See the U.S. flatlining in transit miles per capita
A devil’s advocate would rightfully argue that that’s expected given the much lower average population density of the US – the same factor that made it a struggle to get broadband Internet to everyone in the US. Bizarre to use a nationwide per capita as a basis for mass transit comparisons. It should be a city-by-city comparison that groups cities by comparable population density. US cities would likely still come out behind and embarrassed, but more accurately so.
Consider the marketing angle – instead of saying “the US is losing”, instead say “@[email protected]’s city lost its ass in the bi-annual city infra competency competition”. Then that mayor has some direct embarrassment to pressure action.
Subways are pretty much exclusively built in the cities
Not just any city. Dense cities. Cities that are so densely populated that it would be /impossible/ for every person to move around in a car. Countless US cities are not even close to crossing that threshold. It just makes no sense to look at nationwide per capita on this. Only a city by city comparison of like with like population density is sensible.
(edit)
There is a baby elephant in the room that needs mention: US cities are designed with shitty zoning plans. They are designed so that each person on avg needs to travel more distance per commute to accomplish the same tasks (work and groceries). This heightens the congestion per capita. So ideally we would calculate daily net commute distance needed per capita plotted against subway track per capita for cities of comparable people per m². Which would embarrass US city mayors even more.
At a time when we also need more housing density, I feel like subways go hand-in-hand. And even for shittily zoned cities with huge suburb-like areas, I feel like most would benefit from at least nearby subways with parking lots (or ideally, additional bike paths).
Id be curious the surface area of those million population centers? Lots of the US is very spread out even for “cities” only the old cities on the East Coast have significant density.
Zoning to prohibit people from living on 99% of the land so that the population is dense enough to fully benefit from public transit? Lots of states don’t even have a true city at all. Should those be zoned as national parks?
Edit: I think I missed the point. You’re talking about just city zoning. Still, not a magical fix and would likely require moving lots of people and demolishing/building buildings and infrastructure. However, it’s more realistic than zoming everyone out of the midwest.
From the article:
A devil’s advocate would rightfully argue that that’s expected given the much lower average population density of the US – the same factor that made it a struggle to get broadband Internet to everyone in the US. Bizarre to use a nationwide per capita as a basis for mass transit comparisons. It should be a city-by-city comparison that groups cities by comparable population density. US cities would likely still come out behind and embarrassed, but more accurately so.
Consider the marketing angle – instead of saying “the US is losing”, instead say “@[email protected]’s city lost its ass in the bi-annual city infra competency competition”. Then that mayor has some direct embarrassment to pressure action.
Subways are pretty much exclusively built in the cities, and the US doesn’t lack cities. The same is true for most countries.
Not just any city. Dense cities. Cities that are so densely populated that it would be /impossible/ for every person to move around in a car. Countless US cities are not even close to crossing that threshold. It just makes no sense to look at nationwide per capita on this. Only a city by city comparison of like with like population density is sensible.
(edit)
There is a baby elephant in the room that needs mention: US cities are designed with shitty zoning plans. They are designed so that each person on avg needs to travel more distance per commute to accomplish the same tasks (work and groceries). This heightens the congestion per capita. So ideally we would calculate daily net commute distance needed per capita plotted against subway track per capita for cities of comparable people per m². Which would embarrass US city mayors even more.
At a time when we also need more housing density, I feel like subways go hand-in-hand. And even for shittily zoned cities with huge suburb-like areas, I feel like most would benefit from at least nearby subways with parking lots (or ideally, additional bike paths).
except the US also has some of the largest cities in the world lol, NYC alone should be churning out new subways like crazy
47% of the US population lives in urban agglomeration of 1million people or more. For the EU it is 18%, China 31% and India 16%.
Id be curious the surface area of those million population centers? Lots of the US is very spread out even for “cities” only the old cities on the East Coast have significant density.
Zoning will fix that.
Zoning to prohibit people from living on 99% of the land so that the population is dense enough to fully benefit from public transit? Lots of states don’t even have a true city at all. Should those be zoned as national parks?
Edit: I think I missed the point. You’re talking about just city zoning. Still, not a magical fix and would likely require moving lots of people and demolishing/building buildings and infrastructure. However, it’s more realistic than zoming everyone out of the midwest.