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.
There are three main things which impact U.S. urban development that don't impact urban development in most places in Europe:
1) the relatively low cost to own an automobile and the relatively low cost to use and maintain it (compared to public transport),
2) the relative availability and low cost (compared to urban land) of rural land to develop,
3) the relatively high rate of U.S. crime relative to any given population density; which makes living in less dense areas more attractive
If one were to significantly reverse only one of these three factors (or sufficiently reverse two of them), it would encourage an urban vs rural trend more akin to that found in many, if not most, parts of Europe.
I don't think the US would look like Europe if such things were reversed, but it might look more like Canada or Australia.
I don't think the US would look like Europe if such things were reversed, but it might look more like Canada or Australia.
Both 1 and 2 is true in Canada and Australia. Well, gas is more expensive in Canada but still closer to American rather than European prices. The higher cost of owning an automobile is mostly from taxes.
Both 1 and 2 is true in Canada and Australia. Well, gas is more expensive in Canada but still closer to American rather than European prices. The higher cost of owning an automobile is mostly from taxes.
It's also due to country pricing (gouging) in Canada, as well as lower buying power for the market, and now a lower dollar. In Australia it's due to the high costs of importing cars. The gas being more expensive is all about taxes. Car insurance is also more expensive for most Canadians compared to Americans (varies province to province). Also, owning a car isn't that much more expensive in Europe than it is in Canada or Australia, I think it might even be cheaper in some ways.
I agree mostly with; #3 all door boarding I've seen in San Francisco MUNI both buses and light rail and in Portland & Seattle light rail (can't remember if the buses were). #5, lack of interagency fare integration is worst in cities with commuter rail
“If our application wasn’t right, one comma off, one estimation off — it would not have happened. Illinois. - Congressman.
But Chicago WILL be getting just over $1 billion in federal funding grants in matching funding to modernize the red and purple lines of it’s “L” transit system. Approved by President Obama before he left office.
Chicago’s L became operational in 1900 and the purple and red lines are the oldest lines in the transit system. The modernization project will rebuild the century-old rail lines north of Belmont and improve CTA service overall across both lines.
The tracks, structures and stations are well past their useful lifespan, and can no longer handle additional trains to meet the increasing demands of growing ridership – which is up 40% since 2008.
When the work is complete, the life of the nearly 100-year-old tracks in that area will be extended by at least 60 years, and capacity to carry passengers will increase by 30%.
The grant will also go toward upgraded signals and "to build a 'flyover' that will separate the Red and Purple line tracks from the Brown Line tracks north of Belmont Avenue. The monies will also fund the purchase of 32 new railcars.
Construction is tentatively slated to begin in late 2018 and will take four or five years to complete, he said. Planning and engineering will begin this year.
The project is expected to take four to five years to complete and create 6000 jobs. Funds will be provided over the course of nine years, subject to congressional approval.
--- Chicago CTA also announced a major renovation of the Garfield Green Line station on the city’s South Side.
The $50 million Garfield Gateway project will extend platform canopies; upgrade platform accessibility, including elevator and escalator improvements; and install public art and landscaping at the station. The CTA will also improve the streetscape near the station, including enhanced pedestrian street crossings, bike lanes.
Also ----> CTA modernization projects included in a LEAKED Trump infrastructure plan.
ALSO----> Earlier this month, the Obama administration said it would allocate a separate even larger, $1.6 billion core capacity agreement to extend one of its train lines west through the Wilshire Avenue corridor to the UCLA campus.
For the expansion west LOS ANGELES.
New York officials, are seeking funding for the next phase of the extension of the newly opened Second Avenue subway line while President Trump is in office.
**** China is outspending the US on infrastructure four to one. Europe is outspending us on infrastructure two to one.
Thought this might fit in here: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-trees-...iew-index.html "In an effort to enhance the critical role trees play in urban environments—providing cooling shade, alleviating air and noise pollution, and easing the effects of climate change—the school's Senseable City Lab has developed an online platform that maps out the canopy in some major cities to make it easier for urban planners and ordinary citizens to see where more are needed.
...
Trees block shortwave radiation and increase water evaporation, creating more comfortable microclimates and mitigating air pollution, lab director Carlo Ratti said. But they also just make people feel better, Ratti said, channeling Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson's biophilia theory that humans innately seek out connections with nature.
"We as humans have a natural willingness and desire to be in green spaces," he said.
...
North American cities tend to score higher than European cities. Singapore, however, ranks the highest with a 29.3 percent score, slightly ahead of Vancouver, British Columbia."
I'll add Amsterdam doesn't score badly; but the old city center by the canals is nearly treeless. But that's a small portion of the population let alone area so it doesn't have much impact. But Seattle scores about the same as Amsterdam which seems off, but I haven't seen much of Amsterdam. Frankfurt has a similar pattern to Amsterdam. Paris' low score relative to NYC and London is partly biased from it having much smaller city limits than the other two so it score low [NYC would be lower if it were just Manhattan]. NYC scores much lower than the medium sized European cities. London is worse than I thought; its city center areas have more trees than continental Europe but a lot of the old residential rowhouse neighborhoods are treeless.
Also a bit surprised why Vancouver is so much higher than Seattle; I would expect them to be very similar.
I'll add Amsterdam doesn't score badly; but the old city center by the canals is nearly treeless. But that's a small portion of the population let alone area so it doesn't have much impact. But Seattle scores about the same as Amsterdam which seems off, but I haven't seen much of Amsterdam. Frankfurt has a similar pattern to Amsterdam. Paris' low score relative to NYC and London is partly biased from it having much smaller city limits than the other two so it score low [NYC would be lower if it were just Manhattan]. NYC scores much lower than the medium sized European cities. London is worse than I thought; its city center areas have more trees than continental Europe but a lot of the old residential rowhouse neighborhoods are treeless
LOL, but, but, but. If you read the article you'd see that they left out Central Park in NYC, which would up its score even more. I believe I said a long time ago that I didn't see a lot of greenery in that part of western Europe. I have never been to Paris or London.
LOL, but, but, but. If you read the article you'd see that they left out Central Park in NYC, which would up its score even more. I believe I said a long time ago that I didn't see a lot of greenery in that part of western Europe. I have never been to Paris or London.
I'm commenting on the maps. But what? I was commenting on whatever I found interesting, I'm unsure what you're trying to argue if anything. I liked your link. I didn't you say you had been to Paris or London.
They left out big parks in London as well. Would parks up the score much? I thought it was based on street trees.
Edit: reading their paper it sounds like it was just based on streets, but then parks show up. Maybe they're missing in the maps but don't affect the score.
Last edited by nei; 01-30-2017 at 05:20 PM..
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.
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.
I was commenting on whatever I found interesting, I'm unsure what you're trying to argue if anything. I liked your link. I didn't you say you had been to Paris or London.
