Why does the United States have such bad public transportation? (walkable, Arizona)
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.
Interesting, always interested in stories like this. Exxon Mobil is a special evil in this world. They also did their own research on climate change, but they didn't like the results. So they tried to cover up their own research to pretend, that climate change would not exist. Of course, oil profits and climate rescue are mutual exclusive.
Yes, this looks extremely car dependent, like the entire Houston area including The Woodlands and Sugar Land.
Yes. It is in the upper left quadrant, the big ring road on the right at the edge of the green area and below the creek. In 2010 the ring road location was part of the larger green wooded area.
No they don't. That's why mobility for the average person exploded thanks to the car, even in Europe. It's not allow, it's that most people don't want to use these worse alternatives. Not even Europeans who willingly pay eye-popping purchase, registration and fuel taxes for cars to not have to walk, cycle or use heavily subsidized transit.
Worse alternatives? Please speak for yourself only. Actually these alternatives are heavily used in non-car dependent places. Europe is not car INdependent and i never said otherwise, it is just less car dependent, especially in cities.
Modal split for cars by some major cities in North America and Europe
Indianapolis: 92%
Houston: 91%
San Antonio: 90%
Dallas: 90%
Las Vegas: 89%
Phoenix: 87%
Los Angeles: 85%
Seattle: 77%
Chicago: 77%
Portland: 70%
San Francisco: 64%
Toronto: 56%
New York City: 55%
More compactness => less car dependency => more options available => more people are using them. Myself and many others (including the Canadian from the video, who moved to the Netherlands, because of these alternatives) do enjoy this additional freedom provided by walking, cycling and public transport. I love being able to ride with my bicycle wherever i want to. I am living without car since 2010, no problems with jobs or housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Americans also make more money and pay less taxes.
Americans have higher incomes, but more working hours. Americans pay less taxes, but receive less social transfers, healthcare and education in return. This equals out with the more developed part of Northern and Western Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Car ownership is not one of the reasons because the cost of owning and operating cars are cheaper in the US than in Europe.]
Due to urban sprawl and car dependent infrastructure, the cost of owning a car in North America is about the same as in Europe, because of heavier usage and the necessity to drive longer distances.
Europeans spend far less of their incomes on transport than Americans, because of less car dependency. Poorer Americans spend even more. I can guarantee you, that poor Germans don't spend 29% on transport. This is just ridiculous.
"Households spent an average of $9,826 on transportation in 2020—the second largest household expenditure category after housing when spending on behalf of households, such as healthcare benefits, is excluded. This expenditure has increased more slowly than housing, food, and health expenditures.
In 2020 rural households spent more on transportation than urban households (20.0 and 15.7 percent of total expenditures, respectively).
Households in the bottom fifth spent more of their after tax income on transportation than those in the top fifth (28.8 and 9.5 percent of total expenditures, respectively)." US Department of Transportation
And thanks to the mobility of the car, home ownership in most of the US is much more attainable, especially of the most desirable single family homes.
This only adds up to the problem of sprawling low density car dependent infrastructure, that is economical and ecological nonsense, as well as restricting the freedom of movement. I have already written about this topic here.
Last edited by Stadthaus; 11-27-2021 at 08:32 PM..
Up until September 30, I was living in Chemnitz, Germany, a city of about 250K residents. Chemnitz has a good city-wide bus network, and the streetcars serve some parts of the city and extend into far-reaching outer suburbs and even to some communities 20+ kilometers from downtown. Frequent regional trains connect Chemnitz to larger cities north (Leipzig) and east (Dresden), and westbound to Hof, Bavaria. Connecting trains in those 3 cities are needed for further travel in Germany or elsewhere.
I did not have a car in Chemnitz, and lived just 10 minutes walking distance from downtown and any shopping that I needed. I also liked the freedom of not needing to own a car, and had a monthly regional transit pass (cost for seniors 50 Euro, about $56 USD) for the middle part of the state of Saxony to ride any bus, streetcar or regional train. I also rode my bicycle all over the city and the surrounding region. In the rare event that I needed a car, I could use a subscription app called "Teil Auto" (Car Share) and have access to a variety of different size cars or even vans. The app would tell me where they were parked. There was almost always a full-electric Renault Zoe available right across the street from my apartment. It was a simple fee per kilometer that covered all costs.
I generally agree with the comments above from Stadthaus ("City House"), and emphasize that the further you go out from the central part of most cities in Europe, the more car-dependent the transit model becomes. That is because the public transit options usually thin out, and the frequency of service declines as you get away from the core city areas.
Up until September 30, I was living in Chemnitz, Germany, a city of about 250K residents. Chemnitz has a good city-wide bus network, and the streetcars serve some parts of the city and extend into far-reaching outer suburbs and even to some communities 20+ kilometers from downtown. Frequent regional trains connect Chemnitz to larger cities north (Leipzig) and east (Dresden), and westbound to Hof, Bavaria. Connecting trains in those 3 cities are needed for further travel in Germany or elsewhere.
I did not have a car in Chemnitz, and lived just 10 minutes walking distance from downtown and any shopping that I needed. I also liked the freedom of not needing to own a car, and had a monthly regional transit pass (cost for seniors 50 Euro, about $56 USD) for the middle part of the state of Saxony to ride any bus, streetcar or regional train. I also rode my bicycle all over the city and the surrounding region. In the rare event that I needed a car, I could use a subscription app called "Teil Auto" (Car Share) and have access to a variety of different size cars or even vans. The app would tell me where they were parked. There was almost always a full-electric Renault Zoe available right across the street from my apartment. It was a simple fee per kilometer that covered all costs.
I generally agree with the comments above from Stadthaus ("City House"), and emphasize that the further you go out from the central part of most cities in Europe, the more car-dependent the transit model becomes. That is because the public transit options usually thin out, and the frequency of service declines as you get away from the core city areas.
Worse alternatives? Please speak for yourself only.
The rapid decline of transit usage and the near collapse of cycling and the staggering increase of mobility from the car says that they are worse for people. The Netherlands' looks good for cycling because it only lost 50% of its per-capita compared to other developed countries which lost 80+%.
Quote:
Modal split for cars by some major cities in North America and Europe
These are meaningless comparison since they ignore that cities are not all the same, some are just the tiny cores of much larger metro areas while others encompass most of the metro area. And they also only count commutes to work, where transit has a greater share while cars are heavily used for other reasons as well. Which we can see from how COVID and WFH has devastated transit ridership even as car trips have almost returned to 2019 levels.
Quote:
More compactness => less car dependency => more options available => more people are using them. Myself and many others (including the Canadian from the video, who moved to the Netherlands, because of these alternatives) do enjoy this additional freedom provided by walking, cycling and public transport. I love being able to ride with my bicycle wherever i want to. I am living without car since 2010, no problems with jobs or housing.
And plenty of Europeans have immigrated to North American for the space, for the freedom.
Quote:
Europeans spend far less of their incomes on transport than Americans, because of less car dependency. Poorer Americans spend even more. I can guarantee you, that poor Germans don't spend 29% on transport. This is just ridiculous.
Yes, because it's worse for the poor German in terms of money and/or time. A different methodology says that American households only spend 9.2% of total expenditure on transportation. In total figures, it's $1.2T in the US versus €1.1T in Europe, the US economy is bigger so that transport costs are a bigger share of GDP in Europe.
The rapid decline of transit usage and the near collapse of cycling and the staggering increase of mobility from the car says that they are worse for people.
Wrong and this isn't the 1950's anymore. Less and less people see the car as a status symbol and are more and more are getting educated about the negative consequences of car dependent cities for their personal independence, the economy and the environment. It's time to get up to date for you and some others!
"We find that people underestimate the total cost of owning a car by about 50%. We also found that providing personalized information on the costs of car ownership increased respondents’ willingness to pay for a public-transport ticket by around 22% (see Supplementary information; SI). We estimate that educating people in Germany about the true cost could reduce car ownership by up to 37% and cut associated transport emissions by 23%. Here, we suggest labelling and communication policies that could help to speed the transition to cleaner transport."
Since more and more people are waking up to this reality, we are observing a reversal trend away from car use in many cities in Europe and North America. Planners are slowly waking up as well. In North America we see plenty of upzoning and deregulation of parking requirements to make cities more compact and thus more friendly to public transport, cycling and walking. And we see more and more space dedicated for alternatives. We see more investment in public transport. Yet the car is still getting the most space even in our European cities. But wherever you give more room to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport we observe an increase of usage of these alternatives, because people love the additional freedom that it provides to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
The Netherlands' looks good for cycling because it only lost 50% of its per-capita compared to other developed countries which lost 80+%.
Oh wonder, the country which has the least car dependent infrastructure has the highest bicycle usage. It's almost as if you built infrastructure usable for alternatives, usage of alternatives increases =>
The "magic" of urban planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
These are meaningless comparison since they ignore that cities are not all the same, some are just the tiny cores of much larger metro areas while others encompass most of the metro area. And they also only count commutes to work, where transit has a greater share while cars are heavily used for other reasons as well. Which we can see from how COVID and WFH has devastated transit ridership even as car trips have almost returned to 2019 levels.
Car use for transportation to work of some selected (!) metropolitan (!) areas (CBSA) and the United States
Indianapolis: 91.1
Houston: 90.1
Dallas: 89.7
Las Vegas: 87.9
Miami: 86.1
Atlanta: 85.2
United States: 84.8
Los Angeles: 84
Denver: 82.2
Portland: 78.4
Chicago: 76.8
Seattle: 76.7
Boston: 72.9
San Francisco: 65.1
New York: 55.2
Source: US Census Bureau
Seems the US numbers are identical with the numbers i provided before. What is interesting here is, that the more compact US metros like New York, San Francisco and Boston are less car dependent. I could not find data for all types of trips, but the correlation is most likely going to remain. We can deduce from this with a certain probability, that the even more compact metros in Europe are going to have even less car usage, without using the data, whose comparability you are questioning.
But there is a major flaw in modal split by transport distance (km or miles), as you introduced it to the discussion. Places which are less car-dependent are more compact. This reduces travel distances. People in compact places simply need to travel less distance by achieving the same. The modal split in transport distance is therefore strongly distorted. Much more meaningful, however, is the modal split according to the number of trips. And here it is getting really interesting. For instance, in Germany the modal split by transport distance for cars is 75%, but the modal split by trip is 57%. Car traffic in German metropolises accounts for an average of 38% of all trips. But even rural German villages have a relatively low car usage with 70% of all trips made by car. This might be due to the reason that even the rural areas in Germany have a decent pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, as well as a basic public transit system. (Data source: Mobilität in Deutschland).
Anyway, here is another point I would like to make. I think it is wrong to assume that just because the majority of trips are by car means that the other trips don't want to be made with alternatives. The point is having the ability to choose appropriate means of transport for the respective scenario. For example, that you have the freedom to use your bike when you just want to do a few errands in the city, but also to choose the car when you want to make long trips. They are not mutually exclusive. In this respect, your attempt here to frame the statistics in such a way that nobody wants to ride a bike or walk or use public transport because the car is supposedly used more is quite a straw man argument in support of car dependent cities. Car dependent cities are bad because they just leave you no choice at all, to make any trips with alternatives and that is the huge limitation of freedom in this concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
And plenty of Europeans have immigrated to North American for the space, for the freedom.
Not so free car dependent infrastructure => ecological and economical disaster.
I don't know if you have seen the video of the Canadian who moved to the Netherlands, because of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Yes, because it's worse for the poor German in terms of money and/or time.
No, it is not. In 2019, the average German worker had to work 1,383 hours per year, while the average American worker had to work 1,777 hours per year. (Data source: OECD). You can be sure, this number is even worse for minimum wage workers in the US, as the US is the only country in the world without minimum paid vacation time. Poor Americans can only dream about the living and working conditions here in Germany. Especially in the US Southwest working and living conditions of the poor is far below those conditions in Germany. American poor only own a car, because they have to, otherwise they can not go anywhere and go to their job. It's essentially mandatory, otherwise you would be nobody in the US. There are homeless people living in their cars, because they rather spend money on their car than housing, due to this car dependent urban planning, they wouldn't be able to do anything without it. They aren't drug addicts or anything. They even have jobs. We don't have people with jobs who have to live in their cars here in Germany. They would get an apartment subsidized by the government and they could sell their car and use public transport with their work ticket here in Germany. Imagine your mom has to live in a car, because of car dependent infrastructure and society in your country. This is insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
A different methodology says that American households only spend 9.2% of total expenditure on transportation. In total figures, it's $1.2T in the US versus €1.1T in Europe, the US economy is bigger so that transport costs are a bigger share of GDP in Europe.
This is the reason why international accounting standards have been developed. According to the OECD, in 2019, US households spent 1,326,530 million USD on transportation. German households spent 241,477 million EUR on transportation.
According to the World Bank, the conversion factor for private consumption adjusted for purchasing power parity is 1 USD = 0.79 EUR.
Which means German households spent 305,667 million USD on transportation.
According to the World Bank, the US had a population of 328,329,953 and Germany had a population of 83,092,962. Which means US households spent 4,040 USD per capita on transportation and German households spent 3,679 USD per capita on transportation.
Given that on average American workers have to work 1,777 hours per year and German workers have to work only 1,383 hours per year, means, that Americans on average have to work 0.44 hours (26.4 minutes) per one unit of transportation expenditures, while on average Germans have to work only 0.38 hours (22.8 minutes) per one unit of transportation expenditures.
So the average American worker has to work much longer for their transportation than the average German worker, given the average national transportation spending of households.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Even many of the poorer families in the US can afford a car thanks to moderate fuel taxes, sales tax and registration costs.
No, they have to afford it. They can not cut costs by getting rid of it, because of car dependent infrastructure.
Wrong and this isn't the 1950's anymore. Less and less people see the car as a status symbol and are more and more are getting educated about the negative consequences of car dependent cities for their personal independence, the economy and the environment. It's time to get up to date for you and some others!
"We find that people underestimate the total cost of owning a car by about 50%. We also found that providing personalized information on the costs of car ownership increased respondents’ willingness to pay for a public-transport ticket by around 22% (see Supplementary information; SI). We estimate that educating people in Germany about the true cost could reduce car ownership by up to 37% and cut associated transport emissions by 23%. Here, we suggest labelling and communication policies that could help to speed the transition to cleaner transport."
Since more and more people are waking up to this reality, we are observing a reversal trend away from car use in many cities in Europe and North America. Planners are slowly waking up as well. In North America we see plenty of upzoning and deregulation of parking requirements to make cities more compact and thus more friendly to public transport, cycling and walking. And we see more and more space dedicated for alternatives. We see more investment in public transport. Yet the car is still getting the most space even in our European cities. But wherever you give more room to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport we observe an increase of usage of these alternatives, because people love the additional freedom that it provides to them.
Oh wonder, the country which has the least car dependent infrastructure has the highest bicycle usage. It's almost as if you built infrastructure usable for alternatives, usage of alternatives increases =>
The "magic" of urban planning.
Car use for transportation to work of some selected (!) metropolitan (!) areas (CBSA) and the United States
Indianapolis: 91.1
Houston: 90.1
Dallas: 89.7
Las Vegas: 87.9
Miami: 86.1
Atlanta: 85.2
United States: 84.8
Los Angeles: 84
Denver: 82.2
Portland: 78.4
Chicago: 76.8
Seattle: 76.7
Boston: 72.9
San Francisco: 65.1
New York: 55.2
Source: US Census Bureau
Seems the US numbers are identical with the numbers i provided before. What is interesting here is, that the more compact US metros like New York, San Francisco and Boston are less car dependent. I could not find data for all types of trips, but the correlation is most likely going to remain. We can deduce from this with a certain probability, that the even more compact metros in Europe are going to have even less car usage, without using the data, whose comparability you are questioning.
But there is a major flaw in modal split by transport distance (km or miles), as you introduced it to the discussion. Places which are less car-dependent are more compact. This reduces travel distances. People in compact places simply need to travel less distance by achieving the same. The modal split in transport distance is therefore strongly distorted. Much more meaningful, however, is the modal split according to the number of trips. And here it is getting really interesting. For instance, in Germany the modal split by transport distance for cars is 75%, but the modal split by trip is 57%. Car traffic in German metropolises accounts for an average of 38% of all trips. But even rural German villages have a relatively low car usage with 70% of all trips made by car. This might be due to the reason that even the rural areas in Germany have a decent pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, as well as a basic public transit system. (Data source: Mobilität in Deutschland).
Anyway, here is another point I would like to make. I think it is wrong to assume that just because the majority of trips are by car means that the other trips don't want to be made with alternatives. The point is having the ability to choose appropriate means of transport for the respective scenario. For example, that you have the freedom to use your bike when you just want to do a few errands in the city, but also to choose the car when you want to make long trips. They are not mutually exclusive. In this respect, your attempt here to frame the statistics in such a way that nobody wants to ride a bike or walk or use public transport because the car is supposedly used more is quite a straw man argument in support of car dependent cities. Car dependent cities are bad because they just leave you no choice at all, to make any trips with alternatives and that is the huge limitation of freedom in this concept.
Not so free car dependent infrastructure => ecological and economical disaster.
I don't know if you have seen the video of the Canadian who moved to the Netherlands, because of this.
No, it is not. In 2019, the average German worker had to work 1,383 hours per year, while the average American worker had to work 1,777 hours per year. (Data source: OECD). You can be sure, this number is even worse for minimum wage workers in the US, as the US is the only country in the world without minimum paid vacation time. Poor Americans can only dream about the living and working conditions here in Germany. Especially in the US Southwest working and living conditions of the poor is far below those conditions in Germany. American poor only own a car, because they have to, otherwise they can not go anywhere and go to their job. It's essentially mandatory, otherwise you would be nobody in the US. There are homeless people living in their cars, because they rather spend money on their car than housing, due to this car dependent urban planning, they wouldn't be able to do anything without it. They aren't drug addicts or anything. They even have jobs. We don't have people with jobs who have to live in their cars here in Germany. They would get an apartment subsidized by the government and they could sell their car and use public transport with their work ticket here in Germany. Imagine your mom has to live in a car, because of car dependent infrastructure and society in your country. This is insane.
This is the reason why international accounting standards have been developed. According to the OECD, in 2019, US households spent 1,326,530 million USD on transportation. German households spent 241,477 million EUR on transportation.
According to the World Bank, the conversion factor for private consumption adjusted for purchasing power parity is 1 USD = 0.79 EUR.
Which means German households spent 305,667 million USD on transportation.
According to the World Bank, the US had a population of 328,329,953 and Germany had a population of 83,092,962. Which means US households spent 4,040 USD per capita on transportation and German households spent 3,679 USD per capita on transportation.
Given that on average American workers have to work 1,777 hours per year and German workers have to work only 1,383 hours per year, means, that Americans on average have to work 0.44 hours (26.4 minutes) per one unit of transportation expenditures, while on average Germans have to work only 0.38 hours (22.8 minutes) per one unit of transportation expenditures.
So the average American worker has to work much longer for their transportation than the average German worker, given the average national transportation spending of households.
No, they have to afford it. They can not cut costs by getting rid of it, because of car dependent infrastructure.
That household cost per year sounds way way too low for car ownership.
Upfront cost of a car minus sale value divided by years held (10-15% depreciation per year)
Sales tax and fees
Interest on car loan
Yearly registration
Yearly inspection (where required)
Yearly insurance
Yearly maintenance
Regular maintenance (cleaning, etc)
Special maintenance (tires, battery, major milage milestones, etc)
Fuel cost (per mile)
Parking fees (variable)
Toll fees (where required)
Personal property tax (where collected)
Cost of repair (if needed)
With the average new car cost this year over $45k, and gas over $3, a brand new car driven 12k miles per year, 90% financed at 4%, and kept for 5 years, will cost the owner over $40k, or over $8,000 per year. And that is just for one vehicle. Most households have more than one.
Also have to throw in place to keep a car (beyond parking fees) like a driveway or garage, which has its cost as part of initial home price. Taxes paid to build and maintain roads. Environmental costs (usually covered through taxes and other fees) associated with emissions and disposal. And, depending where one chooses to live, lost time spent behind the wheel commuting (can assume same for public transport, but transport allows riders to perform other tasks).
That household cost per year sounds way way too low for car ownership.
Upfront cost of a car minus sale value divided by years held (10-15% depreciation per year)
Sales tax and fees
Interest on car loan
Yearly registration
Yearly inspection (where required)
Yearly insurance
Yearly maintenance
Regular maintenance (cleaning, etc)
Special maintenance (tires, battery, major milage milestones, etc)
Fuel cost (per mile)
Parking fees (variable)
Toll fees (where required)
Personal property tax (where collected)
Cost of repair (if needed)
With the average new car cost this year over $45k, and gas over $3, a brand new car driven 12k miles per year, 90% financed at 4%, and kept for 5 years, will cost the owner over $40k, or over $8,000 per year. And that is just for one vehicle. Most households have more than one.
Also have to throw in place to keep a car (beyond parking fees) like a driveway or garage, which has its cost as part of initial home price. Taxes paid to build and maintain roads. Environmental costs (usually covered through taxes and other fees) associated with emissions and disposal. And, depending where one chooses to live, lost time spent behind the wheel commuting (can assume same for public transport, but transport allows riders to perform other tasks).
That is probably because it is an average number dividing the total costs by the number of people that includes children and other people who own no car at all. That is my only explanation i have for this. Maybe you are right though. The German automobile club has calculated, that owning a very small car costs 420 EUR per month for a single person. Not included are the costs of parking and driveway or garage. An unlimited public transit subscription for the entire state costs 256 EUR per month, but this is really unnecessary. I live car free and spend less than 20 EUR per month on transit, but i am mostly using my bicycle, which costs me i don't know, like 5 EUR per month including repairs (which i usually perform myself). But i am living a very minimalistic lifestyle. Let's say you spent 100 EUR per month on car free transit, then you still pay significantly less than someone who owns a small car. But that other person is convinced, that each American who owns a car, just own it, because they can afford it. Many people in my neighborhood can afford cars (i am living in an upscale neighborhood), but most of the time they don't use it and rather use their bicycles. Their children are using pt to go to school and they pick up their kids from Kindergarten by cargo bike. The kids love it, but i guess they just too poor to drive a F150 pick up truck.
Last edited by Stadthaus; 11-29-2021 at 03:48 PM..
Less and less people see the car as a status symbol and are more and more are getting educated about the negative consequences of car dependent cities for their personal independence, the economy and the environment.
If that was the case, what's causing the the rapid rise of the crossover/SUV in Europe as it replaces smaller and cheaper hatchbacks, station wagons and sedans.
Quote:
Since more and more people are waking up to this reality, we are observing a reversal trend away from car use in many cities in Europe and North America.
Despite massive taxes on owning and operating cars that greatly exceed public spending on roads, European modal share has barely changed over the last decade. In the US, even before COVID transit ridership was in decline for a decade with large systems like DC and LA having the lowest ridership since the turn of the century.
Quote:
Yet the car is still getting the most space even in our European cities. But wherever you give more room to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport we observe an increase of usage of these alternatives, because people love the additional freedom that it provides to them.
A modest amount at best. The reality is that governments have to massively invest in non-car transport modes and to massively tax cars just to keep the status quo.
Quote:
Oh wonder, the country which has the least car dependent infrastructure has the highest bicycle usage. It's almost as if you built infrastructure usable for alternatives, usage of alternatives increases =>
What increase? Netherlands is still only half of the per-capita cycling it had 70 years ago. The Netherlands has high cycling ridership because it started from very high cycling ridership. Meanwhile, the other European cycling star Denmark has seen cycling slowly decline for 30 years despite the best efforts of Copenhagen and other cities. Driving continues to grow.
Quote:
Car use for transportation to work of some selected (!) metropolitan (!) areas (CBSA) and the United States
The invalid comparison are the typical European cities. The historical part of Paris may have tiny car trip share, not the 12+ million metro area. Mayor Hidalgo's anti-car policies are making it painful to drive in the heart of Paris but is it changing people's methods of getting around or are they simply taking their car trips elsewhere and resume moving further out to the suburbs as they have done since the 1920s.
Quote:
Anyway, here is another point I would like to make. I think it is wrong to assume that just because the majority of trips are by car means that the other trips don't want to be made with alternatives.
A lot of these trips only exist because of the car. Before the car, the average person traveled far less all because every method was so slow.
Quote:
No, it is not. In 2019, the average German worker had to work 1,383 hours per year, while the average American worker had to work 1,777 hours per year.
Some of which has to do with Germany's much higher share of part-time workers. So Germans work less but get less.
Quote:
Especially in the US Southwest working and living conditions of the poor is far below those conditions in Germany. American poor only own a car, because they have to, otherwise they can not go anywhere and go to their job.
The American SW (excluding California) is a fast growing region because of its mild winters, low cost of living including housing and economic growth. Going by official numbers, the homelessness rate in Germany (even excluding refuges) is higher than the US. And unlike the sprawling cities of the American SW, housing costs are a severe issue across all of Germany and Europe.
The result of a 1950's trend that is fading out for some time now. New trends of sustainable cities and transportation are getting stronger and stronger each day thanks to new science and education. Don't be stuck in the past!
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
If that was the case, what's causing the the rapid rise of the crossover/SUV in Europe as it replaces smaller and cheaper hatchbacks, station wagons and sedans.
SUV is continuation of old trend, doesn't mean the other trend can not exist as well.
In the US, even before COVID transit ridership was in decline for a decade with large systems like DC and LA having the lowest ridership since the turn of the century.
Didn't happen in Seattle. No wonder, the other systems are pretty outdated and don't come even close to European standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Despite massive taxes on owning and operating cars that greatly exceed public spending on roads, European modal share has barely changed over the last decade.
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
A modest amount at best. The reality is that governments have to massively invest in non-car transport modes and to massively tax cars just to keep the status quo.
Wrong, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is way cheaper than car infrastructure. And public transit only needs subsidies, because most of the transport space is dedicated to cars.
Wherever there is some investment and some more space dedicated to alternatives, we observe a rapid increase in use. Like in Portland.
In car dependent places like Houston, the urban form and infrastructure is designed in a way, that makes it difficult for alternatives to be viable. The NJB video about Houston demonstrates this pretty well. Such environment is hostile towards everyone who isn't in a car. The subsidy for cars lays mostly in the planning of cities (sprawl) and infrastructure. Subsidies vs prohibition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
What increase? Netherlands is still only half of the per-capita cycling it had 70 years ago. The Netherlands has high cycling ridership because it started from very high cycling ridership.
The downward trend has been stopped and it is reversing for a while now. This is what your own chart is showing. What's your point? The Dutch don't like cycling, because now they use cars as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Meanwhile, the other European cycling star Denmark has seen cycling slowly decline for 30 years despite the best efforts of Copenhagen and other cities. Driving continues to grow.
This isn't what the graph shows. It shows the decline of a mix of mopeds and bicycle use. What role plays the bicycle in there? Unknown, therefore simply a false conclusion. My personal observation is, that moped use has decreased in my country. What is your point here? The Danish don't want bicycles, because they have more cars now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
The invalid comparison are the typical European cities. The historical part of Paris may have tiny car trip share, not the 12+ million metro area.
Mayor Hidalgo's anti-car policies are making it painful to drive in the heart of Paris but is it changing people's methods of getting around or are they simply taking their car trips elsewhere and resume moving further out to the suburbs as they have done since the 1920s.
"In June last year, the re-elected Paris mayor, Anne Hidalgo, thanked Parisians for choosing “a Paris that breathes, a Paris that is more agreeable to live in.” One year on and Ms Hidalgo has stepped up her plans to ban cars from the city centre by 2022. This comes as the Clean Cities Campaign (CCC), a new European civil society coalition backed by T&E, released a poll showing people in 15 European cities, including Paris, overwhelmingly support clean transport and better air quality." European Federation for Transport and Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
A lot of these trips only exist because of the car. Before the car, the average person traveled far less all because every method was so slow.
Doesn't mean people want to use the car for everything now.
What is your point? That car dependent infrastructure is good, because cars are used more often than in the past?
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Some of which has to do with Germany's much higher share of part-time workers. So Germans work less but get less.
Doesn't follow at all, but i am curious how you want to explain this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
The American SW (excluding California) is a fast growing region because of its mild winters, low cost of living including housing and economic growth.
Car dependent Texas is becoming less affordable as it grows.
"For years, Texas has built a reputation as a place where families can live well for less, with several of its metropolitan areas consistently ranked among the nation’s most affordable. The economic success of our cities is changing that picture, however, and according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the rise in Texas home prices has outpaced that of the nation as a whole since 2011." Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Going by official numbers, the homelessness rate in Germany (even excluding refuges) is higher than the US.
[Citation needed] How many of them are sheltered? Cities in Germany aren't filled with tents, but they are in Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas etc. Minimum wage workers living in their car seems to be as American, as people living in trailer parks. Not to mention the poor housing conditions of low income Americans, that i have seen.
This is what car dependent development (sprawl) and poverty in the United States looks like. If this would be a place in Germany it would cause public outcry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
And unlike the sprawling cities of the American SW, housing costs are a severe issue across all of Germany and Europe.
[Citation needed] Prove that by adjusting for population density, which naturally increases property prices.
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.
It's almost as if you built infrastructure usable for alternatives, usage of alternatives increases =>
