The population density and distribution of that density is massively different in Europe and Japan than in the US.
For effective shared or public transit, you need transportation hubs that are a convenient distance from where people are and where they want to go. If people and population centers are very spread out, then the transit becomes both more expensive and less useful. Even if you can take rail between two population centers, odds are good that you'll still have to drive a long way to the train station then drive another long way to get where you're actually trying to go. Because there's not a lot of population, transit can't run frequently without being a massive waste of energy, so schedules become less convenient.
Check out this density map:
https://dhs.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/popdensi...
Note how Europe is consistently dense over a very large area, with a core of highly dense areas all fairly close to each other like London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Munich, and Bern, while the adjacent regions like Italy, the Balkans, and even Poland have fairly consistent population density. In Japan, the density is highly concentrated on Honshu, and even then it's concentrated into certain cities and prefectures.
The US, meanwhile, has only a few dense regions, mostly in the Northeast, with the rest of population centers spread out very large areas. Not coincidentally, those more densely populated cities tend to have more public transit than the average American city. There are notable exceptions, such as Los Angeles, but LA is not representative of most of the country.
Think again[1].
[1] http://persquaremile.com/2011/05/27/u-s-not-dense-enough-for...
Most importantly, I was not addressing whether it can work or cannot work. That is not the question. The question is whether shared transit is and has been more convenient and cost-effective than roads, highways and automobiles.
I am explaining why a simplistic comparison between the US and Europe is misguided. I am countering the point "I lived in Europe and their public transit was so great why can't we have that in the US?" Which everyone upvotes because they're starry-eyed idealists who haven't thought through the economics and messy details.
Furthermore, I went beyond describing density as simply a number, but also referenced distribution of the density. The shape matters.
Your article compares Spain to California. But their situations are far different. Spain is a less-dense adjacent to a dense region. A couple connections into France and a ferry to Italy and you've got bandwidth into the heart of the existing network in central Europe. California, on the other hand, is a denser region on the opposite side of deserts and mountain ranges. They could build a rail system for themselves, but unlike spain they wouldn't have the huge advantage of a cheap and easy connection into a large existing network. This all helps to explain why the US and Europe did not evolve the same manner of public transit systems.
I see that China is looking to build a high-speed rail between Moscow and Beijing. [1] The relevant points: it does not exist yet; and China is booming.
[1] http://rt.com/business/225131-russia-china-speed-railway/
In some cases it can be, but that's where the issues of density and context/surroundings really come into play. In order for a transit line to be viable, you have to a critical mass of people willing to use it. It's inefficient to run trains and busses with no passengers, so schedules are reduced, which makes things less convenient for users.
In my experience, there actually ARE local public transit systems in the US. Most of them use busses, but they exist. Most people don't use the public transit unless they have to, though, because cars are so much easier and more convenient. And while more investment into transit could make it more attractive, there are still issues and limits on how much it would actually be used due to the generally fewer number of people with access to any one transit line, as well as the destinations available from the pickup spot.
If you consider that public transit makes areas walkable, creates street-level shops, restaurants, and cafes, and densifies areas as a result, then creating public transit is an argument for creating density.
Only if you ignore the fact that most of the US population centers developed long before the automobile.
The US only has a few dense regions because suburban housing typologies strung together with highways have been dominant.
Suburbs are largely a 20th century phenomenon and rail was very important in the history of the US. US population spread itself out for primarily for economic reasons (and also likely socio-political reasons).
Population of the US in 1900 was roughly 76 million. It's 316 million today.
Auto ownership took off in the 1950s (after WWII and the post-war boom began). At that time, total population was 151 million, less than half that today.
Both of the two most populous states in the U.S. (California and Texas) assumed that position well after the dominance of the Automobile. California in 1960, Texas in the 1990s. California's population has increased 3.6x since 1950, Texas has by 3.4x. The third-ranked state, New York, by 1.3x.
Florida, set to surpass New York in the near future, has grown 7x in the same period.
That's all post-auto era growth.
For the post-1950 period, I disagree. The car was established. Development followed auto-driven growth dynamics.
For the post-1950 period, I disagree. The car was established. Development followed auto-driven growth dynamics.
Land use is a regional issue at the scale of metro areas (or CMSAs). Not nationwide.
Average annual mileage for the typical American is 15,000 miles/year. That's 40 miles/day, or 20 miles one-way radius. Even assuming no weekend travel (all commutes are work related) you're still at 75 miles, or 37.5 miles one-way.
That is: transportation use is a local phenomenon. Distribution of population centers across the country doesn't matter, land use within those centers does. And those patterns have developed and overwhelmingly been driven by auto use for the past 65 - 75 years, with very few exceptions (e.g., NYC).
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p4.htm
The passenger vehicle fleet is also about 250 million (estimates arriving at that figure are including pickups that are used as cars).
I guess the typical American might be a modal driver, but it seems odd to use a definition of typical that discards ~1/3 of the population in question.
You can corroborate this with other sources, e.g., US Census commute patterns. Insurance and US DOT should also have driving stats.
I'm not going so far as to argue about whatever point it is you are making, I'm pointing out that somewhere in either your characterization of the numbers you are using or the numbers themselves, there is an inaccuracy.
That the monthly miles driven should be 12k rather than 15k? A 20% delta doesn't change my fundamental argument at all. 15k vs. 1.5k vs. 150k would.
That I'm incorrect in my description of regional growth dynamics 1950-2015? You've not argued that at all, and it's the information I'm principally interested in.
Here's the fucking FHWA US DoT stats: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
Range: low of 4,785 (females 65+), high of 18.9 (males 35-54), total combined average: 13,476. That appears to be from a 2000 study, and alternate data shows growth since then:
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/DOT-Miles-...
Oh, here's the most recent report year, for 2011.
3 trillion vehicle miles, 246 million registered vehicles, 210 million licenced drivers, 68.5% of the total population.
Maths gives us 12,195 miles/vehicle, 14.285 miles/driver.
I think we've litigated that point to fucking death, and shown my initial round-number estimate was reasonably accurate.
I was loose in saying "per American" rather than "per vehicle" or "per driver", but again, it doesn't materially change my main point concerning urban-area growth (the vehicle / passenger miles data are used to illustrate it).
If you are in fact making a minor / pedantic point, it helps to call that out. I'll preface my own such comments with an "NB:", "ObPedant", or similar comment.
Otherwise, I actually do appreciate corrections and clarifications. But prefer they're clearly given as such (though I'll accept them even when they're not).
If you had said "I think people tend to commute a medium distance on a daily basis and community development has followed along that dynamic" I wouldn't have anything to object to, the problem is that you took a coarse estimate (the 15,000 miles) and then eventually stated it as a possible "37.5 miles one-way". That should be an "about 30 or 40", not a 37.5. Given the wide variance, it's also not a great place to use the mean as a representation of the typical.
So my point, if you are going to present your conclusions as being based on/supported by numerical analyses (which you do all the time...), please do be careful to not to exaggerate the precision with which they are done.
For someone grousing about numeric precision your own lack of verbal precision (or accuracy) in noting issues is richly ironic.
I agree that I raised a concrete objection in my initial post and did not mention the abstract motivation for raising the objection, so no need to pursue that aspect of it.
Development was also driven by things people wanted: Their own land. Their own house. Escape from the noise, pollution, and general harshess of industrial zones. Land was more affordable in the US than in Europe and Japan. Building probably was as well. Cars enabled the kind of development that people wanted.
And btw. I wasn't even talking about HSR across country - this issue is debatable. What's IMO not debatable is the necessity of efficient local public transport within population centers, be it on (underground) rails, designated road lanes or street rails, I don't really care, as long as it's mass transport.
Prior to the early 60s, one of the Penninsula Commute rail routes actually split off in Palo Alto (right where Groupon is now, and where a Y existed until 30 some years ago), went down across El Camino and through where the VA is, and down Foothill to Los Altos, ultimately connecting up with the extant Permanente Branch. That was an alternate commute route from San Jose to San Francisco, hitting the west valley and south of San Jose.
Outside of the Key System, that was I think the biggest loss of rail transit in the Bay Area.
I maintain that a pre-requisite to "good" public transportation is bad infrastructure for cars. If you had good car infrastructure, and many medium sized cities do, the public transportion wouldn't be needed.
Good transportation for large, dense cities is an unsolved problem. In the US New York and its fabled subways result in the #1 longest commutes in the country. No thank you.
Self-driving cars are obviously the future. Well, part of the future at least. I'm very curious what the "ideal" city would look like with self-driving cars at the center. What would a city look like if built from the ground up with them in mind?
(a) is an overhead of a factor of ~40 compared to people standing and a factor or ~20 compared to people sitting for the transport alone (I'm assuming here people driving alone, which from experience is how this mostly works out).
(b) is an additional constant overhead of 12m2 for every participant that's not moving.
In computer science terms, your network protocol sucks, and leads to inefficient cities.
Would you like an example? L.A. metro area has about the same size as Greater Tokyo, produces about the same amount of carbon emissions total (!) [5], yet provides space for 2.5x less people and produces ~2.4x less GDP at purchase power parity [1],[2],[3],[4].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Tokyo_Area
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP
[5] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223399559_Twelve_met...
I'm not sure how much I want to comment on your math equation. It's obviously much more complicated. It can't be reduced to an equation.
No amount of car infrastructure will serve the need of having the city core fill up with workers driving in their own cars during the day, either.
In a fictional future world where self-driving cars are ubiquitous, they'll likely serve, in miniature form, the same role that buses and trams do now; except they'll be more point-to-point than those; one could pick you and a few others on the corner near your flat, drive you to your offices, and go do it again.
To be honest, since I suspect that world won't be fictional, I think this whole debate is really a waste of time now. It wouldn't even matter if an alien brain ray struck the entire world and suddenly everybody agreed that public transportation was totally the only way to do anything ever, and all public transport spending was 100% rerouted into public transport... self-driving cars would still obviate all the plans before we could possibly fully enact them.
In a world where that level of consensus isn't going to happen, it's even moreso a waste of time.
Building for a mixed-used future, with public transit serving a lot of people's needs for the next 30-40 years, and self-driving cars potentially starting to fill in the gaps in our lifetimes, seems like a far more realistic solution than "do nothing and wait for self-driving cars".
Quite a lot of people don't live in the big cities, after all.
On the other hand, when you can either own a car for all the money the public transport people are generally complaining about, or you can use a self-driving car service that still takes you anywhere you want, anytime you want, for less than you could own a car for, you've got a much easier sell.
If self-driving cars don't happen, well, frankly, give up your public transportation dreams. Self-driving car transport networks the only realistic path forward. Perhaps there are alternate universes where everything worked out peachy, but that doesn't provide you any help moving forward here.
Nearly every city already has public transportation, mostly buses, though more light rail/streetcar lines are built year by year. I know that very, very small towns (e.g. of the size you can walk across in 20 minutes) often have no bus system, but of course one isn't needed when the town is small enough.
No one's restricting your freedom by building public transportation, either. I have no idea where you're getting any of this stuff.
I know of no US city that's looking at an auto ban in the city core, not like some European cities have done. If you do, I'd love to hear more.
I can't even make sense of the the last paragraph you wrote, "if self-driving cars don't happen, give up your public transportation dreams"? Public transportation already exists, and self-driving cars are decades off from being available to the general public.
Oh, well, then, problem solved.
Why are we even having this conversation, then?
Obviously, because you want more than we currently have, in a rather staggering quantity. You can't both have enough and want much, much more whenever it suits you in the argument.
You were the one who brought up freedom??
New Yorkers have long commutes because of how phenomenally efficient their public transportation system is. During rush hour, it takes up to two hours to drive the 15-17 miles from my parents house in the Virginia suburbs to the middle of DC. An hour and a half is typical, most of it parked on I-66 or GW Parkway. The Metro North from Greenwich to Manhattan makes that 30-mile trip in an hour flat, like clockwork, in a far denser metro area.
It was easy, cheap and just worked. I understand some of the system is still active in the city. It's kind of mindblowing to me that there's only 5 such systems in all of the United States.
Businesses can count on their presence into the future, as can riders who try to plan their car-less lives in their community.
The US and Canada once had almost 100 municipalities with streetcar lines in the first half of the 20th century, there may be a dozen or so left now. One could blame GM [1] but many municipalities abandoned their systems without much pressure.
Toronto --which I believe has the largest streetcar system in North America-- has had to employ a blacksmith for the last 3 decades to forge parts for the aging streetcars [2], though they apparently expect to retire him as the fleet is modernized.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...
[2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/meet-pat-maietta-the-t...
Even if it did sort of work, I'm not lugging two to four carts of groceries home that way, nor am I willing to make multiple trips per day.
Besides more free parking, what we really need is land reform. People don't live where they work because property taxes are grandfathered, real estate agents gobble up 6% of the home value, and so many other stupid expenses.
Here's how this works out in any Japanese or Swiss town/city above ~80k inhabitants: You have a public transport network where all the schedules are synched up. Ideally you have a metro/streetcar/trolley station nearby that can pick you up (if it's a normal bus you may have congested road, so you can't plan exactly by the minute, just like with cars). You go there 2min in advance. Once on board, you work/read HN/read/play/whatever [1]. You arrive at a trainstation, swipe a card, walk ~50m and wait 3min for a train. Again, read. 15-60min and 1-2 changes later you have arrived at your destination without even thinking about it, without putting you or anyone else in significant danger, without already being stressed out. On your way home you spend 10-15m more at one of the train stations where you had to change anyway, get some fresh grocery, and be done with it. No need for your exhausting weekly trips to the mall. You don't even have to leave the station building. Got anything else to do? No problem, there's service offerings for pretty much anything you need within 200m of where you are, because the train station brings so much density of people that it's worth it to have all kinds of stores open.
You know, I like driving - I dream about fast cars and all that. I just wouldn't want to be forced to do it every day with unplannable traffic conditions and all that. When I drive, I want to have an flexible schedule, i.e. the weekends.
Most of your other points about mass transit are quite valid. E.g. "lugging" groceries. But why not "think different"? Can't you purchase in small quantities from neighborhood stores?
When I grew up in NYC it wasn't uncommon to shop just a block or two from home. You bought 1 loaf of bread, 1 quart of milk, a few pounds of potatoes, etc. It was easily possible to carry that stuff back to the apartment. It wasn't only possible, it was what you had to do. Hardly anyone owned cars.
I wonder what percent of residents of San Francisco own a car? How many use a car daily?
So what are we doing now? We are having to build it back up! Unfortunately, the current construction is a far cry from what the old red car network was and doesn't really touch the San Fernando valley in a meaningful way. I am excited about the Expo line phase 2 though...
Los Angeles grew up around the highway, rather than the other way around. So instead of a beltway being built around a city, you've got a city stretched out along the highway.
That said, there are plenty of micro examples of defaulting to pavement over rail for public trans in LA. The so-called "black and blue" line in the San Fernando valley is a pretty amusing example. (Rather than put in light rail, they built roads that only buses could go on. This caused a lot of confusion and there were a lot of accidents in the first 6 months, thus earning it the nickname "black and blue") It was sort of a clever solution. The city knew how to build roads and so it stuck to what it was good at.
I've seen them work reasonably well in Pittsburgh, along with the Bus lane going opposite traffic on the one-way streets (as opposed to say, Philadelphia, where everyone drives in the bus lane).
That depends on how you engineer the system. With reasonably frequent crossings, you can route around stalled vehicles. If you've got dedicated rights-of-way (rather than mixed-mode auto-and-LRV routes) then wrong-side operations isn't so critical.
With sidings or triple-tracking, you can offer only modestly degraded service, though at markedly higher initial cost and land use. Still far better than highway / surface-street designs.
Or you can "bounce" vehicles to either side of an outage, running service to the problem location and running truncated shuttle service on either side.
It's largely a matter of political will, costs, and frequency of outages. Which, generally, even on less-reliable system aren't exceptionally prevalent.
The other issue is that busses tend to fail (for various reasons) more frequently than rail.
Check out this map of the old system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric#/media/File:Lo...
With enough patience, one could have travelled from Woodland Hills to Redlands or Corona. Unfortunately, I do not know the time it would have taken, but the current bus system makes it nearly impossible.
If the freeway system was built in the same way that I see BART being incorporated into say the 580 in the Bay Area (right down the middle of the highway), it would have been a great setup. Want to drive the car? No problem! Want to avoid driving a car? We have you covered as well!
The routes 101, 405, 5, 10, 110, etc. cover are great. There are many intersections allowing for "hubs" and so on. Unfortunately, only choices are either cars or buses that have little advantage because they sit in traffic all the same.
Busways may be a middle ground, but I have not seen them work out very well in San Fernando Valley. I'm guessing because there is still insufficient density and poor bus coverage of perpendicular routes to the busway itself. Just a guess though...