your link seems to be down. Any mirrors? And btw. I wasn't even talking about HSR across country - this issue is debatable. What's IMO not debatable is the necessity of efficient local public transport within population centers, be it on (underground) rails, designated road lanes or street rails, I don't really care, as long as it's mass transport.

Goladus 11y ago
http://i.imgur.com/4UWghIE.png http://i.imgur.com/4UWghIE.png