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 was an article (Economist?) I read about why American projects get stopped by NIMBYs so much. A German businessman comment was if "the government decides [after a public consensus] that it should be done, it'll get done]. An Italian businessman comment was "if opponents delay a project, those who want it done will bribe the politicians". Bribery can be cheaper than massive bureaucratic red tape, American construction costs are unusually high.
Do Americans think NIMBYism is a uniquely American phenomenon?
There was an article (Economist?) I read about why American projects get stopped by NIMBYs so much. A German businessman comment was if "the government decides [after a public consensus] that it should be done, it'll get done]. An Italian businessman comment was "if opponents delay a project, those who want it done will bribe the politicians". Bribery can be cheaper than massive bureaucratic red tape, American construction costs are unusually high.
Yeah, American consensus is to spend five years and millions of dollars on studies, environmental impacts that have to be redone every time the plan changes the location of a window, public outreach sessions to hopefully pacify the NIMBY element. Then you have "fees," which are basically legalized bribes. I don't know what they are for larger projects, but a lot of stuff that hits the CEQA level just never gets done. Average cost of permits for a new single family home (tear down and replace) in San Francisco runs about $70,000. After that, you've got years of litigation and court fees.
Some states are better than California, of course, but just look at HSR or the Bay Bridge as examples of how projects get done here. Meanwhile over in Dubai they build an entire mass transit system faster and cheaper than we can extend BART by a few miles. Partly that's labor costs. We're not really big on importing cheap SE Asian labor. But that's a small part of it.
But France, Spain and Italy all ranked higher on the corruption index than the U.S. last year. The cities in those countries still have excellent mass transit systems (and they also have HSR). Britain is only slightly ahead of the U.S.
I doubt that the 'institutional corruption' I'm talking about would be captured by this kind of corruption index. I use the term for 'institutional corruption' for lack of a better one.
As an example, in my county we had a sheriff's deputy who was convicted of murder in connection with an insurance fraud scheme. He applied for a disability pension, saying that his depression over his murder conviction rendered him unable to work. Never mind that he could no longer work as a cop period due to being a convicted felon and being in prison. The pension board ruled that, yes, his depression qualified him for a disability pension.
This was all legal and above-board, so probably would not be counted as a case of corruption by a corruption index.
Most of the freeways through downtowns/dense urban neighborhoods happened in the 50s and early 60s in the US, while opposition increased afterward. Europe built most of its system later, until the mid to late 60s at which point opposition was stronger.
Some states are better than California, of course, but just look at HSR or the Bay Bridge as examples of how projects get done here. Meanwhile over in Dubai they build an entire mass transit system faster and cheaper than we can extend BART by a few miles. Partly that's labor costs. We're not really big on importing cheap SE Asian labor. But that's a small part of it.
Note how low Italian rapid transit construction costs are:
BART is unusually expensive and non-standard, many of the outer suburb extension have very low ridership for a rapid transit line, while at the same time it skips service in dense corridors (Geary St. especially) Rehabilting the main line rail (there are some main line rails in East Bay that could have increased service for much cheaper, Caltrain could work well with electrification and going to the actual downtown) make more sense than building a new, expensive rail system. As compared to European cities, San Francisco has rather sparse local rail transit, and rather poor use segregated lanes for surface transit. To a certain extent, for transit to be convenient, unless rapid transit is built, in a congested areas are a certain amount of annoying drivers is needed with limited space. Rozenn's example sounded extreme, but the present American reluctance to have space for surface transit is the opposite.
Most of the European streetcar systems I've seen get their own lanes as soon as there's space. DC is apparently considering building a streetcar without its own lane?! Why bother spend at all, then?
I doubt that the 'institutional corruption' I'm talking about would be captured by this kind of corruption index. I use the term for 'institutional corruption' for lack of a better one.
As an example, in my county we had a sheriff's deputy who was convicted of murder in connection with an insurance fraud scheme. He applied for a disability pension, saying that his depression over his murder conviction rendered him unable to work. Never mind that he could no longer work as a cop period due to being a convicted felon and being in prison. The pension board ruled that, yes, his depression qualified him for a disability pension.
This was all legal and above-board, so probably would not be counted as a case of corruption by a corruption index.
Why is that "institutional corruption?" If that was the Board's ruling, then that becomes precedent that the Board has to follow in all other cases.
When I think of "institutional corruption" in the U.S., I think of city council members who are allowed to earn a salary at lobbying firms. In DC, two council members earned more money from their outside business activities than they did from their "real" jobs (which also pay six figures).
Quote:
Council members Jack Evans, Ward 2 Democrat, and Michael A. Brown, at-large independent, both lawyers, took home more than $200,000 each in outside pay in 2009. Neither disclosed any clients they represented, though Mr. Evans did report the name of the law firm that employs him, Patton Boggs LLP.
BART is unusually expensive and non-standard, many of the outer suburb extension have very low ridership for a rapid transit line, while at the same time it skips service in dense corridors (Geary St. especially) Rehabilting the main line rail (there are some main line rails in East Bay that could have increased service for much cheaper, Caltrain could work well with electrification and going to the actual downtown) make more sense than building a new, expensive rail system. As compared to European cities, San Francisco has rather sparse local rail transit, and rather poor use segregated lanes for surface transit. To a certain extent, for transit to be convenient, unless rapid transit is built, in a congested areas are a certain amount of annoying drivers is needed with limited space. Rozenn's example sounded extreme, but the present American reluctance to have space for surface transit is the opposite.
Most of the European streetcar systems I've seen get their own lanes as soon as there's space. DC is apparently considering building a streetcar without its own lane?! Why bother spend at all, then?
Because it's cheaper to build in the middle of the street.
It can sort of work. Pretty much all of San Francisco's light rail is streetcar-type light rail that runs in the street. The newest T-Third is the exception to that. But yeah, if you were doing something along Geary, it wouldn't work. N-Judah runs on a minor side street, Irving is the major commercial corridor. Running a streetcar on Geary wouldn't help. The traffic crawls on Geary at Rush hour and there's already of plenty of bus service. Unless you do it at above or below grade it wouldn't be worthwhile. Above grade is a political impossibility, below grade an economic impossibility.
But, yes, as a larger theme, I remain completely baffled at why infrastructure projects (not just transit) cost so much here. Just hire whoever did Dubai's metro and get rid of . It works. It was built on time and somewhat close to on budget (went over, but the scope increased mid project). That's another thing... we see time and time again projects misrepresented in scope and cost and then only once underway it becomes a matter of "oh, by the way."
HSR links large, urban centers. The density of the country as a whole is arbitrary.
It's an alternative to flying in the same corridor for trips less than 400 miles and whether or not it's successful HSR is comes down to the total amount of traffic in the corridor and how time/cost competitive the train is with a plane or a car.
You get a lot of busy air/rail corridors in countries/states of wildly divergent densities. Some corridors have had HSR for a long time, some just got it, others are planning it:
Madrid-Barcelona
Paris-Toulouse
Paris - Lyon
Sydney-Melbourne
LA-SF
LA-Vegas
Sao Paulo - Rio
NYC - DC
NYC - Boston
Density of the country as a whole is not arbitrary.
The density of Paris, for instance, plays into whether public transit is a national issue, because Paris represents 20% of the population of the country as a whole.
That's not true for even NYC. Combine that with the relatively smaller area of these European countries, which means that the average citizen will have to conduct business in these major cities at some point, and that's why public transit in the major cities of the United States doesn't get national support. The farmer in Kansas is probably not going to be visiting New York City, not daily, not weekly, not monthly, not annually. Why should he subsidize transit service between NYC and DC?
Public transit is a local issue in the United States, and a regional issue in cases like the NYC/DC corridor. But it's not a national issue. However, the people who want public transit want national support and national funding. They cannot actually argue that the national highway system does them no good. NYC's population is dependent on outside goods making it into the city, and a substantial portion of those goods make it there by virtue of that national highway system.
Huh? Do you mean that car dependency is a symptom of sprawl?
No. I mean that low-density is a symptom, a characteristic of sprawl and car-dependency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I started out in this thread saying that the author of the article didn't even list age as one of the reasons why the U.S. is more car dependent than Europe. While it could be argued that most American cities would be denser without cheap gas, highway construction, etc., it's sort of silly to ignore the fact that European cities already had much larger and denser walkable cores that were better suited for public transit. And it's also silly to ignore that space in Europe comes at a much higher premium, which results in more intensive land use.
Your first post claimed that European cities were denser and older and that is why. And yes I agree that American cities today are less dense. However, if we go back and compare US and European cities before these policies took place we we find that US cities we just as dense as European cities. Point being, density along with car-dependency is a result of these policies. Its like you are saying "the US is sprawled out because it is sprawled out". You are not identifying the source of the problem, just a characteristic of the problem.
Your first post claimed that European cities were denser and older and that is why. And yes I agree that American cities today are less dense. However, if we go back and compare US and European cities before these policies took place we we find that US cities we just as dense as European cities
That is false, as I said earlier in the thread, unless you're thinking of a few specific US cities.
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.
