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.
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.
I appreciate your argument, but isn't the topic about the USA and its car dependence? If Pennsylvania or New Jersey choose to make an investment similar to France's to reduce car dependence, then it's not a national issue. It's a local issue. Nationally, size matters because it's a component of population density. And nationally, the cost of public transportation to the nation is exorbitant and not cost effective. And it becomes an issue, because the argument is for the federal government to expend funds to develop public transit systems. Which means the people of Wyoming helping to pay for public transit in Pennsylvania, which doesn't benefit the people of Wyoming one iota. If the people in the Aquitaine help pay for a national transit system in France, the people of the Aquitaine benefit from it. Because people from the Aquitaine will be able to get on a train and travel to other parts of the country. In the United States, that's not the case. The people from Wyoming won't get to use the system they are being asked to help pay for. That's why people in rural states balk about the federal government paying for public transit. Because it doesn't make people in rural areas less car dependent. It just makes public transit more convenient for people in densely populated areas. Where they most likely already have public transit.
The approach to public transit needs to be thoughtful, not knee-jerk. It needs to examine what the problems are, for everyone, and what the best solutions are.
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.
Really? I'd like to see a link. I believe Amsterdam is the densest city in Europe. That's where most of the people live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I appreciate your argument, but isn't the topic about the USA and its car dependence? If Pennsylvania or New Jersey choose to make an investment similar to France's to reduce car dependence, then it's not a national issue. It's a local issue. Nationally, size matters because it's a component of population density. And nationally, the cost of public transportation to the nation is exorbitant and not cost effective. And it becomes an issue, because the argument is for the federal government to expend funds to develop public transit systems. Which means the people of Wyoming helping to pay for public transit in Pennsylvania, which doesn't benefit the people of Wyoming one iota. If the people in the Aquitaine help pay for a national transit system in France, the people of the Aquitaine benefit from it. Because people from the Aquitaine will be able to get on a train and travel to other parts of the country. In the United States, that's not the case. The people from Wyoming won't get to use the system they are being asked to help pay for. That's why people in rural states balk about the federal government paying for public transit. Because it doesn't make people in rural areas less car dependent. It just makes public transit more convenient for people in densely populated areas. Where they most likely already have public transit.
The approach to public transit needs to be thoughtful, not knee-jerk. It needs to examine what the problems are, for everyone, and what the best solutions are.
Really? I'd like to see a link. I believe Amsterdam is the densest city in Europe. That's where most of the people live.
New Jersey: population density 1189 / square mile
Netherlands: population density: 1050 / square mile
DC ridge was comparing state/country political subdivision density not cities, but Amsterdam proper has about 5% of the population of the Netherlands. As for being the densest city in Europe, I'm rather certain it's not and suspect it's nowhere near the densest (it didn't feel like it would be from when I visited). Barcelona probably is for western Europe (see the Urban Density Comparisons thread). Amsterdam has 9,080 per square mile but somewhere between one-third to one-half of its land is uninhabited land in the northern of the city partly used as a shipping port. Excluding that section, I'd guess it's similar in density to San Francisco or a section of Philadelphia containing Center City and the surrounding densest neighborhoods adding up to 800,000 (so that the population is the same as San Francisco or Amsterdam).
New Jersey: population density 1189 / square mile
Netherlands: population density: 1050 / square mile
DC ridge was comparing state/country political subdivision density not cities, but Amsterdam proper has about 5% of the population of the Netherlands. As for being the densest city in Europe, I'm rather certain it's not and suspect it's nowhere near the densest (it didn't feel like it would be from when I visited). Barcelona probably is for western Europe (see the Urban Density Comparisons thread). Amsterdam has 9,080 per square mile but somewhere between one-third to one-half of its land is uninhabited land in the northern of the city partly used as a shipping port. Excluding that section, I'd guess it's similar in density to San Francisco or a section of Philadelphia containing Center City and the surrounding densest neighborhoods adding up to 800,000 (so that the population is the same as San Francisco or Amsterdam).
No links, but my numbers are via wikipedia.
I read that one time, perhaps not true. It seemed very dense when I was there. I figured that's why their birth rate is so low; there's just too many people there, period. Who needs any more?
I read that one time, perhaps not true. It seemed very dense when I was there. I figured that's why their birth rate is so low; there's just too many people there, period. Who needs any more?
It seems like we have different perceptions of "very dense", the center was about what I thought was normal for the center of a big city and not too many people. I agree that the part of Amsterdam I saw is definitely high density though. But where did you see? Skimming google maps and streetview, the central and touristy areas (which I think is what most visitors see) look quite a bit denser than some other parts of the city, as is true of most cities.
The Dutch fertility rate is rather low (1.76) but a few US states are lower, including Massachusetts. Again comparing to New Jersey, the Netherlands grew by 59% from 1950-2000 and New Jersey grew by 74%. But Amsterdam has barely grown at all in the last 80 years, so yea no space to put anymore people, or rather the Dutch or unwilling to construct higher density housing in Amsterdam.
Subsiding thngs federally. Its to teh point that has long as it partially paid for by federal money its bought. things should have to ay fpr themselves with few exceptios. Otherwise your investig in prure consumption with no real return.
But the area of the country shouldn't make much of a difference, few people trave from metro to metro on a regular basis.
But a lot more the last few years than previous. Workers willing to go anywhere a job is combined with a depressed real estate market. Commuting by plane has really taken off (bad pun).
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.
America made the HUGE MISTAKE of tackling the problem of having a large country by building a highway network across it (rather than a fast rail network - as China is now doing.)
For decades, while oil prices stayed down, this did not seem to be a mistake. Low gasoline prices disguised the economic vulnerability of so much car use. Currently, American use something like 27 barrels of oil per annum per capita, while European consume 9 barrels, and the Chinese maybe 3 barrels. We now have a situation where America has about 5% of the world's population, and consumes about 20-25% of the world's oil production. In a world of limited oil, this is clearly unsustainable, and a huge economic vulnerability for the country.
It amazes me to hear that some Americans seem to think they are "superior" to others, or for some reason are entitled to burn through the oil wealth of our planet at 5X the speed of the rest of our inhabitants. The US will not be allowed to do that forever. What will stop this country of oil waste, is rising prices.
That highway system and suburban living arrangement, that seem so attractive when oil was down, has become a trap - that the US must find its way out of, or it will find its wealth simply drained away to foreign oil producers - as has been happening for years.
And don't think that military force is the answer. The very expensive cost of maintaining foreign bases, and "projecting our military might" is a second cash drain that is allowing yet more American wealth to hemorrhage from the country.
China's Expressway is longer than our Interstate Highway System. Considering the first Expressway didn't open until the late '80s in China, that's pretty impressive.
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.
