Why does the United States have such bad public transportation? (white flight, Philadelphia)

[David2300]

Originally Posted by BadgerFilms

Prague is a European major city, Cheyenne is a small city in Wyoming. Why does it even make sense for you to compare them?

The US is a large country without the density of most of Europe.

OK, you're right. It's a bad comparison. Maybe a better comparison is Brussels and Indianapolis.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by David2300

OK, you're right. It's a bad comparison. Maybe a better comparison is Brussels and Indianapolis.

Look at the densities of the two metro regions, Brussels is about 17000/sq. mi, Indianapolis is about 450/sq. mi. Even if you just look at the urban density, it's still about 2000/sq. mi. Public transportation is more effective at higher densities. It makes sense for somewhere like Brussels, it does not make sense for somewhere like Indianapolis.

Density isn't really an answer to the reason the two cities are so different, more of a description of how they are different. I would guess the reasons are historical and possibly cultural. Brussels was founded in the 10th century and was a walled city. It grew largely during a time when the only feasible transportation was by foot. Indianapolis was founded in the 19th century and grew rapidly during the middle of the 20th century when automobile transportation was prevalent.

There was (and still is) cultural preference for low density housing in much of the US, and this likely drove transportation spending and development. This is not an exclusively American preference, although our existing low density cities certainly helps us indulge it more consistently. I live in one of the few areas of the US where (relatively) high-density, transit-friendly living is possible; many of my European-born coworkers opt for these neighborhoods, but not all. What the origin of these differences may be is a tough question (i.e. whether they were natural or induced).

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by David2300

OK, you're right. It's a bad comparison. Maybe a better comparison is Brussels and Indianapolis.

LOL, no. Brussels is a super-dense, apartment-oriented city where most people don't own a car.

The only U.S. comparison would be NYC. That's the only U.S. city where most households don't have cars.

[RPreskop]

The USA lags behind most other countries in public transit because we are too adicted to cars and roads. We have disinvested in public transit for the most part and instead of rebuilding and restoring existing cities, towns, and villages we instead made the costly royal mistake of abandoning those communities for suburban car dependent sprawl all so the white middle class didn't have to live near minority groups. Why put up with traffic lights, stop signs, traffic circles, and low speed limits when you can just hop on your favorite interstate route squeal the rear tires on the entrance ramp and fly on down the road at 70+ miles per hour and go to the suburban mall which is surrounded by a hideous sea of asphalt covered with parked cars and hide inside its architectural banality doing all your shopping and dining. A very sad and sickening reality but that is the mentality of the USA and to a somewhat lesser extant Australia, Canada, Latin America, and the United Kingdom.

[memph]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

LOL, no. Brussels is a super-dense, apartment-oriented city where most people don't own a car.

The only U.S. comparison would be NYC. That's the only U.S. city where most households don't have cars.

Since the OP started out with Prague... Baltimore is a similar age and size to Prague. Well Prague's medieval core is older obviously, but that's a rather small part of the city, most of Prague was built in the 19th and 20th century, same as Baltimore.

[Katarina Witt]

Google finally acknowledges it was at fault in a driverless car crash.
Google’s Self-Driving Car Caused Its First Crash | WIRED

[Phyxius]

Originally Posted by SCguy81

Our culture has a love affair with the automobile.

The roads aren't any better.

[nei]

Originally Posted by memph

Since the OP started out with Prague... Baltimore is a similar age and size to Prague. Well Prague's medieval core is older obviously, but that's a rather small part of the city, most of Prague was built in the 19th and 20th century, same as Baltimore.

The 19th and 20th century part of Prague is mostly much denser than Baltimore, more similar denser NYC outer borough neighborhoods. I noticed when visiting Prague there's a ring of lower density 2-4 family housing with some space in between outside the core of the city. Probably from 1910-1940 or so? And then a ring further out of commie blocks, outer suburban neighborhoods would have been much lower if it weren't for communism. Commie block nabes have lots of space between them so probably aren't much higher density than the more "suburban" pre-communist housing stock. Density profile doesn't appear much different from Amsterdam, but clearly denser than Baltimore. Hmm, checking charttingtransport, you can see some random square km on the edge of the city as high as the inner core so commie block neighborhoods can be high density

https://chartingtransport.com/2015/1...ropean-cities/

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by nei

The 19th and 20th century is mostly much denser than Baltimore, more similar denser NYC outer borough neighborhoods.

Baltimore is quite dense in terms of built form, but it's depopulated. At its peak it had 950,000 people; down to 620,000 now.

[nei]

Originally Posted by nybbler

Baltimore is quite dense in terms of built form, but it's depopulated. At its peak it had 950,000 people; down to 620,000 now.

Sure, though all old cities European and American have had population loss due to housing size decline [Boston is about 25% smaller than peak despite having almost no housing abandonment]. There was a typo in my post, I meant Baltimore compared to Prague. The older parts of Prague appear to be similar to brownstone Brooklyn (which has some apartments mixed in). On street level, Prague looks a bit like non-high rise parts of Manhattan, but there's courtyards behind the apartment buildings so the actual lot coverage is smaller.

But yea, depopulation of many of its densest neighborhoods is terrible for good transit. Ditto with job losses in the center city and lack of center city stores or attractions.

Prague appeared to lack highways near the city center other than a couple of big arterials. Since the city area is small, in a sense it still has better highway connections than Manhattan.