Car dependency

Dutchy · Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:13 am

I am in real estate development, thus urban planning is one of my interests. Being from the Netherlands, it interests me how people get around and why American/Canadian cities have been designed in such a way that the only viable way to get around is by car. So it is not a choice to go by car, but there is no real alternative.

Not just bikes is a good YT channel that highlights urban planning and he made a video about a 1950'ish propaganda film by GM: Link.

It is interesting to me how the problem was correctly identified, but the proposed solution was to build more roads, even though it was known since the 1930'ish that that is not a solution, except for the automotive industry.

What do you think?

cpd · Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:01 am

My country is in the same predicament- too much development is car dependent and with so many cars on the road the traffic is horrendous and so people spend sometimes 3 hours per day in traffic commuting to and from work.

It’s not sustainable, but public transport (especially trains) is evil socialism so what do you do…

Some parts of my area of Sydney have connected cycleways but these don’t go far enough or they are not properly maintained and cause accidents, which is what happened to me last year and left me very seriously injured.

My attitude is build more connected cycleways that are direct and go where people need them to go and don’t have too many stops and starts and you’ll probably see a lot of cars go off the road. It’s important too with high fuel prices.

My area is not an inner Sydney socialist elite latte sipping leftie area, it is conservative right wing but even we have a lift of people riding bicycles.

Kiwirob · Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:03 am

It's not just in American where people are dependent on cars to travel around. Where I live in Norway we have poor public transport, which is an issue in Norway outside of the 4 main cities, we have to have cars. At the moment we have three of them.

Avatar2go · Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:18 am

I think the dependence on cars derived from the dependence on the horse, which was a necessity in rural communities.

This didn't really change as cities grew, I suspect for the same kind of reason we all still use QWERTY keyboards. Dependence on a car becomes habitual and is an accepted practice in most communities and cultures.

JJJ · Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:23 am

Kiwirob wrote:
It's not just in American where people are dependent on cars to travel around. Where I live in Norway we have poor public transport, which is an issue in Norway outside of the 4 main cities, we have to have cars. At the moment we have three of them.

Same here. Public transport works well in built-up areas but in smaller areas it's just not there.

I live in a small town of about 25K, there's a single bus line that goes to a separate built up area in the beach, and another bus line linking to the main neighboring city of right under 200K (which branches into a line to the university and another to the center).

Technically you can also take a commuter train (which also links it to the bigger 1million metro about 60km away), but the station is outside the residential area, in the middle of an industrial state so you have to take a car or bike to get there.

Everything we do in town (kids school, doctor, groceries, etc.) we just walk, for everything else not taking the car comes with a huge time penalty. A lot of the jobs are in industrial states so there are no realistic public transportation options. Electric scooters using the bike lanes seem very popular these days in short trips though, say up to 3-4kms.

ACDC8 · Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:36 am

Ask your fellow countrymen why they moved to Canada or the US, its because they want exactly what we all want, a nice 4 bedroom rancher with a 2 car garage on an acre or two of green grass and a shiny new Cadillac in the driveway. - so, because of that, we built out and not up and with that building outwards, we built the roads. Of course now, we simply don't have the room to build new roads and with a growing population, we need to rethink our way of life but there are a few points that factor in to this change.

Some metro areas like where I live seem to be much more progressive in this area than other areas. We've started building cities within the city where one can live, work, play, entertain in close proximity - albeit working in your area is still a tough problem to tackle because as soon as these neighbourhood cities go up, owning or renting becomes unaffordable for most so commuting becomes a necessity again, and a car is the most viable option. We really need to tackle the affordable housing crisis in order for this lifestyle change to actually work - if we continue to allow real estate to remain an investment game, then nothing will change.

Our public transportation here in Metro Vancouver is by far one of the best in North America and it has one of the best ridership rates, but its still a far cry from what you see in Europe. I work for transit and I get free system pass that works for the entire region on all modes of public transportation, so technically, I could live with out a car and my transportation costs would be absolutely zero - but to live without a car is simply not something I'm ready for mainly because relying on public transportation eats away at my personal time of which I don't have much of and many others are in the same situation.

Cycling is a recreational sport for most here, not a way to get around, but again, in Metro Vancouver, we have a maze of dedicated bike lanes all over the place, but still, for most, its a weekend thing.

Dutchy · Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:59 am

ACDC8 wrote:
Ask your fellow countrymen why they moved to Canada or the US, its because they want exactly what we all want, a nice 4 bedroom rancher with a 2 car garage on an acre or two of green grass and a shiny new Cadillac in the driveway. - so, because of that, we built out and not up and with that building outwards, we built the roads. Of course now, we simply don't have the room to build new roads and with a growing population, we need to rethink our way of life but there are a few points that factor in to this change.

Actually no, there is quite a bit known about the migration to Canada and Australia after WWII.

The farmers wanted to go to Canada
And preferably far away. To Australia: it was almost impossible to get further from Europe, so the war would probably not come there. Or to Canada, because there was an infinite amount of land there, with a climate that Dutch farmers knew what to do with. Because farmers needed a lot of space.

The Dutch government was already concerned about this during the Second World War. At that time, plans were already being made from London for how the emigration of farmers would be organized after the war, says Van Faassen. But it wasn't just the concerns of the time that made people decide to emigrate, she says.

Many of the post-war emigrants were young. The adventure probably also beckoned to them. ‘At present, young people often travel all over the world in a gap year. You can actually see that as a kind of modern version of that overseas emigration at the time.

Link

It was the policy of the Dutch government to let people emigrate, especially Dutch farmers.

ACDC8 wrote:
Some metro areas like where I live seem to be much more progressive in this area than other areas. We've started building cities within the city where one can live, work, play, entertain in close proximity - albeit working in your area is still a tough problem to tackle because as soon as these neighbourhood cities go up, owning or renting becomes unaffordable for most so commuting becomes a necessity again, and a car is the most viable option. We really need to tackle the affordable housing crisis in order for this lifestyle change to actually work - if we continue to allow real estate to remain an investment game, then nothing will change.

Our public transportation here in Metro Vancouver is by far one of the best in North America and it has one of the best ridership rates, but its still a far cry from what you see in Europe. I work for transit and I get free system pass that works for the entire region on all modes of public transportation, so technically, I could live with out a car and my transportation costs would be absolutely zero - but to live without a car is simply not something I'm ready for mainly because relying on public transportation eats away at my personal time of which I don't have much of and many others are in the same situation.

Cycling is a recreational sport for most here, not a way to get around, but again, in Metro Vancouver, we have a maze of dedicated bike lanes all over the place, but still, for most, its a weekend thing.

It's a conscious choice about how to build your cities and what kind of transport needs there are. The Dutch made a very conscious choice in the 70-ish to make cities far more bike orientated than car-orientated and that has worked wonders for a number of aspects of life.
I am a fan of the 15-minute city, Link. To make quite compact cities in which people could actually move around and do their daily choirs within 15 minutes of their homes.

Furthermore, one has to ask ourselves the question of why more compact cities with walkable areas are more popular, which you can see for the asking price pr sq-meter. Cars are killing (inner-) cities. Not just bikes compared a cross-town journey by car between an average American town of (I believe) 50,000 people and a Dutch one, of a similar size or even bigger. Conclusion: the average speed was higher in the Netherlands, even for the car. Car-orientated cities aren't necessarily better for cars, strangely enough. And yes, it will be almost impossible for car-orientated cities in the US to make the transition to a more people-orientated city plan. Although a lot could be achieved, actually.

Source

ACDC8 · Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:13 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Actually no, there is quite a bit known about the migration to Canada and Australia after WWII.

I wasn't referring to post WW2, but more so today.

Dutchy wrote:
It's a conscious choice about how to build your cities and what kind of transport needs there are. The Dutch made a very conscious choice in the 70-ish to make cities far more bike orientated than car-orientated and that has worked wonders for a number of aspects of life.

I don't disagree with the ways the Dutch and other Europeans have built their cities, but we have a completely different mindset in our corner of the world and built our cities with that mindset. But they were built the way they were, can't change the past but can build a better tomorrow but it'll take a lot of time.

Dutchy wrote:
I am a fan of the 15-minute city, Link. To make quite compact cities in which people could actually move around and do their daily choirs within 15 minutes of their homes.

I'm a fan of them as well, I think they're great - but as I stated, our biggest hurdle to make these work is to keep the housing in those areas affordable which we aren't succeeding at, so even though we have these great little mini cities within a city, they defeat the purpose if only few can afford to live there.

Aesma · Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:15 pm

I do only short trips with my car, it has 3 years and not 10000Km yet. I do everything with it as I don't like walking, biking, nor taking bus/trains. Even if all options are possible !

When I lived in Paris a car wasn't an option, clearly you lose too much time, always have to worry about parking, and back then it was still OK but now the price of parking is insane. Instead just walk a few meters and you find a metro station as the network is very dense, so that was good. But more "average" public transport takes too long, and makes me feel too dependant, not helped by their employees striking all the time, people killing themselves using trains, technical incidents stopping traffic...

frmrCapCadet · Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:54 pm

Medical facilities throughout the Pacific Northwest have heavily moved away from the central cities. Public transit in Seattle has its major node along 3rd Avenue. The walks from there are famously up and down steep hills. Fortunately I am only old, not frail or fragile at this time. VA facilities are inaccessible without a car. Just for the h*ll of it, I decided to visit a specialist on the VA side, and not cilvilian side (lucky enough to have access to both). Between ferry, bus, walk and waiting time it was an 8 hour affair for a 20 minute appt. Never again. When we moved to our condo, a hospital and VA clinic were a half hour walk or 5 minute bus trip away. Now both located at one of the worst pedestrian suburban centers ten miles away, and horrible bus rides along with a dangerous walk. Progress LOL. Only hope is that Musk actually comes through with Fill Self Driving, instead of twittering his life and fortune away.

Kiwirob · Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:13 pm

ACDC8 wrote:
Ask your fellow countrymen why they moved to Canada or the US, its because they want exactly what we all want, a nice 4 bedroom rancher with a 2 car garage on an acre or two of green grass and a shiny new Cadillac in the driveway. - so, because of that, we built out and not up and with that building outwards, we built the roads. Of course now, we simply don't have the room to build new roads and with a growing population, we need to rethink our way of life but there are a few points that factor in to this change.

The US once had walk-able neighborhoods, but you pulled them all down to build highways and stripmallls with vast parking lots. The US is now full of hundreds of empty shopping malls, and carparks which nobody uses.

https://www.ft.com/content/27169841-7ee ... b247e401f6

Revelation · Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:27 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Medical facilities throughout the Pacific Northwest have heavily moved away from the central cities.

I have a friend who lives in a small town that has a great hospital in it. Turns out the hospital CEO is one of his neighbors. I asked how they could have a great hospital in the middle of small town USA. He said the question to ask is how can big city hospitals survive, not small town ones, since they have the mandate to care for anyone who can stumble into their lobby, regardless of ability to pay.

Kiwirob wrote:
The US once had walk-able neighborhoods, but you pulled them all down to build highways and stripmallls with vast parking lots. The US is now full of hundreds of empty shopping malls, and carparks which nobody uses.

https://www.ft.com/content/27169841-7ee ... b247e401f6

I presume you've heard the term "white flight", no?

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

luckyone · Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:45 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Medical facilities throughout the Pacific Northwest have heavily moved away from the central cities. Public transit in Seattle has its major node along 3rd Avenue. The walks from there are famously up and down steep hills. Fortunately I am only old, not frail or fragile at this time. VA facilities are inaccessible without a car. Just for the h*ll of it, I decided to visit a specialist on the VA side, and not cilvilian side (lucky enough to have access to both). Between ferry, bus, walk and waiting time it was an 8 hour affair for a 20 minute appt. Never again. When we moved to our condo, a hospital and VA clinic were a half hour walk or 5 minute bus trip away. Now both located at one of the worst pedestrian suburban centers ten miles away, and horrible bus rides along with a dangerous walk. Progress LOL. Only hope is that Musk actually comes through with Fill Self Driving, instead of twittering his life and fortune away.

Where are you ferrying from??

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. All but one major hospital in Seattle (Swedish, HMC, VM) is a few blocks from the other. UW Montlake is the main exception. The VA hospital is a few miles down, but that is still readily accessible by public transportation. I agree, the trek from 3rd Avenue is adventurous for all sorts of reasons, but there are buses that run up and down, particularly the 2. New hospitals are being built out in the suburbs as the population grows in that direction, but that's just as much an issue of zoning than anything else.

ACDC8 · Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:48 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
The US once had walk-able neighborhoods, but you pulled them all down to build highways and stripmallls with vast parking lots. The US is now full of hundreds of empty shopping malls, and carparks which nobody uses.

Strip malls are brilliant if designed and placed properly - one stop shopping/entertainment areas that would only require one single stop via public transportation versus numerous stops or long walking distances between stores. Where I live, there are dozens upon dozens of strip malls, all easily accessible by bus or car and they are always packed. When I lived in White Rock, there were 4 large strip malls, one on each corner of the intersection, 2 more a few blocks to the west and 3 more just north from there. More and more housing is being built within easy walking distance - no need to cross town for your groceries, books, hardware, medications, electronics, clothing, bite to eat or see a movie. Isn't that a good thing?

Now, in the US, you have a problem - zoning. If you build a strip mall, placing it in a residential area or building new homes around it can be extremely difficult if not impossible in some areas. Fortunately, in Canada, at least the larger cities embrace the coexistence of retail and residential, but as I mentioned earlier, our hurdle is to keep the housing in those areas affordable which we're failing at miserably.

You can't just hear stories about failed shopping centres and think thats how they all end up - that just isn't so in the real world.

c933103 · Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:52 pm

I am not sure it's just a culture/perception thing. Urban Japan and Korea have extensively used transit system, but their smaller cities are still pretty much motorized.

frmrCapCadet · Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:52 pm

Access from Coleman dock to the bus system has been only marginally improved over the years. If you are up to it. walking is faster to get to those hospitals. By the way, Capital Hill has an elevation of up to 460 feet. By convention, that could be called a 46 story walk up. And yes, because of lousy ferry service walking and waiting times it did take 8 hours for a short VA appt. Evidently some people think that is OK. I don't. By the way, I have volunteered at the local DAV chapter, transportation for those with limited mobility is horrible. And where I moved from in rural Washington, the local clinic was closed. Evidently because the costs were higher than average - probably because the veterans were sicker than average.

Kiwirob · Tue Jan 10, 2023 6:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Medical facilities throughout the Pacific Northwest have heavily moved away from the central cities.

I have a friend who lives in a small town that has a great hospital in it. Turns out the hospital CEO is one of his neighbors. I asked how they could have a great hospital in the middle of small town USA. He said the question to ask is how can big city hospitals survive, not small town ones, since they have the mandate to care for anyone who can stumble into their lobby, regardless of ability to pay.

Kiwirob wrote:
The US once had walk-able neighborhoods, but you pulled them all down to build highways and stripmallls with vast parking lots. The US is now full of hundreds of empty shopping malls, and carparks which nobody uses.

https://www.ft.com/content/27169841-7ee ... b247e401f6

I presume you've heard the term "white flight", no?

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

Depending on what you read theres differing opinions on which came first white flight or motorways and car dependency? There appears to be arguments for both.

In Oslo there is Norwegian flight, quite dramatic in some places, the immigrants moving in aren't just people of colour, there are a lot of immigrants from Eastern Europe.

casinterest · Tue Jan 10, 2023 6:27 pm

In the US, there is a larget land area and a much lower population density in general than Europe.

https://www.stockingblue.com/article/12 ... n-density/

There are very few states beating out the EU for density.

in the 1950's where the vide was from , much of the issue was about how to get the interstante roads started that would help get transportation efficiently around the country.
There were big population centers on the coast, and some in the south and midwest, but the factories and farms were all spread out.

Roads were the go to platform. They provide for more dynamic transportation solutions of truck, car and bus routes throughout the country. Rail was expensive, labor intensive, and for the most part seen as a hinderence to get people to the right place on time.

You will notice that most of the states in the US that are higher up in that density list do have public transportation options, including rail and bus services. However as others have alluded to in this thread. The central cities for a long time benefitted corporations more than residential living. So people needed to drive to work, and to attract workers, companies built big facilities with big parking lots in rural areas, which then spawned their own localized growth. A car offers a lot of benefits over rail and bus, dynamic scheduling and operation. vs the scheduled, and sometimes inconvienient use of the less dynamic bus and train systems.

Covid threw a wrench into what was starting to be a dynamic shift in transport in the US. Train ridership was increasing, and rideshare/rental was increasing.

With the rise of Uber/Lyft., and other ridesharing apps, more and more people were forgoing cars in their younger years and living in denser areas. Covid kind of nixed that for a few years, but now that Covid is over it will remain to be seen how the change works out going forward. It may make more sense for people in the future to forgo cars for rentals/rideshare as we move to more dynamic use.

Tesla and others are working on self -driving cars which would further help limit the depency on cars. After all let's face it, cars sit idle for probably 22-23 hours in a day. ( as does much of that road infrastructure and rail infrastructure outside of busy times).

On the other side is time demand crowding If workplaces require workers to all start at 8 or 9, rail/road/bus/Ferry does not matter as you will overwhelm the system( anyone that has ever been to Disney World at opening time will understand this). Magic hours were created to try to alleviate the strain on the system.

So in closing, I would say all modes need to exist, but in the US roads made more sense due to dynamic destinations.

ER757 · Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:26 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Medical facilities throughout the Pacific Northwest have heavily moved away from the central cities. Public transit in Seattle has its major node along 3rd Avenue. The walks from there are famously up and down steep hills. Fortunately I am only old, not frail or fragile at this time. VA facilities are inaccessible without a car. Just for the h*ll of it, I decided to visit a specialist on the VA side, and not cilvilian side (lucky enough to have access to both). Between ferry, bus, walk and waiting time it was an 8 hour affair for a 20 minute appt. Never again. When we moved to our condo, a hospital and VA clinic were a half hour walk or 5 minute bus trip away. Now both located at one of the worst pedestrian suburban centers ten miles away, and horrible bus rides along with a dangerous walk. Progress LOL. Only hope is that Musk actually comes through with Fill Self Driving, instead of twittering his life and fortune away.

Seattle is so far behind the curve with public transit it's laughable. When they finally opened a light rail line, the extensions have been plagued by ungodly delays, still on-going. The transcontinental railroad was built faster than the 10 mile extension from the airport to Federal Way (which is STILL years away from completion). I am retired now but when I was working my office was 6 miles from my home. If I wanted to take public transport, I would have had to take THREE buses which would have taken Lord knows how long. It's flat between the two points and there's a bike trail a good portion of the way. I used to ride whenever I could but with the frequent rain between October and March, it was rare that I pedaled it to work in winter. When it was dry enough, a lot of times it was just too darned cold. I didn't want to hit a hidden patch of ice on the trail in the pre-dawn darkness and end up with a wrecked bike and body.

noviorbis77 · Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:16 pm

Dutchy wrote:
I am in real estate development, thus urban planning is one of my interests. Being from the Netherlands, it interests me how people get around and why American/Canadian cities have been designed in such a way that the only viable way to get around is by car. So it is not a choice to go by car, but there is no real alternative.

Not just bikes is a good YT channel that highlights urban planning and he made a video about a 1950'ish propaganda film by GM: Link.

It is interesting to me how the problem was correctly identified, but the proposed solution was to build more roads, even though it was known since the 1930'ish that that is not a solution, except for the automotive industry.

What do you think?

They don’t have the space constraints. They can have large homes and large areas of suburbia.

That said, look at car ownership levels in Manhattan or the centre of San Francisco, Chicago etc.

Dutchy · Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:17 pm

ACDC8 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Actually no, there is quite a bit known about the migration to Canada and Australia after WWII.

I wasn't referring to post WW2, but more so today.

Are nowadays more Dutchmen moving to Canada, than Canadians moving to the Netherlands? I have no idea The YouTuber behind 'not just bikes' happens to be Canadian, now living in Amsterdam. The point he is making, and I agree with him, is that cars in inner cities lead to a lower quality of life. And spacing is also a problem. I have heard, don't know if that is true, that in the US/Canada, hardly any multi-space building exists, or can't be built anymore. Moreover no brownstone 'row'houses - probably another word for it, but too lazy to look it up, sorry - aren't allowed to be built anymore. There only single home houses are built and apartment buildings, nothing in between. Which leads to spread out cities, and the need for a car. Children are more dependent on their parents to go anywhere and less human interaction on the streets, which makes them more unsafe. And more importantly, leads to a lower quality of life.

ACDC8 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
It's a conscious choice about how to build your cities and what kind of transport needs there are. The Dutch made a very conscious choice in the 70-ish to make cities far more bike orientated than car-orientated and that has worked wonders for a number of aspects of life.

I don't disagree with the ways the Dutch and other Europeans have built their cities, but we have a completely different mindset in our corner of the world and built our cities with that mindset. But they were built the way they were, can't change the past but can build a better tomorrow but it'll take a lot of time.

Yeah, but we had this mindset in the 60-ish as well. I live in Utrecht, which is 950 years old this year. But there were actually plans to get rid of the canals and bring in the car. This sounds crazy today, but that was the thinking till the 70-ish. Then everything changed. Too many children died in road accidents. And then cities became, over time, more bicycles minded and the old inner cities were saved. But even now, new plans are designed to have bicycle first mentality. Bicycles are the preferred way of travel, not because it is good for you, but it is the fastest way to get around a city. But again, it was a choice, a mindset is also a choice, which could be changed. I agree it will take time to change, but it can be done.

ACDC8 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I am a fan of the 15-minute city, Link. To make quite compact cities in which people could actually move around and do their daily choirs within 15 minutes of their homes.

I'm a fan of them as well, I think they're great - but as I stated, our biggest hurdle to make these work is to keep the housing in those areas affordable which we aren't succeeding at, so even though we have these great little mini cities within a city, they defeat the purpose if only few can afford to live there.

This channel made a video about the cost and yield for a city. Suburbs are actually very costly, they are low density and every service - like ambulance, garbage services etc. - are spread out and thus more costly and inner cities are making the money for the cities because more compact, while the wealth is in suburbia and most lower-class people in apartments live in inner-cities. I am convinced that this kind of urban planning doesn't need to be more expensive at all, certainly not in the long term.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:35 pm

I live in one of the most densely populated US states, being without a car is impossible. And, I’m not moving out of my 8 acre lot.

c933103 · Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:58 pm

casinterest wrote:
In the US, there is a larget land area and a much lower population density in general than Europe.

https://www.stockingblue.com/article/12 ... n-density/

There are very few states beating out the EU for density.

in the 1950's where the vide was from , much of the issue was about how to get the interstante roads started that would help get transportation efficiently around the country.
There were big population centers on the coast, and some in the south and midwest, but the factories and farms were all spread out.

Roads were the go to platform. They provide for more dynamic transportation solutions of truck, car and bus routes throughout the country. Rail was expensive, labor intensive, and for the most part seen as a hinderence to get people to the right place on time.

You will notice that most of the states in the US that are higher up in that density list do have public transportation options, including rail and bus services. However as others have alluded to in this thread. The central cities for a long time benefitted corporations more than residential living. So people needed to drive to work, and to attract workers, companies built big facilities with big parking lots in rural areas, which then spawned their own localized growth. A car offers a lot of benefits over rail and bus, dynamic scheduling and operation. vs the scheduled, and sometimes inconvienient use of the less dynamic bus and train systems.

Covid threw a wrench into what was starting to be a dynamic shift in transport in the US. Train ridership was increasing, and rideshare/rental was increasing.

With the rise of Uber/Lyft., and other ridesharing apps, more and more people were forgoing cars in their younger years and living in denser areas. Covid kind of nixed that for a few years, but now that Covid is over it will remain to be seen how the change works out going forward. It may make more sense for people in the future to forgo cars for rentals/rideshare as we move to more dynamic use.

Tesla and others are working on self -driving cars which would further help limit the depency on cars. After all let's face it, cars sit idle for probably 22-23 hours in a day. ( as does much of that road infrastructure and rail infrastructure outside of busy times).

On the other side is time demand crowding If workplaces require workers to all start at 8 or 9, rail/road/bus/Ferry does not matter as you will overwhelm the system( anyone that has ever been to Disney World at opening time will understand this). Magic hours were created to try to alleviate the strain on the system.

So in closing, I would say all modes need to exist, but in the US roads made more sense due to dynamic destinations.

Many of the undense part of America are where people do not live to begin with, it's the density if urban area that matter.
Many US transit agency ridership still haven't recovered to pre-coronavirus level.
Ridesharing is just taxi, I don't get why people consider it as an alternative as car, when effectively it is just a car driven by someone else.
Same for autonomous cars.

johns624 · Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:59 pm

I went on a 400 mile day trip in my car today---just because I can.

Aaron747 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:06 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I live in one of the most densely populated US states, being without a car is impossible. And, I’m not moving out of my 8 acre lot.

Same sentiment as you, except for Tokyo. I will not leave the incredible convenience I have now - never need to think about how to get anywhere. Locals say even if there were a big quake or something that knocks out train service, we can walk home on the tracks.

A coworker just bought a big spread in the 'country' - house surrounded by bamboo forest. Even there the nearest station is a 10-minute bike ride away, and it's the beginning of the line. 40 minutes to Tokyo station. Hard to replicate in the states for the price.

Aaron747 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:14 am

Dutchy wrote:
Furthermore, one has to ask ourselves the question of why more compact cities with walkable areas are more popular, which you can see for the asking price pr sq-meter. Cars are killing (inner-) cities. Not just bikes compared a cross-town journey by car between an average American town of (I believe) 50,000 people and a Dutch one, of a similar size or even bigger. Conclusion: the average speed was higher in the Netherlands, even for the car. Car-orientated cities aren't necessarily better for cars, strangely enough. And yes, it will be almost impossible for car-orientated cities in the US to make the transition to a more people-orientated city plan. Although a lot could be achieved, actually.

Los Angeles got rid of the street car system because it was not running well sharing roads with cars. But in the decades since the system left, cars were the only show in town, and the major boulevards didn't get any bigger. Permanent congestion is the result. If they had thought a little further out, and tried grade separations like inner NY or Chicago, the situation could be substantially different today.

ACDC8 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:12 am

Dutchy wrote:
Are nowadays more Dutchmen moving to Canada, than Canadians moving to the Netherlands? I have no idea The YouTuber behind 'not just bikes' happens to be Canadian, now living in Amsterdam.

Canadians moving abroad is irrelevant to my point of one of the main reasons why many people move to Canada - 4 bedroom house with a 2 car garage on a nice acre or two of land, preferably out of the city.

Dutchy wrote:
The point he is making, and I agree with him, is that cars in inner cities lead to a lower quality of life.

I don't disagree with that. For me personally, I would love to live closer into the city next to a train station where all the amenities are a quick train or bus ride away - but the thought of spending 50% or more of my salary on rent to acquire that would have a higher negative impact on my personal quality of life.

Dutchy wrote:
And spacing is also a problem. I have heard, don't know if that is true, that in the US/Canada, hardly any multi-space building exists, or can't be built anymore. Moreover no brownstone 'row'houses - probably another word for it, but too lazy to look it up, sorry - aren't allowed to be built anymore. There only single home houses are built and apartment buildings, nothing in between. Which leads to spread out cities, and the need for a car. Children are more dependent on their parents to go anywhere and less human interaction on the streets, which makes them more unsafe. And more importantly, leads to a lower quality of life.

I touched up on this in my previous post. In this regard, Canada and the US are very different and even some parts within those countries are very different from each other. Where I live, multi purpose buildings (retail/commercial/residential) are quite common and more and more are being built - a city within a city - row houses are also extremely common here and are continuing to be built. Most land parcels being sold will end up having the single family dwelling demolished and replaced with multi family dwellings.

Dutchy wrote:
Yeah, but we had this mindset in the 60-ish as well. I live in Utrecht, which is 950 years old this year. But there were actually plans to get rid of the canals and bring in the car. This sounds crazy today, but that was the thinking till the 70-ish. Then everything changed. Too many children died in road accidents. And then cities became, over time, more bicycles minded and the old inner cities were saved. But even now, new plans are designed to have bicycle first mentality. Bicycles are the preferred way of travel, not because it is good for you, but it is the fastest way to get around a city. But again, it was a choice, a mindset is also a choice, which could be changed. I agree it will take time to change, but it can be done.

Yup, I know Utrecht very well - lived 120kms from there.

Dutchy wrote:
This channel made a video about the cost and yield for a city. Suburbs are actually very costly, they are low density and every service - like ambulance, garbage services etc. - are spread out and thus more costly and inner cities are making the money for the cities because more compact, while the wealth is in suburbia and most lower-class people in apartments live in inner-cities. I am convinced that this kind of urban planning doesn't need to be more expensive at all, certainly not in the long term.

The farther you move away from the city core, the cheaper housing is - thats how it is here, which is why (in Canada) the suburbs are so popular because thats all many can afford regardless of where their jobs are. Quality of life is another factor, for the price of that 4 bedroom house with a nice backyard, you'd be lucky to get a 2 bedroom apartment in the city. For example, if you move to one of these new developments, a one bedroom apartment will set you back well over $500 000 - for that money, you could get a 3 bedroom house way out in the suburbs. Rent is no different. If I were to move from my apartment to one of these areas, my rent costs would double. Thats just the way it is here, until housing prices in the city becomes affordable, nothing will change that. Urban planning is only one factor, the economics of affordability being another.

Dutchy · Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:49 am

ACDC8 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Are nowadays more Dutchmen moving to Canada, than Canadians moving to the Netherlands? I have no idea The YouTuber behind 'not just bikes' happens to be Canadian, now living in Amsterdam.

Canadians moving abroad is irrelevant to my point of one of the main reasons why many people move to Canada - 4 bedroom house with a 2 car garage on a nice acre or two of land, preferably out of the city.
Dutchy wrote:
The point he is making, and I agree with him, is that cars in inner cities lead to a lower quality of life.

I don't disagree with that. For me personally, I would love to live closer into the city next to a train station where all the amenities are a quick train or bus ride away - but the thought of spending 50% or more of my salary on rent to acquire that would have a higher negative impact on my personal quality of life.
Dutchy wrote:
And spacing is also a problem. I have heard, don't know if that is true, that in the US/Canada, hardly any multi-space building exists, or can't be built anymore. Moreover no brownstone 'row'houses - probably another word for it, but too lazy to look it up, sorry - aren't allowed to be built anymore. There only single home houses are built and apartment buildings, nothing in between. Which leads to spread out cities, and the need for a car. Children are more dependent on their parents to go anywhere and less human interaction on the streets, which makes them more unsafe. And more importantly, leads to a lower quality of life.

I touched up on this in my previous post. In this regard, Canada and the US are very different and even some parts within those countries are very different from each other. Where I live, multi purpose buildings (retail/commercial/residential) are quite common and more and more are being built - a city within a city - row houses are also extremely common here and are continuing to be built. Most land parcels being sold will end up having the single family dwelling demolished and replaced with multi family dwellings.

Dutchy wrote:
Yeah, but we had this mindset in the 60-ish as well. I live in Utrecht, which is 950 years old this year. But there were actually plans to get rid of the canals and bring in the car. This sounds crazy today, but that was the thinking till the 70-ish. Then everything changed. Too many children died in road accidents. And then cities became, over time, more bicycles minded and the old inner cities were saved. But even now, new plans are designed to have bicycle first mentality. Bicycles are the preferred way of travel, not because it is good for you, but it is the fastest way to get around a city. But again, it was a choice, a mindset is also a choice, which could be changed. I agree it will take time to change, but it can be done.

Yup, I know Utrecht very well - lived 120kms from there.

Dutchy wrote:
This channel made a video about the cost and yield for a city. Suburbs are actually very costly, they are low density and every service - like ambulance, garbage services etc. - are spread out and thus more costly and inner cities are making the money for the cities because more compact, while the wealth is in suburbia and most lower-class people in apartments live in inner-cities. I am convinced that this kind of urban planning doesn't need to be more expensive at all, certainly not in the long term.

The farther you move away from the city core, the cheaper housing is - thats how it is here, which is why (in Canada) the suburbs are so popular because thats all many can afford regardless of where their jobs are. Quality of life is another factor, for the price of that 4 bedroom house with a nice backyard, you'd be lucky to get a 2 bedroom apartment in the city. For example, if you move to one of these new developments, a one bedroom apartment will set you back well over $500 000 - for that money, you could get a 3 bedroom house way out in the suburbs. Rent is no different. If I were to move from my apartment to one of these areas, my rent costs would double. Thats just the way it is here, until housing prices in the city becomes affordable, nothing will change that. Urban planning is only one factor, the economics of affordability being another.

Actually, we seem to be in agreement and the housing economy seems to be in agreement. If housing is more expensive in walkable neighborhoods then there is more demand and thus people are prepared to pay more for less floor space.

It is indeed interesting that houses become cheaper to buy for a homeowner, but the cost for public services increases. Looking from the municipality's perspective, they pay for people to have bigger and cheaper houses. So actually the price of the house is too cheap if you take into account the public costs.

flyguy89 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:54 am

casinterest wrote:
In the US, there is a larget land area and a much lower population density in general than Europe.

https://www.stockingblue.com/article/12 ... n-density/

There are very few states beating out the EU for density.

in the 1950's where the vide was from , much of the issue was about how to get the interstante roads started that would help get transportation efficiently around the country.
There were big population centers on the coast, and some in the south and midwest, but the factories and farms were all spread out.

Roads were the go to platform. They provide for more dynamic transportation solutions of truck, car and bus routes throughout the country. Rail was expensive, labor intensive, and for the most part seen as a hinderence to get people to the right place on time.

You will notice that most of the states in the US that are higher up in that density list do have public transportation options, including rail and bus services. However as others have alluded to in this thread. The central cities for a long time benefitted corporations more than residential living. So people needed to drive to work, and to attract workers, companies built big facilities with big parking lots in rural areas, which then spawned their own localized growth. A car offers a lot of benefits over rail and bus, dynamic scheduling and operation. vs the scheduled, and sometimes inconvienient use of the less dynamic bus and train systems.

This is a good summation. I would also just add that American and Canadian cities are significantly younger thus their development generally took place within the bounds of more recent technology and trends…cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Denver, and Phoenix were relative backwaters at the start of the 20th century. The level of dense, urban and mixed use development at the heart of European cities for centuries couldn’t take hold to the same degree in many US and Canadian cities. And then you also need to take into account the decentralized nature of governance in New World compared to smaller, more centralized countries.

Aaron747 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:19 am

flyguy89 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
In the US, there is a larget land area and a much lower population density in general than Europe.

https://www.stockingblue.com/article/12 ... n-density/

There are very few states beating out the EU for density.

in the 1950's where the vide was from , much of the issue was about how to get the interstante roads started that would help get transportation efficiently around the country.
There were big population centers on the coast, and some in the south and midwest, but the factories and farms were all spread out.

Roads were the go to platform. They provide for more dynamic transportation solutions of truck, car and bus routes throughout the country. Rail was expensive, labor intensive, and for the most part seen as a hinderence to get people to the right place on time.

You will notice that most of the states in the US that are higher up in that density list do have public transportation options, including rail and bus services. However as others have alluded to in this thread. The central cities for a long time benefitted corporations more than residential living. So people needed to drive to work, and to attract workers, companies built big facilities with big parking lots in rural areas, which then spawned their own localized growth. A car offers a lot of benefits over rail and bus, dynamic scheduling and operation. vs the scheduled, and sometimes inconvienient use of the less dynamic bus and train systems.

This is a good summation. I would also just add that American and Canadian cities are significantly younger thus their development generally took place within the bounds of more recent technology and trends…cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Denver, and Phoenix were relative backwaters at the start of the 20th century. The level of dense, urban and mixed use development at the heart of European cities for centuries couldn’t take hold to the same degree in many US and Canadian cities. And then you also need to take into account the decentralized nature of governance in New World compared to smaller, more centralized countries.

To be fair, Japanese cities were completely in start-over mode at the end of WW2 following decimation from firebombings, but they still ended up being excellent rail-oriented metropoli featuring mixed use zoning even with several years of initial American governance. ROK and Taiwan followed suit in the development of their major cities in the 1960s-90s. SE Asian cities like KL and Jhakarta have fared worse in terms of planning, with a lot of initial road infrastructure and introduction of rail lines too late.

ACDC8 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:35 am

Dutchy wrote:
Actually, we seem to be in agreement and the housing economy seems to be in agreement. If housing is more expensive in walkable neighborhoods then there is more demand and thus people are prepared to pay more for less floor space.

The demand is there, but the people who would benefit the most of such a neighbourhood are priced out of the market by those who don't necessarily work or play in the neighbourhood which really defeats the purpose of the neighbourhoods. The City of Vancouver is trying to guarantee a certain percentage of the apartments in these areas for low/middle income earners, but that of course is facing a very large backlash by investors.

Dutchy wrote:
It is indeed interesting that houses become cheaper to buy for a homeowner, but the cost for public services increases. Looking from the municipality's perspective, they pay for people to have bigger and cheaper houses. So actually the price of the house is too cheap if you take into account the public costs.

Actually, it's quite the opposite - property taxes in the suburbs or smaller outlying communities surrounding larger cities are substantially less than they are in the city. While yes, if you own a house in the suburbs, you property tax would be more than an apartment inside the city, but thats for the obvious reason that you own a larger square footage and land where as an apartment you don't. However, owning an apartment also adds the cost of strata fees which can easily add up to hundreds of dollars a month, so if you add those on top of the smaller property taxes, your ancillary home owner costs go up quite a bit and can easily exceed property taxes on a larger home in the suburbs.

Aaron747 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:46 am

ACDC8 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Actually, we seem to be in agreement and the housing economy seems to be in agreement. If housing is more expensive in walkable neighborhoods then there is more demand and thus people are prepared to pay more for less floor space.

The demand is there, but the people who would benefit the most of such a neighbourhood are priced out of the market by those who don't necessarily work or play in the neighbourhood which really defeats the purpose of the neighbourhoods. The City of Vancouver is trying to guarantee a certain percentage of the apartments in these areas for low/middle income earners, but that of course is facing a very large backlash by investors.

Dutchy wrote:
It is indeed interesting that houses become cheaper to buy for a homeowner, but the cost for public services increases. Looking from the municipality's perspective, they pay for people to have bigger and cheaper houses. So actually the price of the house is too cheap if you take into account the public costs.

Actually, it's quite the opposite - property taxes in the suburbs or smaller outlying communities surrounding larger cities are substantially less than they are in the city. While yes, if you own a house in the suburbs, you property tax would be more than an apartment inside the city, but thats for the obvious reason that you own a larger square footage and land where as an apartment you don't. However, owning an apartment also adds the cost of strata fees which can easily add up to hundreds of dollars a month, so if you add those on top of the smaller property taxes, your ancillary home owner costs go up quite a bit and can easily exceed property taxes on a larger home in the suburbs.

Strata/HOA fees can run quite high in US suburbs, depending on location of course. Even in Florida the average is north of $300/month.

c933103 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:03 am

Aaron747 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
In the US, there is a larget land area and a much lower population density in general than Europe.

https://www.stockingblue.com/article/12 ... n-density/

There are very few states beating out the EU for density.

in the 1950's where the vide was from , much of the issue was about how to get the interstante roads started that would help get transportation efficiently around the country.
There were big population centers on the coast, and some in the south and midwest, but the factories and farms were all spread out.

Roads were the go to platform. They provide for more dynamic transportation solutions of truck, car and bus routes throughout the country. Rail was expensive, labor intensive, and for the most part seen as a hinderence to get people to the right place on time.

You will notice that most of the states in the US that are higher up in that density list do have public transportation options, including rail and bus services. However as others have alluded to in this thread. The central cities for a long time benefitted corporations more than residential living. So people needed to drive to work, and to attract workers, companies built big facilities with big parking lots in rural areas, which then spawned their own localized growth. A car offers a lot of benefits over rail and bus, dynamic scheduling and operation. vs the scheduled, and sometimes inconvienient use of the less dynamic bus and train systems.

This is a good summation. I would also just add that American and Canadian cities are significantly younger thus their development generally took place within the bounds of more recent technology and trends…cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Denver, and Phoenix were relative backwaters at the start of the 20th century. The level of dense, urban and mixed use development at the heart of European cities for centuries couldn’t take hold to the same degree in many US and Canadian cities. And then you also need to take into account the decentralized nature of governance in New World compared to smaller, more centralized countries.

To be fair, Japanese cities were completely in start-over mode at the end of WW2 following decimation from firebombings, but they still ended up being excellent rail-oriented metropoli featuring mixed use zoning even with several years of initial American governance. ROK and Taiwan followed suit in the development of their major cities in the 1960s-90s. SE Asian cities like KL and Jhakarta have fared worse in terms of planning, with a lot of initial road infrastructure and introduction of rail lines too late.

It depends. Smaller Japanese cities like Sendai and Kagoshima (actually not really small but still) have high motor vehicle dependency. Even Nagoya and Fukuoka aren't really very rail oriented.
And Korea and Taiwan are more car dependent than Japan despite their capitals have excellent rail coverage.

Speak of which I have heard people claiming that, maybe it will be happier to both sides if railroads were invented after motor vehocles, thus that railroad as a mode of mass transit wouldn't need to face ridership deterioration due to competition from expanding roads and struggle to survive, and could instead be constructed where the capacity is in fact needed.

ACDC8 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:06 am

Aaron747 wrote:
Strata/HOA fees can run quite high in US suburbs, depending on location of course. Even in Florida the average is north of $300/month.

Fortunately, HOA's in Canada aren't close to what they are in the US, but strata fees for a 1 bedroom apartment in the city will easily run you $300/month minimum, going up into the thousands for properties in the actual downtown core, so thats $3600 a year which is close to what you pay for property taxes on a large single dwelling home in the suburbs. Add another $1500 to $2000 a year for property taxes on a one bedroom apartment in the city, thats a lot of money. Don't even ask what the property taxes for a single dwelling home in the city is - yikes lol.

Aesma · Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:37 am

With an average or below average salary I can ask my city for public housing. If I have a job, then my company is paying a tax to fund such housing, and I can get an offer for a flat near my workplace right away, instead of waiting in line with the unemployed, disabled, old, etc.

ACDC8 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:56 am

Aesma wrote:
With an average or below average salary I can ask my city for public housing. If I have a job, then my company is paying a tax to fund such housing, and I can get an offer for a flat near my workplace right away, instead of waiting in line with the unemployed, disabled, old, etc.

Yeah, our low income subsidized housing is a bit more constrictive than that:

- First you have to apply.
- Your application is put into a waiting list.
- You have to meet the criteria and qualify.
- If you qualify, then you have to find a place on the list given to you.
- Then you have to put your name on a waiting list for that dwelling and wait until a vacancy become available.

Best case scenario, unless you're in an emergency, it can take a year to a year and half. In most cases, it can take longer.

We also have not for profit housing, but those are very limited and hard to find available vacancies.

jetwet1 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:10 pm

Just a quick request, if you are saying "in my city" etc, name the city, gives old folks like me an idea of where you are talking about.

I live in Las Vegas, for many years we had a bus system that was centered on the Strip, good luck getting a bus anywhere else, that started to change a couple of decades ago, but, if you live in an area like myself, a 20 minute drive to work is still a 2 to 3 hour slog on a bus, that just won't work.

There has been talk on and off again about adding a light rail system from the big master planned communities in the NW of the valley to downtown, great idea, but once you're there you're back on the busses.

I was in Amsterdam last year, I have to say the tram system there is a master piece, our hotel was admittedly only 3 stops from central, but the system was so easy to use, clean, on time and safe it made life easy.

Every morning I would sit out front of the hotel with a coffee and watch the flocks of cyclists flow by. Like many things, if you grow up with it, it's easier, but from an outsiders point of view it scared the you know what out of me to even think about renting a bike and trying to ride there.

Aesma · Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:21 pm

Sorry about that. Any city in France. Building 25% of affordable housing is mandatory for cities or they're fined. And the tax is also national (used to be 1% of salaries, now it's around 0,5% I believe).

I'm not saying we don't face some of the same issues around cars, we had the yellow vests after all.

Because people really want their house with a picket fence to barbecue with friends and family... And at the opposite end too many people continue to flock to big cities that can't expand.

ACDC8 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:32 pm

jetwet1 wrote:
Just a quick request, if you are saying "in my city" etc, name the city, gives old folks like me an idea of where you are talking about.

Sorry, Vancouver BC for me.

Love Vegas though, taking the CX from the airport to Fremont is fantastic, just wish it had more frequency. Sure beats a $60 plus cab ride.

Revelation · Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:49 pm

johns624 wrote:
I went on a 400 mile day trip in my car today---just because I can.

That's one unspoken aspect of this argument. There's a sense of freedom that comes with personal transport vs mass transport in most places in the US. I get that in the inner cities having a car is so expensive and inconvenient that the sense of freedom isn't there, but that soon flips even in the inner suburbs. It appeared early in the US because the wealth to support it was there in the post-WWII era.

Aaron747 wrote:
Los Angeles got rid of the street car system because it was not running well sharing roads with cars. But in the decades since the system left, cars were the only show in town, and the major boulevards didn't get any bigger. Permanent congestion is the result. If they had thought a little further out, and tried grade separations like inner NY or Chicago, the situation could be substantially different today.

I saw a show recently that said one reason why San Francisco kept trollies because there are certain tunnels in the city that were built for them that are too small for cars. I found that interesting.

ACDC8 wrote:
Quality of life is another factor, for the price of that 4 bedroom house with a nice backyard, you'd be lucky to get a 2 bedroom apartment in the city. For example, if you move to one of these new developments, a one bedroom apartment will set you back well over $500 000 - for that money, you could get a 3 bedroom house way out in the suburbs. Rent is no different. If I were to move from my apartment to one of these areas, my rent costs would double. Thats just the way it is here, until housing prices in the city becomes affordable, nothing will change that. Urban planning is only one factor, the economics of affordability being another.

It's interesting to me that I've see things flip where people view the quality of life of that 4 bedroom house with a nice backyard lower than the 2 bedroom apartment in the city. It ties in to my "white flight" comment above. Back in the 50s-90s or so inner cities were viewed as crowded, dirty and dangerous. Most people who could afford it wanted to trade a rental apartment in the city for a mortgage in suburbia. At some point in the 2000s that flipped in many people's minds. Suburbia was too boring. Cities offered more diversity in entertainment, dining, and, yes, people. The great financial crisis meant a lot of people weren't going to get mortgages anyway, so ownership was off the table. Why not rent a smaller place in the city? Who wants to spend their weekends cutting grass, raking leaves and painting fences? If you could also get rid of the car and its insurance in the bargain, so much the better.

( Location: Southern NH, suburbia, about an hour's drive from Boston under ideal conditions... )

SEAorPWM · Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:30 pm

Aesma wrote:
Sorry about that. Any city in France. Building 25% of affordable housing is mandatory for cities or they're fined. And the tax is also national (used to be 1% of salaries, now it's around 0,5% I believe).

I'm not saying we don't face some of the same issues around cars, we had the yellow vests after all.

Because people really want their house with a picket fence to barbecue with friends and family... And at the opposite end too many people continue to flock to big cities that can't expand.

Never knew France did that. It wouldn't fly in the US at all due to the investor/specularor class controlling everything here.

casinterest · Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:33 pm

c933103 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
In the US, there is a larget land area and a much lower population density in general than Europe.

https://www.stockingblue.com/article/12 ... n-density/

There are very few states beating out the EU for density.

in the 1950's where the vide was from , much of the issue was about how to get the interstante roads started that would help get transportation efficiently around the country.
There were big population centers on the coast, and some in the south and midwest, but the factories and farms were all spread out.

Roads were the go to platform. They provide for more dynamic transportation solutions of truck, car and bus routes throughout the country. Rail was expensive, labor intensive, and for the most part seen as a hinderence to get people to the right place on time.

You will notice that most of the states in the US that are higher up in that density list do have public transportation options, including rail and bus services. However as others have alluded to in this thread. The central cities for a long time benefitted corporations more than residential living. So people needed to drive to work, and to attract workers, companies built big facilities with big parking lots in rural areas, which then spawned their own localized growth. A car offers a lot of benefits over rail and bus, dynamic scheduling and operation. vs the scheduled, and sometimes inconvienient use of the less dynamic bus and train systems.

Covid threw a wrench into what was starting to be a dynamic shift in transport in the US. Train ridership was increasing, and rideshare/rental was increasing.

With the rise of Uber/Lyft., and other ridesharing apps, more and more people were forgoing cars in their younger years and living in denser areas. Covid kind of nixed that for a few years, but now that Covid is over it will remain to be seen how the change works out going forward. It may make more sense for people in the future to forgo cars for rentals/rideshare as we move to more dynamic use.

Tesla and others are working on self -driving cars which would further help limit the depency on cars. After all let's face it, cars sit idle for probably 22-23 hours in a day. ( as does much of that road infrastructure and rail infrastructure outside of busy times).

On the other side is time demand crowding If workplaces require workers to all start at 8 or 9, rail/road/bus/Ferry does not matter as you will overwhelm the system( anyone that has ever been to Disney World at opening time will understand this). Magic hours were created to try to alleviate the strain on the system.

So in closing, I would say all modes need to exist, but in the US roads made more sense due to dynamic destinations.

Many of the undense part of America are where people do not live to begin with, it's the density if urban area that matter.
Many US transit agency ridership still haven't recovered to pre-coronavirus level.
Ridesharing is just taxi, I don't get why people consider it as an alternative as car, when effectively it is just a car driven by someone else.
Same for autonomous cars.

Ridesharing is different from car travel in the US as it does reduce demand, especially if multiple people are taking it , and the one car is getting multiple uses

flyguy89 wrote:
his is a good summation. I would also just add that American and Canadian cities are significantly younger thus their development generally took place within the bounds of more recent technology and trends…cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Denver, and Phoenix were relative backwaters at the start of the 20th century. The level of dense, urban and mixed use development at the heart of European cities for centuries couldn’t take hold to the same degree in many US and Canadian cities. And then you also need to take into account the decentralized nature of governance in New World compared to smaller, more centralized countries.

Many of the US cities are younger and grew faster. The big issue now is as the cities get larger, and infill starts to happen, there is more of a demand for public Transport.
Buses seem to be more popular than rail in many areas. Rail gets limited as there just isn't the infrastructure for it. Here in Raleigh , we are getting more development of "City Centers"/Focused growth.

Areas where denser development is going in. As part of that more busing is occuring, but not to as a high a level as other cities yet,

However we have a lot of 15-40 story high rises going in around some of these developments(especially midtown/North Hills( , and eventually a rail route is to be built using the existing CSX/Amtrak routes.

https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core. ... rk_Map.pdf

Aaron747 wrote:

To be fair, Japanese cities were completely in start-over mode at the end of WW2 following decimation from firebombings, but they still ended up being excellent rail-oriented metropoli featuring mixed use zoning even with several years of initial American governance. ROK and Taiwan followed suit in the development of their major cities in the 1960s-90s. SE Asian cities like KL and Jhakarta have fared worse in terms of planning, with a lot of initial road infrastructure and introduction of rail lines too late.

Geography really helped Japan in my opinion. The mountains keep most developments and density oriented in Cities on the coasts. Even the US has rail on the coasts. The US is making advances though on the Rails with the Amtrak systems working hard to get higher speeds.
This is the main issue holding rail back in the US, as it is so slow that driving is just more efficient, and on long distances planes easily win.

c933103 wrote:
Speak of which I have heard people claiming that, maybe it will be happier to both sides if railroads were invented after motor vehocles, thus that railroad as a mode of mass transit wouldn't need to face ridership deterioration due to competition from expanding roads and struggle to survive, and could instead be constructed where the capacity is in fact needed.

I think Rail just needs the speed. I think this has been accomplished in Europe and Japan, but here in the US becasue the Gauge is different for the tracks, all new development is happening at different timings.

Slowly but surely Acela is getting there for Amtrak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-spee ... aches,%2Fh)%20in%20coming%20years.

It will take years, but if you can get sections of track that could AVERAGE 150 mph, I think Rail would be taking off a lot higher in the US.

Revelation wrote:
It's interesting to me that I've see things flip where people view the quality of life of that 4 bedroom house with a nice backyard lower than the 2 bedroom apartment in the city. It ties in to my "white flight" comment above. Back in the 50s-90s or so inner cities were viewed as crowded, dirty and dangerous. Most people who could afford it wanted to trade a rental apartment in the city for a mortgage in suburbia. At some point in the 2000s that flipped in many people's minds. Suburbia was too boring. Cities offered more diversity in entertainment, dining, and, yes, people. The great financial crisis meant a lot of people weren't going to get mortgages anyway, so ownership was off the table. Why not rent a smaller place in the city? Who wants to spend their weekends cutting grass, raking leaves and painting fences? If you could also get rid of the car and its insurance in the bargain, so much the better.

( Location: Southern NH, suburbia, about an hour's drive from Boston under ideal conditions... )

I notice a lot of the emply nesters now desire to live in the city centers again. It is happening in Raleigh and Durham as well. The kids leave, and people sell the family home for a lower maintenance apartment that they can travel from.

flyguy89 · Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:46 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
In the US, there is a larget land area and a much lower population density in general than Europe.

https://www.stockingblue.com/article/12 ... n-density/

There are very few states beating out the EU for density.

in the 1950's where the vide was from , much of the issue was about how to get the interstante roads started that would help get transportation efficiently around the country.
There were big population centers on the coast, and some in the south and midwest, but the factories and farms were all spread out.

Roads were the go to platform. They provide for more dynamic transportation solutions of truck, car and bus routes throughout the country. Rail was expensive, labor intensive, and for the most part seen as a hinderence to get people to the right place on time.

You will notice that most of the states in the US that are higher up in that density list do have public transportation options, including rail and bus services. However as others have alluded to in this thread. The central cities for a long time benefitted corporations more than residential living. So people needed to drive to work, and to attract workers, companies built big facilities with big parking lots in rural areas, which then spawned their own localized growth. A car offers a lot of benefits over rail and bus, dynamic scheduling and operation. vs the scheduled, and sometimes inconvienient use of the less dynamic bus and train systems.

This is a good summation. I would also just add that American and Canadian cities are significantly younger thus their development generally took place within the bounds of more recent technology and trends…cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Denver, and Phoenix were relative backwaters at the start of the 20th century. The level of dense, urban and mixed use development at the heart of European cities for centuries couldn’t take hold to the same degree in many US and Canadian cities. And then you also need to take into account the decentralized nature of governance in New World compared to smaller, more centralized countries.

To be fair, Japanese cities were completely in start-over mode at the end of WW2 following decimation from firebombings, but they still ended up being excellent rail-oriented metropoli

But again with population density still far higher than the US.

Revelation · Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:11 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
To be fair, Japanese cities were completely in start-over mode at the end of WW2 following decimation from firebombings, but they still ended up being excellent rail-oriented metropoli

But again with population density still far higher than the US.

Indeed, a chain of mountainous islands, where farmers have a lot of land rights and power that is not present in other locations. Surburban sprawl was never likely. From what I've seen, the Japanese rail firms hire people to stuff people into the trains. Seems less than ideal to me, but to each its own.

Dutchy · Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:50 pm

SEAorPWM wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Sorry about that. Any city in France. Building 25% of affordable housing is mandatory for cities or they're fined. And the tax is also national (used to be 1% of salaries, now it's around 0,5% I believe).

I'm not saying we don't face some of the same issues around cars, we had the yellow vests after all.

Because people really want their house with a picket fence to barbecue with friends and family... And at the opposite end too many people continue to flock to big cities that can't expand.

Never knew France did that. It wouldn't fly in the US at all due to the investor/specularor class controlling everything here.

Not quite the same thing in the Netherlands, but social housing is around 30% of all houses over here. But housing corporation (control rent in NYC, more or less) are playing an active role in new parts of the cities. But also you could rent an affordable apartment or a house in the historic city centers.

victrola · Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:01 pm

I'm glad I live in Chicago. We have a 3 bed 2 bathroom condo we bought for a little over $400,000 a couple of years ago in a cool neighborhood. We have a bus that stops on or corner, the El is 3 blocks away, Metra is about a mile away and gets us into the Loop in 18 minutes. We can walk to restaurants, bars, and all of our shopping. As we go about our lives in our neighborhood, we are constantly bumping into our friends and keeping in touch with everyone. There is a real sense of community. I often say Chicago is a big city but a small town. If sometime in the future, we are no longer able to drive, it really won't affect our lifestyle. I would die of boredom in the suburbs.

frmrCapCadet · Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:15 pm

The US has islands of medium (and some high) density populations. They are often separated by hundreds of miles. IIRC, 90% of counties in the US loss population over the last few decades, many of which are fairly arid. Comparisons with other countries needs to be done carefully in order to be relevant.

Revelation · Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:21 pm

victrola wrote:
I'm glad I live in Chicago. We have a 3 bed 2 bathroom condo we bought for a little over $400,000 a couple of years ago in a cool neighborhood. We have a bus that stops on or corner, the El is 3 blocks away, Metra is about a mile away and gets us into the Loop in 18 minutes. We can walk to restaurants, bars, and all of our shopping. As we go about our lives in our neighborhood, we are constantly bumping into our friends and keeping in touch with everyone. There is a real sense of community. I often say Chicago is a big city but a small town. If sometime in the future, we are no longer able to drive, it really won't affect our lifestyle. I would die of boredom in the suburbs.

That's one way things can turn out in a city. Another way things turn out is you end up with neighbors you don't like: loud, obnoxious, dirty, and in some cases, criminal. That too can happen in suburbia, but there you tend to have a bigger buffer between you and your neighbors. I guess in a neighborhood where condos go for $400k before the recent run-up in real estate you have economic discrimination working in your favor, such troublesome people often aren't able to come up with the money for that kind of place. That too happens in suburbia.

It's all a bit of luck of the draw, IMO. I know a lot more about this town than when I bought my home. I'm glad I ended up in this neighborhood rather than some of the ones I looked at. I knew it was an important decision so I did spend some time thinking of all the pros and cons of each place, but in the end I was a busy working man back then and did not have all that much time to put into sorting out the issues each neighborhood had. My inner voice told me to stay away from a few places, and I'm glad I listened to it.

Mass transport in this small city consists of a few busses running in big loops around the city. Ends up taking you way out of your way either on the way to where you are going, or on the way back. Only useful if you can spend a couple hours getting to where you are going, doing what you need to do, then waiting for the next bus, and transiting that long loop again. Pretty much everything turns into a day trip. The bus seems to be there just to say we have one.

Rail has been suggested since we are on a major rail line that feeds into Boston, but the State of NH refuses to consider it. They know that subsidies would be required and they want no part of that. They even refused to take free money from the feds to study the options, that's how closed their minds are to the topic. I would love there to be rail because having an option that would make it easy to commute to Boston would add a solid 20% or more to the value of my home. The locals largely refuse to see this such property appreciation as a positive, since many don't own property.

victrola · Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:28 pm

I guess in a neighborhood where condos go for $400k before the recent run-up in real estate you have economic discrimination working in your favor, such troublesome people often aren't able to come up with the money for that kind of place. That too happens in suburbia.

Lot's of smaller condos around $200,000. One bedroom apartments around $1000 per month. Studios even less. So we get a mix of incomes in the neighborhood.

luckyone · Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:40 pm

Revelation wrote:
It's interesting to me that I've see things flip where people view the quality of life of that 4 bedroom house with a nice backyard lower than the 2 bedroom apartment in the city. It ties in to my "white flight" comment above. Back in the 50s-90s or so inner cities were viewed as crowded, dirty and dangerous. Most people who could afford it wanted to trade a rental apartment in the city for a mortgage in suburbia. At some point in the 2000s that flipped in many people's minds. Suburbia was too boring. Cities offered more diversity in entertainment, dining, and, yes, people. The great financial crisis meant a lot of people weren't going to get mortgages anyway, so ownership was off the table. Why not rent a smaller place in the city? Who wants to spend their weekends cutting grass, raking leaves and painting fences? If you could also get rid of the car and its insurance in the bargain, so much the better.

( Location: Southern NH, suburbia, about an hour's drive from Boston under ideal conditions... )

It's also generational and sociological. The WW2 generation by and large got off the ship, got married, and started having babies (and frankly there was also a lot of marketing of suburbs combined with GI bill mortgages). Boomers and Gen-Xers...waited longer to have their children. A fair bit of the move back into the city was also due to zoning laws. A great many suburbs have very stringent regulations on lot size (my municipality and the one next to it both have a lot size requirement of two acres, the next one on the other sized no less than five acres), house type, housing style, etc etc, and a lot of them limit the location and number of apartment dwellings. As it is, those apartments require a car because municipalities decline access to public transportation. So all the kids of the baby boomers had to go somewhere.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net