U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-21-2013, 07:00 PM
 
12,299 posts, read 15,199,676 times
Reputation: 8108

Advertisements

Off the subject a bit but once cars get 54 mpg, quite realistic with turbocharged engines and carbon fiber bodies, driving will pick up, even more if oil prices collapse. And you think traffic is bad now?

 
Old 02-22-2013, 08:23 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14810
This map shows clearly the extra missed connections that occur in less car dependent states:

The Saddest Map In America The Dish

The more transit using states stand out more. Three northern states, Vermont, Wisconsin and North Dakota stand out with "bar". And Georgia? Car?
 
Old 02-22-2013, 08:33 AM
 
40,114 posts, read 24,362,017 times
Reputation: 12624
If car dependency is the problem, why are we so car dependent? Because we are such a large country? And it's because of size that China is growing increasingly car dependent? The problem isn't car dependence. The problem is size. Large countries like Canada, Russia, the United States, Australia, China have a unique set of problems due to their size. To advocate that those countries should downsize is ridiculous, so people instead attack the symptoms of the problem, not the basic problem. The larger the country, the more complex the problems become, of transportation, communication, elections, and so on. Throw in geographical challenges, climate challenges, agricultural challenges, and again, dealing with the problems from a governmental standpoint becomes ever more complex. And yet, people find innovative and creative ways to deal with these problems all the time.
 
Old 02-22-2013, 08:37 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14810
Why should size make a difference?
 
Old 02-22-2013, 09:15 AM
 
40,114 posts, read 24,362,017 times
Reputation: 12624
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Why should size make a difference?
Because the larger the area that has to have transportation provided for it, the more expensive it is to provide such transportation. Infrastructure requires that resources be provided for it, to build and to maintain it. Public transportation requires that government allocate these resources. Private transportation, like cars, require that private citizens allocate the resources. While government still must build roads, it is passing on large portions of the expense to private citizens for actual transit of those roads. The benefit to private citizens is the freedom they have in utilizing their transit means without respect to schedules or accessibility, and the freedom they have in purchasing transit means that meet their unique needs and requirements. The cost to society is twhen private transportation expands the choices of residences. Car cultures lead to less population density, which increases the cost of all public services provided by government.
 
Old 02-22-2013, 09:26 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14810
But the area of the country shouldn't make much of a difference, few people trave from metro to metro on a regular basis.
 
Old 02-22-2013, 11:13 AM
 
40,114 posts, read 24,362,017 times
Reputation: 12624
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
But the area of the country shouldn't make much of a difference, few people trave from metro to metro on a regular basis.
I'm not sure what your point is.

To get people to be less car dependent, you need to provide comprehensive public transportation. Comprehensive means from metro to metro, from suburb to suburb, it means meeting people's transit requirements regardless if those needs are regular or irregular. It has to be possible to get from here to there without a car, otherwise there's no public transportation available. And the larger the country, the more expensive it is to provide comprehensive public transportation. Each mile has a cost. The more miles, the higher the cost. No matter what the means.
 
Old 02-22-2013, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,085,690 times
Reputation: 12646
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I'm not sure what your point is.

To get people to be less car dependent, you need to provide comprehensive public transportation. Comprehensive means from metro to metro, from suburb to suburb, it means meeting people's transit requirements regardless if those needs are regular or irregular. It has to be possible to get from here to there without a car, otherwise there's no public transportation available. And the larger the country, the more expensive it is to provide comprehensive public transportation. Each mile has a cost. The more miles, the higher the cost. No matter what the means.
Baloney.

Public transit doesn't need to serve every conceivable trip, that's the biggest crock of horse ---- I've ever heard. Even in Hong Kong where 90% of trips are made by public transit, that isn't even close to true. There's places you can't get to conveniently on transit. It's completely possible to get there, just like it's completely possible to get everywhere in the US without a car... just extremely inconvenient. I really enjoyed spend time in Yellowstone and while it's 100% possible to get there from anywhere in the world without using a car, it's too inconvenient and I'd never do it. Hong Kong has some incredible hiking, much of it completely unreachable by public transit.

Last edited by Malloric; 02-22-2013 at 11:36 AM..
 
Old 02-22-2013, 11:49 AM
 
40,114 posts, read 24,362,017 times
Reputation: 12624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Baloney.

Public transit doesn't need to serve every conceivable trip, that's the biggest crock of horse ---- I've ever heard. Even in Hong Kong where 90% of trips are made by public transit, that isn't even close to true. There's places you can't get to conveniently on transit. It's completely possible to get there, just like it's completely possible to get everywhere in the US without a car... just extremely inconvenient. I really enjoyed spend time in Yellowstone and while it's 100% possible to get there from anywhere in the world without using a car, it's too inconvenient and I'd never do it. Hong Kong has some incredible hiking, much of it completely unreachable by public transit.
It doesn't need to be 100%. But if you want the United States not to be car dependent, you have to meet people's transit requirements the majority of the time. Just extremely inconvenient isn't adequate, if you want people to choose public transit over private transportation. And to overcome inconvenient, the public transit offerings have to be comprehensive. Which is exorbitantly expensive in the United States, because of the size of this country. Versus Hong Kong????? You cannot reasonably compare Hong Kong to the United States. That's the point. The size of a country matters. Topography matters. Even climate matters. And cost matters. Because it has to be cost effective. So when you are comparing France with the United States, consider the density of the population of France versus, say the state of Georgia, which is comparable. The cost of building Georgia's public transit system might be comparable with France, but it's not cost-effective because the population density isn't there to actually utilize the public transit system. Build it and they will come doesn't mean that you can afford to build today, not when there are a lengthy number of services people will not only utilize but need today. The expenditure of resources has to address today's needs as well as what people would like society to look like in the future. If you'd like transportation in the United States to look like Hong Kong's transportation system, you have to address the costs and utility of a similar transportation system. Which means addressing the disparate sizes of the two countries.
 
Old 02-22-2013, 12:01 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
. So when you are comparing France with the United States, consider the density of the population of France versus, say the state of Georgia, which is comparable. The cost of building Georgia's public transit system might be comparable with France, but it's not cost-effective because the population density isn't there to actually utilize the public transit system.
But it's not the overall average population density of Georgia vs France that matters but the density of Georgian metros vs French metros that matter. As well that the city centers of France are bigger destinations than the city centers of Georgia. To connect the metros, a few rail lines or intercity buses can be constructed for either place. Greater distances between the two, mean more rail construction costs, but it also means more highway costs. Connecting smaller cities and rural areas might be more cheaper for France, but even in France public transit usage for rural areas and the smallest cities is very small.

Pennyslvania has the same density of France but a much lower transit use. New Jersey has a similar population density to teh Netherlands but again transit use.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top