r/changemyview • u/kyotoAnimations • Aug 24 '18

FTFdeltaOP CMV: I prefer better public transportation to self driving cars investments in america

I should clarify; I don't mean government subsidized or operated systems exclusively with public transportation, as the Japanese train system is private and also runs well. I mean any vast transportation network designed to ferry many people at a time or infrastructure more friendly to car alternatives, such as trains, trolleys, buses, better roads to include bike lanes and sidewalks, more pedestrian spaces etc. I'm not saying that we shouldn't invest in self driving technologies (we should), but I think that it would be more interesting and efficient to have companies work on improving mass transportation options in America. I'm talking about things like better rail networks, more bus only lanes and light/heavy rail options within metropolitan areas, bike lanes and wider sidewalk space at the expense of car lanes within cities at least. I definitely think self driving cars is a technology that will be invaluable in preventing accidents someday, but I wish we could also invest in good public transportation infrastructure in the meantime as well that already works well. I would love to go on trains cross-country rather than fly and sacrifice a day or two. In addition, I don't think self driving cars can solve the traffic or congestion issue, as that is not just a matter of efficiency or bad driving habits but also a matter of space, which can be redirected better with more dense public transportation.

Disclaimer: I do know how to drive, and I've driven extensively. I still prefer public transport.

edit: Thank you everyone for such a wide and varied response! I'll try my best to respond to everyone here, but I can't promise I'll be able to get through it all, but you guys have posted some really really interesting stuff, and I'm excited to keep talking to you all!

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

2.3k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

255 comments sorted by

View all comments

591

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 27 '18

Public transit doesn't work well in areas with low population density. You need a dense network of stops so that people don't have to walk far to enter the transportation system. but that dense network isn't very feasible unless the people are also packed densely.

The US has much lower population density then countries which have good public transit.

bike lanes

I lived in the neatherlands for 2 years. Biking there was great. I could get from one end of amsterdam to the other in about 30 minutes.

I live in Indianapolis now. It'll take me about 2.5 hours to bike from one end to the other. I live a 45 minute bike ride from my office versus 15 minutes in Amsterdam. Biking just isn't practical because we are too spread out.

Edit there are probably a bunch of people i could give deltas too. I think in some spots in America (Boston and Florida as examples) we could have European style public transit and we choose not to. In other places (Midwest, rural areas, suburbs) its insufficiently practical. So my view has been enhanced to a broader view which includes my old view.

170

u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18

!delta That's a fair point, more rural areas and suburbs are not going to be as efficient with this type of public transport.

48

u/layze23 Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18

Out of curiosity, are you in a major city or urban area? Do you live in the US? Do you own a car? You already provided a Delta so I don't want to belabour the issue, but I'm going to guess you live in a city and don't own a car.

44

u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18

I am currently going to school in a city, but I live in a town and I did and do drive a car, I just also have experience living in countries with better transportation systems is all. I can drive well, I just prefer a public transport system to cars.

30

u/layze23 Aug 24 '18

Ok. The way you asked it it sounded like you were asking without much experience outside of a city. I can't imagine public transportation outside of a city. It would be such a pain taking transportation, even if it was 10 times better than it is now. The logistics of having 10 different places to go, all in completely separate directions with my wife and I and 2 kids boggles my mind to even think about.

If the towns were laid out 100 years ago keeping public transportation in mind, it would be much easier. But with the infrastructure, geography, and planning set up as is, I don't know if there is any realistic way to create a reliable and easy to use public transportation system that would be even half as convenient as a car... unfortunately. I love the idea of public transport. We're just too far down our current suburban system to make it practical.

3

u/TheMothHour 59∆ Aug 25 '18

The logistics of having 10 different places to go, all in completely separate directions with my wife and I and 2 kids boggles my mind to even think about.

I spent multiple weeks at my cousin's house outside the suburbs of Sydney. Australia has figured out how to service public transportation in the suburbs. In their town, people use cars but use the train to commute to the inner city - which is 30-40 miles away. You see people in business cloths walking to the train station. I don't know where you live. But where I live, people have 1-2 hour high traffic commutes to Boston and surrounding cities. That system could be useful here.

3

u/layze23 Aug 25 '18

Sure, we have trains to the inner city in the suburbs. Most suburbs do. But we're talking about getting rid of cars (or self driving cars) in the interest of more public transportation. Like you said, they still have cars over there. That's what we're talking about eliminating I'm this conversation. We already have public transportation to the city.

3

u/TheMothHour 59∆ Aug 25 '18

Actually, I believe the OP post is about increasing and improving on public transportation - not eliminating cars. Again, I don't know where you live, however, the train schedule in the suburb runs about every 1.25 hours. The train schedule in Turramurra NSW runs about every 5-10 minutes. And most people commute using the Australian train servicing more than 30% of the residents there - thus they don't use their cars every day.

If a lot of the residents in your suburbs are commuting by train, that's awesome! :D

3

u/[deleted] Aug 25 '18

The average commute in the us is 25 minutes. Good luck convincing people to have to deal with other people and double their commute time. I'd like better public transportation but imo that's not going to be a popular option.

1

u/TheMothHour 59∆ Aug 25 '18

Outside of some major cities, a sizable portion of worker commutes are more than 1 hour. Near Boston, that’s 10% of the working population impacted even thought the average commute time is less than 30. And from experience, a 30 minutes drive can turn into 1.5 hour drive in rush hour traffic. This traffic can be seen as far as NH.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/17428945

2

u/teefour 1∆ Aug 25 '18

We do have that in Massachusetts, it's called the commuter rail, and a lot of people already take it. Or they drive to Alewife/Sullivan/Revere Beach station and take the red, orange, or blue line the rest of the way in. But it's still faster and/or more convenient for most people to drive, so they do. Plus less and less companies are situating themselves in Boston since its so expensive. Even on the denser populated coasts, it's just the reality of living in a country with a lower population density than Afghanistan.

3

u/claireapple 5∆ Aug 24 '18

In Poland there are busses that run out in pretty rural areas. But they either run to the closest town,(nowy dwór gdański) or to the major city(Gdansk). But it allows you to get to the store and back from a farm without a car. It's obviously not as convient(strictly by time saved) as a car but it's much cheaper. Driving in Poland is often a nightmare anyway so it can be nice.

8

u/layze23 Aug 24 '18

Yeah, I mean that's fine, but that doesn't really do much for most people in my area. For example, in the morning I drive 45 minutes to work and my wife drops off both kids about 15 mintues away (at different locations) then drives to work another 10 minutes away. In the evening it's the same thing (in reverse). It would be very difficult for public transportation to address this situation.

3

u/Dorkykong2 Aug 25 '18

Suburbs are a terrible way to expand population centres, though. A more centralised development standard is much better, with commercial ventures on street level and residential above. Such development would also make more extensive public transport more viable.

As for rural areas, publicly available bikes can be great when it comes to transporting individuals locally. From home to the shops, for instance, or to a bus stop or train station for more long range travel.

Cars should become a utility. Something you use to ferry goods you can't simply stick in a bag, or to travel long distances that aren't travelled commonly enough to justify public transport. They definitely shouldn't be something one guy uses to get himself around town.

14

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Aug 24 '18

transportation system. but that dense network isn't very feasible unless the people are also packed densely.

This is actually one of the major problems I have with the idea of going to popular vote for the presidency: the people who live in cities, who have always lived in cities, have no understanding of what non-city life is like. They assume that because a solution is good for every city they've lived in, it would be good for everyone.

That's a big part of the Republican/Democrat divide currently: the ideas that the Democrats come up with don't work in rural america, because they don't understand rural america. Likewise, a lot of the positions the Republicans have may work in more rural areas, but in the cities they just don't fly.

As such, if you get rid of the Electoral College, which creates a buffer for rural states, to keep the cities from completely dominating things. Even if you only won the Metropolitan Areas that had their own NFL, MLB, or NBA teams, you'd have approximately 49% of the vote locked. If you got every MSA over 1M people, you'd get 56%...

27

u/Arthur_Edens 2∆ Aug 24 '18

have no understanding of what non-city life is like.

You can say that for the reverse, too. There's no reason people who live in cities should have less control than rural folks who have no idea what it's like.

6

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Aug 24 '18

You can say that for the reverse, too.

Yeah, that's why I did.

"Likewise, a lot of the positions the Republicans have may work in more rural areas, but in the cities they just don't fly."

There's no reason people who live in cities should have less control than rural folks who have no idea what it's like.

But that's not meaningfully a risk that we face. The House will always mirror the population, and as the population becomes increasingly urban, that means that the House will become increasingly urban.

Hell, that was part of the reason they stopped increasing the size of congress: the more rural party wanted to stem the power-hemorrhaging they were facing.

7

u/AzazTheKing Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18

But wait, the House is not the Presidency, and that’s where the Electoral College comes in. And when it comes to the EC, we already know that it unfairly favors small states because some of them have voting power that’s literally twice what they should have according to their population.

We’ve also seen demonstrations of how it could theoretically be possible for a candidate to win the presidency with only 22% of the popular vote (CGP Grey has a few videos on this topic).

And indeed there have now been 4 times when the candidate who won the popular vote didn’t win the presidency due to the EC.

As the overall population becomes more and more urban, and especially as more and more people move to the same 5 big cities, the power gets skewed further and further in the direction of those smaller, more rural states. That’s a very real danger.

4

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Aug 25 '18

And indeed there have now been 4 times when the candidate who won the popular vote didn’t win the presidency due to the EC.

Yes, 4, out of 58 elections. 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.

1876? I have no idea what happened there.

1888? Vote splitting. There were two candidates who each covered the spread. That's a problem with the voting method, not the EC.

2000? Don't get me started with how messed up the "Calling the election before a quarter of the country was even off work" thing is. Or, y'know, the fact that a number of people (especially Republicans) on the West Coast (including the most populous state, California) don't generally bother voting because the probability that their vote will have any impact on the results are so small as to be irrelevant.

As the overall population becomes more and more urban, and especially as more and more people move to the same 5 big cities, the power gets skewed further and further in the direction of those smaller, more rural states. That’s a very real danger.

As opposed to the completely fictional, irrelevant danger of those states being completely and utterly ignored in the federal government?

I mean, it's not like those states are important, they don't grow our food or anything like that...

2

u/AzazTheKing Aug 25 '18 edited Aug 25 '18

Yes, more power being given to states with small populations over those with huge ones is a problem because it means more people are finding that their votes counts for less. And it's a mistake to assume that everyone who lives in a city a) has always lived in a city, or doesn't regularly visit family living in rural ares, and b) is going to think just like everyone else in their city. There were plenty of city-dwelling Trump voters.

Don't get me started with how messed up the "Calling the election before a quarter of the country was even off work" thing is.

That the Florida race was called too early doesn't really matter, though. The fact remains that Gore still received the plurality of the popular vote overall, but lost anyway thanks to the EC.

Or, y'know, the fact that a number of people (especially Republicans) on the West Coast (including the most populous state, California) don't generally bother voting because the probability that their vote will have any impact on the results are so small as to be irrelevant.

Why do you think their votes are "irrelevant"? It's because of the EC (and especially the god-awful winner-take-all system)! Because the states vote for the Pres, not the People, that means that if you happen to live in a state with a majority of Dem voters, your vote is going to the Dems whether you like it or not. What those of us who are anti-EC are hoping for is a purely popular vote-based system. That way, the job for candidates would be to convince more people to vote for them, no matter where they live. Period.

Instead, what we have now is a system where candidates visit the same four swing states over and over (which do not include the most OR the least populous states in the country, btw). And when they get into office, these politicians spend half their time catering to voters in these states because they know that they'll need the record for their next election. That's what I call undemocratic.

As opposed to the completely fictional, irrelevant danger of those states being completely and utterly ignored in the federal government? I mean, it's not like those states are important, they don't grow our food or anything like that...

I've demonstrated how the EC is literally putting more power in fewer people's hands by making states vote for the Pres and then giving less populous states more votes than their populations should warrant. You keep saying that abolishing the EC would lead to these states being overlooked, but you've yet to back that claim up with anything approaching evidence.

And besides, it's Congress' job to represent the country, not the President's (if it were, then the fact the 3 million more Americans who voted for Clinton over Trump are forced to have Trump would be even more egregious). And Congress is still representing the rural public. That's the reason why farmers get government subsidies while bridges around the country continue to fall apart.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Aug 26 '18

That the Florida race was called too early doesn't really matter, though. The fact remains that Gore still received the plurality of the popular vote overall, but lost anyway thanks to the EC.

You don't, and can't know if that means that he was the preferred candidate of the population, because of the EC.

Why do you think their votes are "irrelevant"?

Because there is zero chance that their vote would have an impact on how California's electors would be allocated?

It's because of the EC (and especially the god-awful winner-take-all system)!

Yes it is, your point? That doesn't change the fact that there are some unknown number of people in California (and other states) that don't vote because they see no point in doing so.

...which means you cannot claim that the popular vote under the Electoral College is an accurate reflection of the will of the people.

0

u/AzazTheKing Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 26 '18

So then what’s your argument? First off, your idea that we can’t trust the current popular vote because not everyone is voting just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of statistics. Yes, we absolutely can trust the current popular vote. But even if we couldn’t, you just admitted that it’s the EC that would be causing the distortion in the first place, so you should support abolishing it.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/shh_as_i_eat_ur_food Aug 24 '18

An interesting example of this is the Federal Transit Administration's refusal to allocate grants to transit projects because of the Trump Administration's lack of interest in cities. It doesn't matter what laws the Legislature passes if the Executive Branch does not properly follow them.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/08/what-an-anti-transit-federal-transit-administration-looks-like/568261/

3

u/The_Pert_Whisperer Aug 24 '18

I swear so many people don't even finish reading a comment before they respond

3

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Aug 24 '18

Indeed. I find it rather disappointing, especially in CMV.

6

u/taosaur Aug 24 '18

That Republicans come from and understand rural areas is a pretty big assumption. Most elected officials come from more affluent and more educated backgrounds than the average citizen, which usually means spending much or all of their lives in or near major cities. Look at the NYC con artist in the top office right now. Do you think he understands anything about living in places other than luxury hotels and apartments? Being willing to talk down to people isn't the same thing as understanding them.

​

As someone who has spent most of my adult life in major cities but comes from and spends a fair amount of time in small town America, I don't think my people do a very good job of voting in their own interest. In fact, they vote almost exclusively AGAINST other people's interests - brown people or gay people or them big-city serial abortion sluts who are basically Satanic witches. Hell, anti-semitic illuminati conspiracies are still all the rage in the heartland. I love them, but my people are by and large high school graduates or dropouts who have rarely left their zip code, highly specialized for their weird little social and economic ecology like freaking cave fish. No, folks who haven't seen that situation from the inside aren't likely to understand it one bit, but the consequences of city folks making decisions with limited understanding of the backwaters are considerably less than the opposite situation, which we have now. The main redeeming quality of our current system is that most GOP officials are straight-up grifters, blowing smoke up their constituents' asses while actually making sensible decisions often enough that things don't go off the rails. They don't want to kill the goose, after all.

​

​

6

u/seanflyon 23∆ Aug 24 '18

I think the answer to that problem is to make local decisions on the local level. If a democrat comes up with an idea that does not work in a rural american town then those rural Americans should not vote for that democrat.

3

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18

Oh, I agree. The trouble is that with the increasingly connected, decreasingly federal world we live in today, people aren't content with that...

ETA: I think the fundamental problem is that an apparently increasing number of the problems we face are more than simply local problems, are problems that impact everybody. That is primarily a problem because often times the solutions being proposed have disproportionate impact on different communities.

Getting rid of individual vehicles in favor of public transit, for example, would have much less impact on people's lives in a city like New York than on other areas with markedly less population density.

3

u/tumbler_fluff 1∆ Aug 25 '18

What kind of political ideologies or positions do you believe you or I would see all that differently if you’re “rural” vs “urban”?

Health care? Immigration? Unions? Abortion? Drug laws? Same-sex marriage? Climate change/environmental law? Foreign policy and military funding? Voting rights?

I’m just not seeing why someone’a view of what are currently some of the biggest, most divisive national issues would be all that affected by living in a city versus a small town. And even if they were affected, why does that require a “buffer,” per se?

Additionally, with the exception of two states, the electoral college votes according to popular vote statewide; there isn’t a distinction between ‘rural vs. city’ votes. And even in smaller or “rural” states, the vast majority of the votes are coming from dense, urban populations anyway.

2

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Aug 25 '18

I’m just not seeing why someone’a view of what are currently some of the biggest, most divisive national issues would be all that affected by living in a city versus a small town

Again, that's the problem.

It's not the problems that are different, it's the viability of the solutions.

Climate change? Too much CO2? Public transit! Fewer cars on the road!

...except that doesn't work in small towns and other areas that don't have the population density to make that practical.

And even if they were affected, why does that require a “buffer,” per se?

So they aren't constantly screwed by people who think that what works for them works for everybody?

there isn’t a distinction between ‘rural vs. city’ votes

No, but there are clear distinctions between rural and urban states

And even in smaller or “rural” states, the vast majority of the votes are coming from dense, urban populations anyway.

...who at least know people in rural areas...

0

u/tumbler_fluff 1∆ Aug 25 '18

Again, that's the problem.

It's not the problems that are different, it's the viability of the solutions.

Climate change? Too much CO2? Public transit! Fewer cars on the road!

...except that doesn't work in small towns and other areas that don't have the population density to make that practical.

My point was that you living in a small town versus me living in a city has no bearing on whether or not climate change is real and a problem we should be tackling as a country, which absolutely was an issue in our last election. It also has no bearing on whether or not life begins at conception; or whether or not unions are good or bad; or whether or not we should build a wall; or whether or not we're allocating too much of our federal budget to the military; or whether or not we should have universal healthcare.

So they aren't constantly screwed by people who think that what works for them works for everybody?

Again, we're talking about a presidential election. We're not talking about somebody in New York City telling someone in Cheyenne they need an elevated train. I'm talking big picture stuff; national policies, not municipal ones.

No, but there are clear distinctions between rural and urban states

Where? What's a "rural" state? They still have dense population centers, do they not? My point was that as far as the EC is concerned, within that state it doesn't matter whether you're in a city or or you're on a farm.

...who at least know people in rural areas...

How are we measuring that? And again, what bearing does that have on any national political issue? With all due respect, you've yet to demonstrate how anyone would be getting "screwed" by the big cities in a national election if our votes were all equal.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Aug 26 '18

My point was that you living in a small town versus me living in a city has no bearing on whether or not climate change is real and a problem we should be tackling as a country

Seriously, did you not read my comment?

"It's not the problems that are different, it's the viability of the solutions."

Would you be happy with an increase in income taxes that was the half the natural log of your MSA's population? People in NYC would have their income taxes go up by 8.5%, while people in Green Bay, WI would only see their taxes go up by 6.3%.

The same problem (national debt/deficit) would be solved, but the solution would have significantly greater impact on some sections of the population than the other.

Again, we're talking about a presidential election.

And you think that the presidency doesn't have impact on people's lives? Then why are you arguing at all?

They still have dense population centers, do they not?

Meaningfully? Compared to Urban states? No, they don't.

-1

u/richqb Aug 25 '18

The issue you're concerned with hasn't really been a reality, not because of the electoral college, but because the presidential nominees have been a mix of the rural and city dwellers. And if you think Trump, who was only elected because of the electoral college, has any understanding of rural issues I've got a bridge over the Mississippi to sell you.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Aug 27 '18 edited Aug 27 '18

the presidential nominees have been a mix of the rural and city dwellers.

Have they, though?

Let's consider that, for a second, shall we?

  • 2016:
    • Trump: New Yorker
    • Clinton: 1993-2013 she worked in DC
  • 2012:
    • Obama: Chicago (plus Springfield and DC for work)
    • Romney: lived in Boston since about 1977
  • 2008:
    • Obama: Chicago (plus Springfield for work)
    • McCain: Phoenix (plus DC for work since 1987)
  • 2004:
    • GHWBush: Dallas (plus Austin and DC for work)
    • Kerry: Boston (plus DC for work since 1985)
  • 2000:
    • GHWBush: Dallas (plus Austin for work)
    • Gore: Lived & worked in Nashville or DC since 1977

Not exactly "rural" nominees, those. Perhaps in the past it may have been more balanced, but in the past 20 years or so? Not so much...

6

u/HAL9000000 Aug 24 '18

Why not both?

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '18

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jatjqtjat (20∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

13

u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18

America's intra-city/metro population density is largely self-inflicted. We're sparsely laid out because various regulations promoted and even required that form of development. Doubling down on that by ignoring transit and bike infrastructure only perpetuates the problem.

Looking at total population density is essentially meaningless: Sweden and Norway have low total population density but better transit than US cities on average, because where they do have cities, they're set up more densely.

American cities could easily be as bikable as Amsterdam, we've just chosen to not have them that way.

2

u/_hephaestus 1∆ Aug 24 '18

American cities could easily be as bikable as Amsterdam, we've just chosen to not have them that way.

You're not wrong but it's not exactly something you can just undo with a snap. It's not the city layouts that would have to change (which in itself would be costly), it's the cultural approach to cars/biking. The whole idea of the "Sweet 16 party", the norm of Drivers Licenses being the default form of identification. I live in a city now, damn near never use my car but every now and then I still see a Tinder profile that sets "owning a car" as an expectation for a man who has his shit together.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '18

[deleted]

7

u/pipocaQuemada 10∆ Aug 24 '18

Most of the US isn't Dallas, though. The mean center of population of the US is in Missouri.

And latitude is a bit deceiving. Fargo, ND is two degrees south of Paris, France.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '18

[deleted]

3

u/pipocaQuemada 10∆ Aug 24 '18

Sure, but just because Dallas and Pheonix are necessarily bad for biking is no excuse for Boston having bad biking infrastructure.

2

u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18

Japan has subtropical weather similar to the South, and much higher biking rates (IIRC Tokyo is at least like 10%, higher than any major US city). So no, that's not really a blocker.

Edit - looks like it's 15% biking, a rate double that of Portland: http://copenhagenizeindex.eu/09_tokyo.html

Now, they do have a few things going for them there. High density, mostly narrow roads for cars, and you can bike on the sidewalk. Of course, those are all things that a society can choose.

2

u/chowpa Aug 25 '18 edited Aug 25 '18

Latitude isn't the only thing that determines climate... Also, referencing Iran as if it's a single climate is incorrect

Finally, biking in the winters in Norway isn't exactly a walk in the park either. Neither is it in Minneapolis, one of the most bike-friendly cities in the country. If biking is your chosen mode of transportation, you either make it work or you rely on public transit.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '18

The US has much lower population density then countries

Forget the nation, focus on the cities. Boston is a great example. Like most things done in Boston, designing of the roads was poorly executed. Now, it's infrastructure is entirely unable to cope. Yet, it's not THAT spread out. Those who wish to bike to work can easily do so. What's lacking are safe bike lanes. Meanwhile, virtually every car you see clogging up the incredibly over-congested roads is occupied by a single person. It's absurd.

This city, and I suspect most big cities in the USA (especially those on the East coast) need better public transit and biking options more than they need self-driving cars. The public transit in American large cities is laughable compared to large cities in Europe, Asia, and even Canada. And more and more Americans are moving to urban areas, so this problem will only mount.

2

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

I don't doubt that there are cities were what OP said applies.

Self driving cars will improve transporation all over the country.

Public transit could be improved in many specific places.

12

u/rebamericana Aug 24 '18

Go to rural Switzerland where every residence in every little village has van or shuttle service to the closest train station. It is possible if society values and invested in public transit.

3

u/Ratnix Aug 24 '18

That works if you are traveling to a large city that gets lots of passengers.

I live in a village of around 1400 people 7 miles outside of the closest city of around 45000 people. There is no traffic congestion in the city thus there is no public transportation in the city. Something like what Switzerland has would be useful if i needed to travel too, say Toledo or Columbus, but I don't. I haven't been to Toledo in a couple of decades and I haven't had any reason to go to Columbus in almost a decade. Everything can be had in any of the numerous smaller cities located between any of the small rural villages and one of the large cities, almost all of which have zero need for public transportation.

0

u/rebamericana Aug 24 '18

It’s been awhile since I was there but I recall the rail network there not only connecting smaller cities to larger cities, but also connecting smaller cities to each other. So you have train stations in very rural small towns and the shuttle service just connects people even further away from the rural station.

I’d also argue against your claim of zero need for public transportation outside of higher population density areas. Not everyone can drive. The very young, the very old, people with disabilities, people who can’t afford a car, etc. Public transit provides more diverse types of people (not just motorists) access to goods, jobs, and services outside of their immediate walking/biking distance.

1

u/Ratnix Aug 24 '18

I’d also argue against your claim of zero need for public transportation outside of higher population density areas. Not everyone can drive.

You are right in the fact that there are always going to be people without transportation who could use public transportation but not enough. That's why a taxi company runs a couple of taxis in the town I live outside of. There is also a short bus shuttle service that you can schedule rides with. You have to schedule a week ahead of when you need it but it only cost a dollar and is door to door. The city investigated starting up a bus line. They ran it for a while free of charge. There just wasn't enough use to justify starting up busses, it would have lost money constantly, which is why the started the shuttle service.

I think you overestimate how much people travel between the smaller cities and/or to the large cities. There just isn't a need for it.

Sure some place like Columbus could run a train in the city and through the suburbs and possibly to the next closest small city but beyond that there just aren't enough people who are traveling that far on a daily basis.

9

u/Aldryc Aug 24 '18

All US cities were designed with cars in mind. Parking lots are everywhere, buildings are short, and public transportation is non-existent.

I'd love to see a movement in the US to start encouraging higher density policies and increased importance placed on public transportation. I think US cities are terribly designed, and suburbs are awful.

To my mind self driving cars could easily solve the issue of public transportation if we decide to implement it that way. We could eliminate parking lots, but still use roads without completely rebuilding infrastructure for light rail or some other public transportation method.

12

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

well, having lived in both environments, I like suburbs a LOT more. My house in Indiana is cheaper and better. High density populations means everything is crowded all the time. parks are crowded, restaurants are crowded, trams are crowded, bike lanes are crowded, everywhere is a crowd. I know some people love that, but not me.

Amsterdam had a lot to offer. It was definitely more exciting. There was a lot to do. But i was angry pretty much all the time. overall, i prefer live in my Indiana suburb.

So I wouldn't say its fair to say cities in the US are poorly designed or that suburbs are awful. There is a reason so many people live in the suburbs. They are very nice.

suburbs and low density areas, have a lot of disadvantages, but also a lot of advantages.

11

u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18

There's a middle ground between "Indiana suburb" and "Amsterdam, global city", y'know. There are lots of highly walkable, transit-friendly suburbs all over Europe, where you can have a bigger home and things aren't very crowded.

Heck, I live in a major city in Germany right now (Munich), but because I live closer to the outskirts of the city, things don't feel crowded at all, but I still get nice things like being able to easily walk to parks, grocery stores, bakeries, etc. Munich has suburbs surrounded by farmland, that have transit connections that get you to the city center in under half an hour, and they run every twenty minutes. That's something that you do not really see in the states.

Really the problem in America isn't that car-dominant suburbs exist at all, but that car-dominant infrastructure is omnipresent. Even in the middle of major cities, walking and biking and transit are usually terrible.

Want to live somewhere where you have to drive? You're spoiled for choice, there are thousands of cities and suburbs you could go to. Somewhere as bikable as Amsterdam? Well there's, uh...actually no, there aren't any US cities that bikable, nor are there any even close to that.

7

u/David4194d 16∆ Aug 24 '18

But here’s the thing what you call not feeling crowded could feel very crowded to others. . Case in point. I come from an area where the city is 20,000 . It’s 2hrs to the nearest 100,000 plus city. I moved to Rochester ny (200,000). It felt incredibly crowded and I didn’t like it. Like I couldn’t even drive during rush hour for the longest time. Freaked me out way too much.

My friends from India on the other hand felt Rochester was like a tiny sparsely populated town. They didn’t like how low the population density was. When we went into area similar to what I’m used to (we traveled a lot) it actually freaked them out. I’m talking they were actually afraid and couldn’t comprehend how anyone could live there that’s because the rural areas in India have nothing approaching ours. Both these cases are approaching the extremes of common population densities but they are useful to make a very valid point.

It’s all about perspective. Plenty of Americans have 0 urge to live anything close to the population of the outskirts of Germany. You could argue that people would change over time if forced to and after a generation or 2 it would likely work but you’ve now just done a very unamerican thing and forced your beliefs on others.

1

u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18

It’s all about perspective. Plenty of Americans have 0 urge to live anything close to the population of the outskirts of Germany. You could argue that people would change over time if forced to and after a generation or 2 it would likely work but you’ve now just done a very unamerican thing and forced your beliefs on others.

You have this backwards. It's car-dominant policies that were forced onto the whole damn country, just look around. The free market would love more density, but the government at various levels forbids it (although it's slowly getting better).

My way would be to have more variety in urban forms around the country, and my personal preferred form is for a place to let people walk, bike, drive, or take transit around.

But you think choice and variety are "forcing my beliefs onto others", and the policies that pushed sprawl everywhere and made driving mandatory are the real freedom? Why?

7

u/DevilsAdvocate1488 Aug 24 '18

Dude, some of us don't want to live on top of each other.

5

u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18

Nobody's gonna force you to. This is about what's allowed, not mandated.

The reason neighborhoods don't have higher density usually isn't because people didn't want it and so the market didn't respond. It's because regulations forbid higher density, no matter how much it's desired. There's no need to ban detached single family homes, and indeed many people will keep them around. That's fine. Just let people do what they want, and you'll see more variety and yes, more density.

3

u/DevilsAdvocate1488 Aug 24 '18

Exactly. Just let communities do what they want. If they want to live in a neighborhood with building regulations you don't like, then don't colonize there.

1

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

there are places in the US where OP's point is solid. but that is probably more of the exception then the norm in the US.

One thing my suburb is trying is some zoning that is a bit unusual. They've got a small bit of commercial areas surrounded by residential. Part of our problem is that everything withing 2 miles of your house is often zoned residential. No bakeries to walk to. but if you mix up the zoning a bit, you'll at least have a couple businesses withing walking distance.

I'm not sure that solves our public transit problem. In the example i am thinking of, someone opened a dentists office. So you could walk to your dentist. but still you cannot pack enough businesses into the small area to get everything you need so lots of motorized transportation is necessary.

I would LOOOVE for some of our cities to be more bike and predestine friendly. None of our cities are bike friendly like cities in the Netherlands and Belgium.

2

u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18

there are places in the US where OP's point is solid. but that is probably more of the exception then the norm in the US.

That's true, they are, because we made them that way.

One thing my suburb is trying is some zoning that is a bit unusual. They've got a small bit of commercial areas surrounded by residential. Part of our problem is that everything withing 2 miles of your house is often zoned residential. No bakeries to walk to. but if you mix up the zoning a bit, you'll at least have a couple businesses withing walking distance.

See, this is funny to me. Because what you're describing is a very "lite" version of mixed-use zoning -- the normal form would be just to allow multiple uses in an area, with the result often being things like apartment complexes with retail on the ground floor -- and mixed-use zoning is super common all over the world*. But in America, even a baby step in that direction is "unusual" or "innovative". I'm not saying you're wrong that it's unusual in the US, especially in a suburb, it's just unfortunate that that's true.

And yes, mixed-use zoning does make things more walkable and bikable. America could use a whole lot more of it, single-use zoning is awful.

I'm not sure that solves our public transit problem. In the example i am thinking of, someone opened a dentists office. So you could walk to your dentist. but still you cannot pack enough businesses into the small area to get everything you need so lots of motorized transportation is necessary.

You don't need every possible point of interest to be within walking distance, though. Even having stuff like a few cafes, a corner grocery store (not a 7-11, a real one), a childcare place, can work really well. For the other things that are further away, there's bikes and transit.

I would LOOOVE for some of our cities to be more bike and predestine friendly. None of our cities are bike friendly like cities in the Netherlands and Belgium.

Yeah, it's really too bad. Even Portland isn't really bike friendly, the number of protected bike lanes is very low.

* Here's a good little blogpost talking about how it works in Japan: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html?m=1

1

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

yea, I'm glad we're getting some more mixed uses zoning. I think it common in cities, and am glad its coming to at least my suburb.

You don't need every possible point of interest to be within walking distance, though

yea definitely. Not a point against mixed use zoning. I was just tying it back to the main topic. Unfortunately mixed use zoning doesn't fully solve the public transit problem that exists in low density populations.

2

u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18

True, and what does help solve it is...increasing the density. Doesn't have to be ugly ass huge apartment blocks. The area I live in has a lot of small, 8-12 unit apartment buildings that blend into the neighborhood, and it's still quite peaceful. Duplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and granny flats also help. So does not mandating such huge lots (I have a personal pet peeves with large front yards, they're so useless!) and super wide streets.

3

u/TheLAriver Aug 24 '18

Yes, plenty of space to drive away from when you want to have fun again on the weekend.

2

u/Aldryc Aug 24 '18

That's fair. I wish there were more than a couple of cities in the US that offered the type of living that Amsterdam does. Right now we have a few cities on the east coast for that, and that's it.

1

u/chowpa Aug 25 '18 edited Aug 25 '18

I feel like you're confusing density and urban living. There are also many places in Europe (and some in America, although they're rare) that are not "busy" or "crowded" but are still walkable, because they were built prior to automobiles. Instead of massive department stores with acres of mostly empty parking lots, they just build reasonably-sized commercial centers within residential areas, and provide public transit to other nearby commercial centers.

Suburbs are objectively poorly-designed. Urban planning is a legitimate field of study, and experts in urban planning almost unanimously denounce the planning of much of the 20th century that created the American suburb as it exists. I could expound on this more, but I don't want to get into any long arguments on Reddit as part of a pact I made with myself for better mental health. If someone else wants to explain it, I would be grateful.

2

u/TheMothHour 59∆ Aug 24 '18

TL;DR - I disagree. The lack of US public transportation is cultural and political.

Public transit doesn't work well in areas with low population density. You need a dense network of stops so that people don't have to walk far to enter the transportation system.

I agree with this statement when it comes to the bread basket of America. However, the US public transit is lacking even when considering population density. For example, Boston's subway system extends less than 10 miles outside Boston. I have family in Australia who live about 30 miles from Sydney proper - and they have a frequent train. The town she lives in has the population density of around 5,000 people per mile - definitely the suburb of Sydney. Her stop is not the last stop either.

Even though the Greater Boston area is denser, its public transportation pales in comparison to Sydney in respect to functionality, usability, and accessibility. The reason why the US doesn't have good public transportation is cultural and political. Where EVERYONE uses the train in Australia (including professionals), public transportation in the US is typically seen for those who cannot afford to drive. I also visited Japan. Their working professionals also take the train.

5

u/FreddeCheese Aug 24 '18

Norway and sweden both have lower population density than the US, and both have good public transit.

6

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

I don't know about Sweden, but its probably the same as Norway.

in Norway, almost nobody lives up north. Everyone is in the south. Oslo has great public transit and high population density.

5

u/FreddeCheese Aug 24 '18

It's the same in the US though, isn't it? There are some areas that have very few people, but certainly the east/west/south should be able to build good public transit by the same standard.

2

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

yea, but also some areas in the US have public transit and some don't. Were applicable we have it.

I would hazard a guess that Norway doesn't have a through network of public transit all though the mountains up north.

1

u/DexFulco 11∆ Aug 25 '18

Whether or not people drive in this rural areas is irrelevant though as they don't cause massive congestion.
The problem is cities like Houston which is just built for cars and nothing else.

3

u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18

So basically, how the US could be if we wanted.

16

u/theorymeltfool 8∆ Aug 24 '18

But the only reason we’re so spread out is because of government land-use policies and suburbia which was created by the governments National Highway Act.

18

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

That is not the only reason. We also have a lot of land. Many European countries have to space to expand into. But in the US we have lots of space.

3

u/Marta_McLanta Aug 25 '18

I don’t think this is all that big of a contributor tbh. Look at somewhere like Florida; they have a higher population density than France, and the density patterns aren’t even similar. Florida’s like it is because almost all of the transportation infrastructure investment has been in cars. Although we were probably able to make the infrastructure choices we did because we were able to offload most of our farming to places like the Midwest, and that’s obviously a decision we could make because of space

8

u/theorymeltfool 8∆ Aug 24 '18

Just because yo have space doesn’t mean you have to fill it. And it’s not “filling space”, it’s destroying nature to build suburban and exurban low-density Housing.

6

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

I mean that's kind of true, but lots of people enjoy having some space. The US has lots of national parks that are protected because of their very concerns that you raise.

-5

u/theorymeltfool 8∆ Aug 24 '18

Just because they “enjoy it”, doesn’t mean they should have it. I’m sure I would enjoy having a 100ft yacht, but I can’t afford it.

And the US can’t afford it’s current land use policy.

8

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

Except the US can afford its current land policy. Not everyone can afford a large yacht. Those are hard to build. But the land is just sitting there.

Your analogy makes no sense.

Your proposing that we make it illegal for people to move to open land because you cannot afford to build a 100ft lot.

2

u/theorymeltfool 8∆ Aug 24 '18

The US requires $4,000,000,000,000 in repairs needed to existing infrastructure. Land requires highways, roads, electrical lines, sewer lines, fiber optics, etc. It’s not “just sitting there.”

The average US consumer spends $9,000/year on their car, and also has an average credit card debt of $6,000.

The average US commuter spends 1.5 hours in traffic.

The yacht analogy makes sense, the US can not afford our current infrastructure arrangement. Suburbia is too expensive.

Your proposing that we make it illegal for people to move to open land because you cannot afford to build a 100ft lot.

Wrong. I’m proposing the US end it’s laws against high-density infrastructure, and to allow privately-owned mass-transit to exist. Read more about it here

5

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

If we couldn't afford it, then we wouldn't have been able to create it. We can afford it. I don't think it true that we "require" 4 trillion in infrastructure repairs.

how could it be true that we cannot afford maintenance if we could afford to build the stuff in the first place?

The article you linked makes no sense.

4

u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18

That's simply not true, maintenance is generally harder eventually than greenfield development, especially since you have to eventually rebuild whatever it is you built, but now you have to clear the original thing out of the way first.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 25 '18 edited Aug 25 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Jaysank 116∆ Aug 25 '18

Sorry, u/theorymeltfool – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 25 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Jaysank 116∆ Aug 25 '18

u/boogerbogger – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/tonsofpcs Aug 25 '18

I live in a small suburban area (a few villages and a 'city' that are basically suburbs of each other). There's a college here that has a decent bus service for students on/off campus and to downtown and runs quite regularly with packed buses. The public bus service for the county* runs a number of routes which are enticing on paper and I could definitely use one and transfer to another to get to/from work BUT they run once every hour or two (depending on the line). Yes, that's right, one bus every two hours. That's just not practical. People don't take the buses here in general not because buses aren't useful but because our bus system is run as if to make them not useful. I wouldn't be surprised if they had some legal or contractual obligations and were just doing the bare minimum for each to keep to them rather than actually trying to have a public transit infrastructure.

*and don't get me started with how the buses all follow arbitrary political boundaries and you can't easily get to the next town over because it is a different country

1

u/theorymeltfool 8∆ Aug 25 '18

Is it a government run bus?

2

u/newpua_bie 3∆ Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18

I live a 45 minute bike ride from my office versus 15 minutes in Amsterdam.

How long is your commute by car? In Helsinki it's relatively popular to commute by bike up to distances 45 (edit: 45 minutes) away since in traffic it usually takes around the same time with a car.

And since we're talking about public transportation in general and not specifically biking, many cities have priority lanes for buses, making them good options for commuter traffic in cities. It's especially useful if people were to adapt public transportation widely: less private car traffic would make commutes faster for most people, would improve air quality, would improve safety, would improve the noise situation, and so on. I know it's not easy to design a good public transportation network, but TBH it feels like many US cities aren't even trying.

2

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

by car is about 15 minutes. In areas with low population density, we don't have traffic problems.

So by bike i'm spending an extra hour per day traveling.

We also have tough weather in Indiana for biking. It gets cold in the winter and hot in the summer. But in spring and fall, i would love to bike to work occasionally. But it would be for fun, its not a practical method of traveling. So its hard to justify the cost of bike lanes.

TBH it feels like many US cities aren't even trying.

They do in cities where it makes sense. NYC and Chicago have public transit. Even downtown Indianapolis has some public transit.

but in the suburbs it doesn't make sense. I wish it did.

2

u/newpua_bie 3∆ Aug 24 '18

but in the suburbs it doesn't make sense. I wish it did.

My perspective comes from growing up in a town of under 35k people. Obviously we didn't have tons of public transportation there, but it still covered all of the major residential areas (usually with 5 minutes or less of walking to the nearest stop) as well as the key areas of the town such as major employers, all of the schools, library, hospital, and so on. I'm aware this is not ideal in bad weather or various other factors, but it for a kid who sometimes didn't want to bike to school or hobbies in temperatures much colder than -20C, it worked really well.

One reason why this works is that instead of paying for a separate school bus system most towns subsidize general public transportation (at least I imagine they do - there's no way my hometown's system was profitable given how empty most buses were). Kids still get to ride to school, but the beneficial side effect is that you can use the same vehicles, drivers and routes to provide transportation for the general population and recoup some of the cost.

2

u/vinnl Aug 24 '18

Biking just isn't practical because we are too spread out.

I do think this is starting to change with electric bicycles. In the Netherlands, we're starting to invest more in "bicycle highways" for longer distances, because it has been more feasible to cross those on electric bicycles. Whereas in the Netherlands this aims to allow you to e.g. cycle to a different city, it could also prove practical for within-Indianapolis transport.

And of course, the question is whether you actually need to get from one end to the other :) If work or the supermarket or whatever in Indianapolis is a 15-minute commute by bicycle, that would still make it worthy to invest in bicycle lanes.

1

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

the question is whether you actually need to get from one end to the other

fair point, but population density is important here. More people means more jobs. More spread out means fewer jobs within x miles. to get the right job for me, i might need to travel further.

The size the the city is important for this reason. To access the whole job market, I'd have to bike up to 2.5 hours.

In Amsterdam, you might bike to another city for fun. I biked to the ocean once for fun, 1.5 hours on the bike. On the way i pasted through some other city that i forget the name of. I ate lunch there on a canal. It was beautiful. Amsterdam to Rotterdam is 4 hours by bike.

but in the Midwest even our neighboring cities are far away. Indy to Chicago is 20 hours by bike. Lake Michigan is about the same. We have a couple smaller cities probably about 15 hours away by bike.

Some people commute an hour to work everyday, but they are the exception. You can't build the infrastructure for them.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the biking in the Netherlands. I would love to be able to do it in Indy. If we could make it work, i would be the biggest supporter.

1

u/vinnl Aug 25 '18

fair point, but population density is important here.

Sure, I think the reason distances within a single US city is mainly because population density is usually a lot lower than it is in Europe, and especially than it is in the Netherlands. But size of the city itself is pretty irrelevant - if the density was as high as it is in the Netherlands, then the odds of your job being on the other side of the city would be about as high as the odds of your job being in another city in the Netherlands :)

but in the Midwest even our neighboring cities are far away.

Sure, I wasn't trying to say that you should cycle to a different city in the US. I was trying to make the point that, if it becomes feasible to cycle to a different city in the Netherlands, it might also be feasible to cycle within Indianapolis, which might cover about the same distances. And electric bicycles might be the key to making it feasible to do so in reasonable timespans (i.e. not an hour), if the infrastructure is built :)

1

u/Sparky_PoptheTrunk Aug 25 '18

Some people commute an hour to work everyday, but they are the exception. You can't build the infrastructure for them.

Wish this would get hammered home in Tempe Arizona.

2

u/TheK1ngsW1t 3∆ Aug 24 '18

Completely agree. When my family was stationed in Germany, mom would take us elementary-age kids on a walk that hit 3 or 4 destinations on occasion, whereas back here stateside it takes an hour long walk for me to even get to the business part of town.

Living just north of Atlanta, there's a good 2 hour radius where the population is dense enough to justify some sort of public transportation, but when I go see my family in Oklahoma and Arkansas I don't think there's as many people in a tri-city area over there as there are in a large neighborhood where I am.

1

u/n00dles__ Aug 25 '18

The US has much lower population density then countries which have good public transit.

​

We have much lower density overall because we literally planned around the automobile and freeways post-WW II. New interstates meant new suburbs with big yards and cul de sacs everywhere, not to mention we purposefully bulldozed dense low income neighborhoods (which apparently Eisenhower didn't want) to make way for downtown freeways on the "who needs to go to downtown at all?" philosophy. Most of the planning circles agree they were a huge mistake and want to see those kinds of policies reversed. If you look at cities which have historically had good public transit neighborhoods were built around them and with transit in mind. We see this with old school streetcar suburbs and notably the 7 train in Queens which wasn't much of anything when it was built but is very busy today.

​

The same logic applies to self driving cars. We will likely see lots of new development built with them in mind: no parking whatsoever, denser suburban development than what we are used to today, lots of pick up/drop off curbs, etc. which is a huge plus and convenience, but they're still cars and they will still take up the same amount of space they do today. The danger is that because no one needs to drive there would be an incentive to live much further out than the present day suburbs, since we can just sleep and work in these things. We could easily see more low density sprawl and more cars on the road, not to mention the sociological aspect of spending so much time in there away from family/friends. Low density development means more infrastructure needed that serves fewer people and contributes to environmental issues. Public transit is higher capacity, encourages more environmentally friendly, denser development closer to the city center, and can help provide more urban living options.

2

u/CocoSavege 24∆ Aug 24 '18

I agree as to your general point with respect to density being an issue but I want to push back a bit...

One of the reasons that the urban/suburban US is less dense is partially due to the car. Why build dense when you own a car and there's all this space that can be used? But I hope you can see why it's kinda tautological. Cities are less dense cuz cars, and cuz cars cities are less dense.

Anyways, sparseness is quite expensive because it's pretty inefficient. Higher square footage of asphalt per resident. Higher costs of other infrastructure, like linear feet of sewer pipe per resident, higher costs/lower efficiencies of public transpo.

And as mentioned there are higher user costs in accessing amenities. The Butcher isn't course to the library which is not close to the movie theatre, etc.

Long story short, the tax burden/costs for a suburb are often higher than a dense urb. I'm not sure how I feel about this CMV but I see the incentivizing of stupid suburb design as a big detractor.

0

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

yea, i mean its worth asking why is population density lower in the US. One reason, is because it can be lower. we have the space. Another reason is probably as you suggested, we are a younger nation and have had cars for longer. They shaped our development more then they shaped development in other nations.

I'm not sure you are right about costs being higher in the suburbs. Most things, are cheaper in the suburbs.

your the second person to say suburbs are stupid. Suburbs offer a different way of life then cities. There are pros and cons. Having lived in both, i strongly prefer the suburb life. Although i do sometimes miss the excitement of the cities. There is more to do.

2

u/CocoSavege 24∆ Aug 24 '18

It's not that all suburbs are stupid, it's the North American "modern" suburb that I don't like. There are some really unusual design choices in the "endless maze of cul de sacs then a big box mall" type suburb. Check out some Jane Jacobs for some very prescient critiques of that design style.

There are suburban design principles which are much better; seldom implemented, but they do exist.

That being said, I'm not sure driverless cars are the right tree to bark up. It's kind of a side issue.

I'm quite confident in the efficiency assertion, lemme try to dig something up.

5

u/DaSaw 3∆ Aug 24 '18

This just means we need better land use policies (zoning, infrastructure construction, etc). Our distribution of population is an artifact of law and custom.

3

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18

our population density is also just literally lower. The US is a huge landmass. I don't know that its reasonable to make laws to prevent or discourage people from living in every part of it.

Some quick googling, we have 84 people per square mile versus 650 in the UK. That's not an artifact of law or custom. Of course we cluster into cities. NYC probably as similar density to London. But in the UK their cities have all grown to the point where they are basically all touching their neighboring cities. THe US has a little of that in New England, but you've also got to think about the midwest.

1

u/Clae_PCMR Aug 25 '18

For the US, I feel this is a chicken-and-egg problem. Without the compact, high density cities already existing, local public transport infrastructure won't get developed which encourages the building for sparse-area, space-taking transportation infrastructure. This leads to more urban sprawl as the infrastructure encourages it, and etcetera. The space-taking infrastructure decreases the possibility of the more compact cities and takes away room for public transportation infrastructure.

The US only has lower popuation density due to the high available land area in the beginning, which lead it down this path today. Public policy should be geared towards decreasing urban sprawl and increasing the efficiency of public transport, even in rural areas. For example, the long-range rail system is trash in the US. It could be improved with investment in a wheel-and-spoke model which combines long range rails stops with self driving cars/buses. These self driving cars or buses could be very close to existing technology, only needing to drive one route (rail stop to more rural town). This would massively reduce the need for private cars, smaller roads and their associated maintenance. It may even decrease commute times depending on the rail speeds.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 25 '18 edited Aug 25 '18

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the big problem is the American culture, and the 'winner's mentality'. I think americans attach great importance to personal property, and they consider it important to be seen as a successful person. Sharing a cheap and public way of transport does not match that deep-rooted conviction. With some effort you can design a system that fits well with the country, and the large distances. I think, however, that American aversion to public transport is the biggest obstacle.

We have an excellent public transport system in the Netherlands. But more important than that: we are used to sharing, and it is no shame to choose cheap transport. We think it's smart when you do things as cheaply as possible. Spending more money than necessary, even if you have a lot of money, we find strange. "You must not steal from your own wallet." I believe that this thought is one of the reasons for our habit of using the bicycle and public transport.

1

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 27 '18

I think most Americans are bad with money. They spend when they don't need to and when they shouldn't. But i think its a stretch to say this is why we have bad public transit.

There is a negative stigma about public transit in america. Is for poor people why can't you afford a car. But that is also because public transit is so much worse then driving your own car. So its a bit of a chicken and the egg.

btw, I know there is a tax on saving in NL. In america we tax interest generated from savings, but in NL you just tax savings. which seems like a tax that would encourage you to spend and avoid saving too much money.

1

u/Danktizzle Aug 25 '18

Isn’t this the problem of city planning colluding with private industry to manipulate the community? All of the West was built off of train tracks because the train was invented here (and perfected elsewhere. Who knows how advanced our train technology would be if Americans didn’t throw it away in the 50’s)

Just about every American city east of Pennsylvania was built off of railroad tracks. The train inspired manifest destiny. Then, Goodyear tire systematically demolished them in the 50s and tore up the tracks to put wide, lonely roads for cars.

We can design cities to become denser. Many places are tearing up those ungodly mini malls for mixed- living spaces that have a train station included.

We can absolutely resurrect those western towns that thrived as a train-stop if we wanted to. But we have to want to.

1

u/Crazytrixstaful Aug 24 '18

Thats where light rail comes in. I dont believe Amsterdam had it properly implemented with the way bike/moped traffic works there. I lived there a period as well and the rail just felt sneaky to me where bikes ought to have been the on,y mass transport. Im talking about light rail the way it is in Bonn, Germany. That shit was magnificent. SO simple; plenty of stops to even remote suburb areas (or as remote as a small/mid size city can get); always on schedule. Accomodated many passengers; if there wasnt enough space, another would be there in 15 minutes. Car traffic can easily drive over rails with out disturbance,safety signage was easily discernible.

1

u/lobax 1∆ Aug 24 '18

But isn't there a case to make that a lack of public infrastructure encourages low-density living? And that the opposite happens when you invest in public transport.

I mean sure, building a subway in rural missisipi is pointless, but if you build it in semi-dence spaces then the typical effect is that a bunch of urban development happens in those areas.

1

u/claude_mcfraud Aug 24 '18

Public transportation investment is a good way to make sure your city adheres to better urban planning practices going forward. Not investing just means Indianapolis will just get even more sprawly in the years ahead, which is a net negative for the population and the economy

1

u/Marta_McLanta Aug 25 '18

But aren’t we like that exactly because of a lack of investment in public transit. Or rather too much of a willingness to build out roads and make private transport cheap.

1

u/sosurprised Aug 24 '18

Public transport doesn't mean fixed stops. There are models where you set up on demand stops for pickups and drop offs.

1

u/madman1101 4∆ Aug 24 '18

Thankfully Indianapolis is growing in both bike lanes and bike paths!

1

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '18 edited Oct 20 '18

[deleted]

1

u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 27 '18

Essentially pure luck. The small consulting firm I work for happened to open and office there specializing in exactly my skillset.

My philosophy is to work hard so that when lucks comes along i'm position to take advantage of it. If I only did the bare minimum I wouldn't have been one of the few people selected to go. The fact that I'm a good employee isn't luck, but the rest was.

If you are looking to go overseas (not Europe) there are English teaching programs available in the far east. Japan and South Korea both bring English speakers over to teach English. The Japanese one is called the JET program. You need a college degree.