AHC: Get more people in the US to take the train.

marathag

Banned
Car culture is why people wanted this in the first place. Without car dominance suburbs would really just be extensions of cities (like the are in Japan and parts of Europe, take a look at greater Tokyo on Google maps)
USA was a big, mostly empty country. Can't say the same for Japan, and their culture was altogether very far from where the USA started in the 18th Century. Almost free land, packup and move whenever wanted, for your new homestead.

That's why immigrants from over the World came.
 

Riain

Banned
And those systems were losing money each year after WWI, except during with Rationing during WWII, and then went back to losing even more money after the war.

I think I read that in LA the fare for streetcars didn't go up for decades in the early 20th century, for political reasons. Hard to make a profit charging 1890s fares in the 1930s.

Also iiuc anti trust laws broke up synergies power companies and tram systems had previously.
 
And was very rural after 1900, as well.
USA was 51% Urban in 1920, when road building got started, and 65% Urban when most roads were done in the '60s
I don't really get why rural vs urban population matter if there had been massive highways say after 1920 we would have prob still seen suburb form they would have been smaller because there was less people but still
 
USA was a big, mostly empty country. Can't say the same for Japan, and their culture was altogether very far from where the USA started in the 18th Century. Almost free land, packup and move whenever wanted, for your new homestead.

That's why immigrants from over the World came.

"Mostly empty" my ass. The upper Midwest is as dense as Eastern Europe, and the northeast (especially between NYC and DC) is as dense as Western Europe. America AS A WHOLE is loosely populated, but that takes into account the wastelands and other areas barely inhabited at all.

The northeast and upper Midwest were also much more dominant over the country a century ago than now.

A sure lot of immigrants came over thinking that, but the majority actually got stuck in the big cities.

Moreover the '''frontier culture" we talk about today is largely made up. By 1900 nearly all of the ARABLE (not just good) was used up. Modern frontier culture in America usually means angry suburbanites that own a lot of guns and rail at government spending because it's on minorities and not them.

The actual 'frontier' hasn't seen any population growth outside of the cities for over 80 years.
 
And was very rural after 1900, as well.
USA was 51% Urban in 1920, when road building got started, and 65% Urban when most roads were done in the '60s
50 percent urban is 'very rural'? Dude America was one of the most urbanized countries then and still is now.
 

marathag

Banned
"Mostly empty" my ass. The upper Midwest is as dense as Eastern Europe, and the northeast (especially between NYC and DC) is as dense as Western Europe. America AS A WHOLE is loosely populated, but that takes into account the wastelands and other areas barely inhabited at all.

North Dakota 10 per sq.mi.
South Dakota 11
Nebraska 24
Iowa 55
Minnesota 68
Wisconsin 106
Michigan 175

Bulgaria 166 per sq.mi.
Romania 212
Hungary 272
Slovakia 287
Poland 319
Czech Republic 350
 
If us governments in the 60s hadn't built massive highways across the USA and especially in cities wouldn't have been broken up a much and they would have been denser and more people and if highways were on the edge of cities then there would be less suburbs


The sixties were way, way , way too late for that. You would need a POD in the twenties.
 
North Dakota 10 per sq.mi.
South Dakota 11
Nebraska 24
Iowa 55
Minnesota 68
Wisconsin 106
Michigan 175

Bulgaria 166 per sq.mi.
Romania 212
Hungary 272
Slovakia 287
Poland 319
Czech Republic 350

He is talking about Northeast corridor though. Why can't US has better regional rail service?
 
North Dakota 10 per sq.mi.
South Dakota 11
Nebraska 24
Iowa 55
Minnesota 68
Wisconsin 106
Michigan 175

Bulgaria 166 per sq.mi.
Romania 212
Hungary 272
Slovakia 287
Poland 319
Czech Republic 350

Uhh, that doesn't disprove my point. I said upper Midwest as in: Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and wisconsin. Maybe I did a bad definition, what I meant was GREAT LAKES Midwest.

Ohio: 283
Michigan: 175, but actually 235 b/c the upper peninsula is virtually empty
Indiana: 183
Illinois: 232
Wisconsin: 106
And upstate NY: 228

Now, when you factor in Greece, fyrom, Albania, and others into Eastern Europe you see that upper Midwest and eastern Europe have similar population densities.

The other Midwestern states have low population density, but they have very little population overall compared to the ones in mentioned, and are not on the great lakes. Minnesota doesn't count because it's part of lake Superior is like upper Michigan.

I'm not trying to deny that the Midwest as a whole is low density, but the great lakes states is where most of the Midwest actually lives, so, it's not a fair comparison to make with eastern europe.

As for the north east:
Nj: 1201
Rode island: 1017
Connecticut: 743
Massachusetts: 858
New Hampshire: 147 (an outlier, but it's on the edge of the northeast)
Downstate ny: 1382
Delaware: 475
Maryland: 610
Virginia: 210
Pennsylvania: 285

As for Western Europe:
Uk (whole): 717
Britian: 1000 or so
France: 295
Netherlands: 1080
Belgium: 919
Italy: 518
Portugal: 298
Spain: 236
Germany: 593
Switzerland: 495
Denmark: 332
 
Hey, you know that there are trains that run every 5 minutes or so, and can get you to within a couple blocks of your workplace all without needing to worry about parking? They aren't very common in America but Europe and Asia have plenty of them.

They're called metros (or subways)

Most of those subways need government subsidy or are government owned. The suburb residents are unlikely to agreed to subsidy subway that they themselves seldom use.

then the suburbs should have formed earlier in history the suburbs woud have formed way earlier in history and without the highways it simply to far from the palaces where they work and takes too long

Actually, the begining of suburbs development was the result of rail development.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb

Due to the rapid migration of the rural poor to the industrialising cities of England in the late 18th century, a trend in the opposite direction began to develop; that is, newly rich members of the middle classes began to purchase estates and villas on the outskirts of London. This trend accelerated through the 19th century, especially in cities like London and Manchester that were experiencing tremendous growth, and the first suburban districts sprung up around the city centre to accommodate those who wanted to escape the squalid conditions of the industrial town. Toward the end of the century, with the development of public transit systems such as the underground railways, trams and buses, it became possible for the majority of the city's population to reside outside the city and to commute into the center for work.[7]

Very little housing had been built during the Great Depression and World War, except for emergency quarters near war industries. Overcrowded and inadequate apartments was the common condition. Some suburbs had developed around large cities where there was rail transportation to the jobs downtown. However, the real growth in suburbia depended on the availability of automobiles, highways, and inexpensive housing. The population had grown, and the stock of family savings had accumulated the money for down payments, automobiles and appliances. The product was a great housing boom. Whereas, an average of 316,000 new housing non-farm units should have been constructed 1930s through 1945, there were 1,450,000 annually from 1946 through 1955.[24] The G.I. Billguaranteed low cost loans for veterans, with very low down payments, and low interest rates. With 16 million eligible veterans, the opportunity to buy a house was suddenly at hand. In 1947 alone, 540,000 veterans bought one; their average price was $7300. The construction industry kept prices low by standardization – for example standardizing sizes for kitchen cabinets, refrigerators and stoves, allowed for mass production of kitchen furnishings. Developers purchased empty land just outside the city, installed tract houses based on a handful of designs, and provided streets and utilities, or local public officials race to build schools.[25] The most famous development was Levittown, in Long Island just east of New York City. It offered a new house for $1000 down, and $70 a month; it featured three bedrooms, fireplace, gas range and gas furnace, and a landscaped lot of 75 by 100 feet, all for a total price of $10,000. Veterans could get one with a much lower down payment.[26]

At the same time, African Americans were rapidly moving north for better jobs and educational opportunities than were available to them in the segregated South. Their arrival in Northern cities en masse, in addition to being followed by race riots in several large cities such as Detroit, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia, further stimulated white suburban migration. The growth of the suburbs was facilitated by the development of zoning laws, redlining and numerous innovations in transport. After World War II availability of FHA loans stimulated a housing boom in American suburbs. In the older cities of the northeast U.S., streetcar suburbsoriginally developed along train or trolley lines that could shuttle workers into and out of city centers where the jobs were located. This practice gave rise to the term "bedroom community", meaning that most daytime business activity took place in the city, with the working population leaving the city at night for the purpose of going home to sleep.

Economic growth in the United States encouraged the suburbanization of American cities that required massive investments for the new infrastructure and homes. Consumer patterns were also shifting at this time, as purchasing power was becoming stronger and more accessible to a wider range of families. Suburban houses also brought about needs for products that were not needed in urban neighborhoods, such as lawnmowers and automobiles. During this time commercial shopping malls were being developed near suburbs to satisfy consumers' needs and their car–dependent lifestyle.[27]

Zoning laws also contributed to the location of residential areas outside of the city center by creating wide areas or "zones" where only residential buildings were permitted. These suburban residences are built on larger lots of land than in the central city. For example, the lot size for a residence in Chicago is usually 125 feet (38 m) deep,[28] while the width can vary from 14 feet (4.3 m) wide for a row house to 45 feet (14 m) wide for a large stand–alone house.[citation needed] In the suburbs, where stand–alone houses are the rule, lots may be 85 feet (26 m) wide by 115 feet (35 m) deep, as in the Chicago suburb of Naperville.[citation needed] Manufacturing and commercial buildings were segregated in other areas of the city.
 
It really depends on the definition of 'rural'. For someone living in Asian Cities, even LA and SF looks pretty wide spread and empty.

By urban I mean both city and suburb. You're not wrong about the sprawling nature of american cities (could rant for DAYS about them), but to say that suburbs are closer to rural areas simply isn't correct, especially to what he's talking about. (Urban v. Rural economy, where suburbs go with urban)

He is talking about Northeast corridor though. Why can't US has better regional rail service?

Northeast and great lakes. But yeah, it's really dumb that Acela is the best we got and even that is still a joke.
 
Car culture is why people wanted this in the first place. Without car dominance suburbs would really just be extensions of cities (like the are in Japan and parts of Europe, take a look at greater Tokyo on Google maps)

Actually, suburbs come before car culture. One point to remember is that cities are exactly nice place to live in 19th and early 20th century. Please read my post above.
 
A minor issue that hurts public transportation in the US in the cities (where it is most viable) that I haven’t seen mentioned is crime.

I have grandparents, aunts, and uncles who live in or near Chicago but don’t take the train or bus beyond certain hours or in certain places because of crime. When my sister lived there for college for a while she didn’t go to large numbers of areas beyond certain hours either.

Which also brings up the second minor issue of race.

So a large number of people don’t use public transportation or make only limited use of it either because of (often justified) fear of crime, or because they don’t want to sit next to African (and to a lesser extent Hispanic) Americans.


These aren’t really what I view as the primary issues with trains in the US, but I know from both first hand experience and comment sections on YouTube Fight videos that crime and race make some people hesitant to use what already exists.
 
Most of those subways need government subsidy or are government owned. The suburb residents are unlikely to agreed to subsidy subway that they themselves seldom use.



Actually, the begining of suburbs development was the result of rail development.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb

Subways in America before the car DID turn a profit. They still do in Japan and places that run them well. (Tokyo metro meets 113 percent of operating costs with fares). In NA toronto subway meets 70 percent of operating costs. I have no doubt that if it were optimally run, NYC subway could do this too.

Suburbs in the beginning weren't speaking messes, they were just extensions of city growth. But the reason I say they weren't different from cities as they are now is due to one crucial thing.

If you're in new York and want to go somewhere, what do you do? You walk to the nearest subway station.

If you're in an early American streetcar suburb or in outer Tokyo, what do you do? You walk to the train station.

Thus they developed in the exact same way (people don't want to live more than 2 km from the station b/c it's a pain to walk that far twice a day), so development was dense and clustered around stations. (This excludes the rich, of course)

The same train that you would use to get to work also could get you to the regional station too. Now I bet most Americans couldn't find their city's passenger station without a GPS. (And certainly wouldn't be able to walk to it.)

The car is what created sprawltopia.
 

Riain

Banned
North Dakota 10 per sq.mi.
South Dakota 11
Nebraska 24
Iowa 55
Minnesota 68
Wisconsin 106
Michigan 175

In the 20th century electric trams were common in the US. If the US is special in this regard its because rails were prolifigate, not that the US is unsuitable.

SoDak had trams in Aberdeen, Hot Springs and Sioux Falls .
Nebraska had trams in Lincoln and Omaha.
Iowa had 27 tram systems.
Minnesota had 12 tram systems.
Wisconsin had 26 tram systems.
Michigan had 28 tram systems.
 
Actually, suburbs come before car culture. One point to remember is that cities are exactly nice place to live in 19th and early 20th century. Please read my post above.

I'm not saying they weren't nice places, I'd take my DC townhouse anyday over a mansion. The idea of owning a big house in the suburbs was marketed as a dream, but I think it's a nightmare.
 
A minor issue that hurts public transportation in the US in the cities (where it is most viable) that I haven’t seen mentioned is crime.

I have grandparents, aunts, and uncles who live in or near Chicago but don’t take the train or bus beyond certain hours or in certain places because of crime. When my sister lived there for college for a while she didn’t go to large numbers of areas beyond certain hours either.

Which also brings up the second minor issue of race.

So a large number of people don’t use public transportation or make only limited use of it either because of (often justified) fear of crime, or because they don’t want to sit next to African (and to a lesser extent Hispanic) Americans.


These aren’t really what I view as the primary issues with trains in the US, but I know from both first hand experience and comment sections on YouTube Fight videos that crime and race make some people hesitant to use what already exists.

While it's true that public transit can be rowdy, that comes down to how well run the system is (which in America, I can't name a single one). People who moved to the suburbs to find their "dream" probably don't want rowdy minorites and poor people disrupting that. Here in dc, I've ridden buses and the metro all my life and it's just one of those thinks that you learn to deal with. Tell your relatives to be more accepting of people that are different than them.
 
I'm not saying they weren't nice places, I'd take my DC townhouse anyday over a mansion. The idea of owning a big house in the suburbs was marketed as a dream, but I think it's a nightmare.

Sorry, typo in my post. What I was saying is that cities were NOT exactly nice place to live in 19th and 20th Century.
 
Top