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.
You know what is more ridiculous? It is like that all the time! Pretty much at any point, any day, from 7-7. Except for maybe between 12-3. I hate going to Berkeley because that's what I have to deal with on the way home! I just take the streets.
I think the author ignores a GLARING reason, that in the United States the infrastructure was largely NEW development, whereas in Western European cities, adapting to cars meant tearing down old infrastructure and building new. In terms of urban planning, the United States was meeting its population's needs appropriately and efficiently. In Europe, the added costs of destroying old infrastructure to build new simply wasn't an efficient use of resources, so where it was cost-effective, they built new infrastructure, and where it wasn't cost-effective, they looked at alternatives that would better suit them.
I think the author ignores a GLARING reason, that in the United States the infrastructure was largely NEW development, whereas in Western European cities, adapting to cars meant tearing down old infrastructure and building new. In terms of urban planning, the United States was meeting its population's needs appropriately and efficient
However, many American cities had plenty of older development. The larger Northeastern cities had as much older infrastructure as European cities, yet their new development was much more auto-oriented and more highways were built through the city.
^^^^^I'm not sure what the point of the above photo is, but cities with world-class public transit systems including Toronto, Montreal, San Francisco and many other cities have world-class traffic jams just as cities with mediocre-to-abysmal public transit systems such as LA & Phoenix also have world-class traffic jams as well.
^^^^^I'm not sure what the point of the above photo is, but cities with world-class public transit systems including Toronto, Montreal, San Francisco and many other cities have world-class traffic jams just as cities with mediocre-to-abysmal public transit systems such as LA & Phoenix also have world-class traffic jams as well.
Generally, cities (except maybe the smallest cities) with very good public transit systems (especially with lots of rail) suffer from world-class traffic jams. An uncongested city with high public transit use is a rarity.
I think that more car driving can simply be because we Americans value our time and comfort more.
Why would they? I think everybody values their time and comfort, American, European or else. Driving is more convenient for "average American", who lives further away from decent PT than his/her European counterpart.
My former job in Paris suburbs was 20 minutes away by car (freeway) and 1h15-1h30 away using the poor PT options available (bus + commuter train or bus all the way). It was a no-brainer for me, I decided to commute by car. My current one is probably 1 hour away by car taking traffic jams into account vs 40 minutes using the subway. Therefore my car stays in the garage.
Quote:
Technological focus. Policy responses to problems of U.S. car travel have focused on technological changes rather than altering behavior.
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.
Generally, cities (except maybe the smallest cities) with very good public transit systems (especially with lots of rail) suffer from world-class traffic jams. An uncongested city with high public transit use is a rarity.
NYC has high public transit use and world class traffic jam. Same for Hong Kong and Beijing....
However, many American cities had plenty of older development. The larger Northeastern cities had as much older infrastructure as European cities, yet their new development was much more auto-oriented and more highways were built through the city.
While places like Boston, New York and Philadelphia had older development, their growth in the 20th century was still outside much of that older development. Suburbs. And even as large as New York City is, in the time period we are talking about, they were nowhere near the amount or the age of infrastructure in comparison to Paris or London, or even smaller Western European cities, like Bath or Leeds.
And it should be noted, the development of alternatives to cars was in exactly the older cities in the United States, where the existing infrastructure made the development of alternatives more cost-effective. Where population density was already well-established, we have alternatives to cars. Where population density wasn't well-established, where we see urban sprawl, that growth and cars have a symbiotic relationship. In Europe, populations tended to be denser, more concentrated, and the growth of the cities wasn't dependent on cars. As you go into more rural areas of Europe, where population isn't as dense, there is a much greater dependence on cars. However, the relative size of the nations there, along with the train system, reduces the dependence on cars all over Europe.
While places like Boston, New York and Philadelphia had older development, their growth in the 20th century was still outside much of that older development. Suburbs. And even as large as New York City is, in the time period we are talking about, they were nowhere near the amount or the age of infrastructure in comparison to Paris or London, or even smaller Western European cities, like Bath or Leeds.
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.
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.
