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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-18-2014, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,237,774 times
Reputation: 11726

Advertisements

Look at how much denser most of Europe is than the U.S.

United Kingdom - 94,060 sq. mi. (662 ppsm)
Germany - 137,847 sq. mi. (583 ppsm)
France - 246,201 sq. mi. (301 ppsm)
New York - 54,556 sq. mi. (416 ppsm)
Maryland - 12,407 sq. mi. (596 ppsm)
Pennsylvania - 46,055 sq. mi. (284 ppsm)
Houston MSA - 10,062 sq. mi. (630 ppsm)
Atlanta MSA - 8,376 sq. mi. (651 ppsm)
United States - 3,794,101 sq. mi. (89 ppsm)
Europe - 3,930,000 (134 ppsm)

That pretty much says it all imo. The UK is denser than the Houston MSA despite being nearly 10 times the size. France is denser than Pennsylvania.

Much higher population densities in Western Europe make high speed rail possible. A lot of American cities clamor for HSR, but the vast majority of American metros have population densities lower than Britain's and Germany's.

Last edited by BajanYankee; 02-18-2014 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-18-2014, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,166 posts, read 29,665,044 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rozenn View Post

On this issue, I prefer the American approach. Sometimes it feels like urban planners here have an ideological hatred of car. On an intersection between a 4-lane road and a street close to where I live, they got rid of the underpass that helped traffic flow through without interruption (and did the same on 4 other similar intersections on that road). Now the pollution from idle cars is worse (for most of similar cases, pollution increased because of such anti-car measures) and honking from confused and impatient drivers is commonly heard whereas it was rare before the "refurbishment". Of course, journey times are much longer than before. Mission accomplished, I guess. They did it because a couple miles down the road a new tramway line has been built. I hope they provoked the modal shift they were expecting. Judging by traffic volume on the road and the empty tramway cars, it didn't occur. However, it lowered the quality of life of motorists, pedestrians and people living close to the road.
Considering underpasses tend to be pedestrian unfriendly, some road users may have benefitted.

Not all people are anti-car. But many people are anti only car, which us how we have done things for the past couple of decades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 10:58 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,955,637 times
Reputation: 5383
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
However, the article doesn't discuss the premise, it discusses something else.
By not discussing the premise it compounds the problem because it accepts the premise as unquestionable, if people disagree with the premise upon which the argument was formed, then the conclusion has been contaminated by an unaccepted premise.

Perhaps it should be stated that the purpose of conversation is with a given that the premise is true, even if we openly admit that the premise may be false and thus consider the conversation to be hypothetical.

Not trying to be argumentative, and I understand entirely your desire to keep the thread on topic. However the logical leaps seemed to merit being addressed since addressing them can prevent the derailing of the situation by clarifying that it is hypothetical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 11:00 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
45,987 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman View Post
By not discussing the premise it compounds the problem because it accepts the premise as unquestionable, if people disagree with the premise upon which the argument was formed, then the conclusion has been contaminated by an unaccepted premise.

Perhaps it should be stated that the purpose of conversation is with a given that the premise is true, even if we openly admit that the premise may be false and thus consider the conversation to be hypothetical.

Logic FTW.
Whether or not the US ended up more car dependent is a good thing does not effect the reasons why the US ended up more car dependent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Paris
8,133 posts, read 6,678,099 times
Reputation: 3371
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Considering underpasses tend to be pedestrian unfriendly, some road users may have benefitted.
I used that intersection mostly as a pedestrian. Tearing down the underpass resulted in much more cars passing through the intersection at ground level and at a speed no lower than before the refurbishment. Add the increased pollution from idle cars and the higher noise level, as a pedestrian I find that place less pleasant to walk through than before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 11:13 AM
 
40,107 posts, read 24,354,028 times
Reputation: 12619
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
For Paris that's false.

Population at end of World War II: 5.8 million
using 1936 population, because that's what the area was built for at the time [small population decline during World War II for obvious reasons]
Present day population: 10.4 million

NYC metro population 1945: around 10 million?
NYC metro population 2010: somewhere between 18-21 million

Boston grew roughly the same speed as Paris or maybe a bit slower.

Are you saying that the Paris infrastructure was less developed than New York City's in 1945? Are you saying that Paris was less densely populated in 1945? I suggest you look at population DENSITY. And also, you might consider that the population of Paris comprises somewhere around 20% of the entire population of France.

New York City is a might big place. A world capital. But its population doesn't comprise 20% of the population of the United States. And why is that important, because public policy is formulated based on those numbers. As influential as New York City is in national politics, Paris is much more so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 11:14 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
45,987 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
I'm saying since 1945, Paris grew at about the same rate as New York City. I'm not sure why one or the other city would have more developed infrastructure, though NYC built its highway system earlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 11:17 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Some highlights from the article:

"Moreover, in Europe gas tax revenue typically contributes to the general fund, meaning roadway expenditures compete with other government expenditures."

This reminds me of a trip we took to Canada once. Gas was about twice as expensive as in the US at the time. At one point I said to my husband, "what do they use this gas tax money for? Certainly not a road system". He replied, "I think it all goes into the general socialism budget".

"Over the last 40 years, gas taxes, tolls, and registration fees have covered only about 60 or 70 percent of roadway expenditures across all levels of U.S. government. The remainder has been paid using property, income, and other taxes not related to transportation. These subsidies for driving reduce its cost and increase driving demand in the United States. In European countries, meanwhile, drivers typically pay more in taxes and fees than governments spend on roadways. "

But no numbers are given for the European countries. Of course, they didn't have to. People will believe it, numbers or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,237,774 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Whether or not the US ended up more car dependent is a good thing does not effect the reasons why the US ended up more car dependent.
There are probably several reasons why. But one reason that stands out, imo, is the sheer historical difference in total population between Europe and the U.S.

In 1950, Europe's total population was estimated to be around 549 million people. That same year, the U.S. clocked in around 150 million people.

GeoHive - Historic, current and future population: Europe

1950 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a HUGE difference in density. When you have so much more open land, why would anyone be thinking of land conservation?

It's sort of like getting to the airport terminal and seeing only two other people there. Who goes and sits in the chair right next to one of those two people? That's a completely different situation from walking into a terminal that's half full. You'd be less inclined to sprawl out and put your bookbag, shopping bags, and camera bag all in different seats.

That's certainly not the only factor but is a factor. When you have a wide open country with amber waves of grain, your attitude towards land use is going to be a little different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,237,774 times
Reputation: 11726
In 1950, the UK's population density was 538 ppsm.

Rhode Island's was 641 ppsm.

Connecticut's was 361 ppsm.

New Jersey's was 557 ppsm.

Maryland's was 191 ppsm. That was lower than East and West Germany's combined 508 ppsm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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
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