Another example: When taking HOV and the map asks you if you want HOV enabled, there are no options I can force the navigation to take me to the nearest HOV lane.
If it happens to be there, it will say to use it, but I can't say "Route me to the nearest HOV entrance" because I prefer it even if it's 1 minute slower.
It's a very US-centric perspective to assume that density = cities.
Almost every town in the US, at one point, was dense enough to support a vibrant main street. Many (most?) of them even had tram lines and other forms of public transportation.
It's not an either or proposition. You can have cost-effective infrastructure through relative density without having to deal with all of the trappings - good and bad - that come from a city.
>the vast majority of people prefer living in dense urban environments.
The vast majority of people REQUIRE to live NEAR their employment which happens to be in cities.
Look what happened to NYC real estate rent when you gave people the choice of NOT doing that. Look what happens when you force them back to the office, they come back, but not by choice.
> California is about the size of Japan with the same GDP.
On the surface, this is true, but it ignores taxation structure when comparing a federal state to a sovereign nation. It would be very hard to get state-level income tax rates above 15% in the US. That cannot compete against federal/national tax rates that normally approach 40% in US and Japan. In any nation, the vast majority of large mass transit project construction costs are paid for by the central/national gov't. I would characterise your comparison is disingenuous.
> They could pass their own funded project for public transportation.
They could not reasonably 100% self-fund large mass transit projects. They need federal dollars, a lot of them, and it is very competitive to get them. As an example, look at how long it has taken to raise necessary funds to build the Silicon Valley BART extension. There is tremendous support from the public for this project, but it takes a long time to raise necessary local funds. In parallel, they need to "win" federal support for the lion's share of construction costs.
Frankly, if you've never lived in a place with clean, reliable, fast trains, you probably would be disillusioned and would never go to the train life. Or if your public infrastructure is deemed "for poor people".
Back to my original point, it's a cultural problem.
>The cost of passenger rail is high in America, because America doesn't build enough rail.
This seems backwards to me tbh. Is this a feeling or backed by hard data?
As much as anti-american sentiment is right now, there are still great engineering feats pulled off all the time.
Construction is expensive because we value public insight into projects and health factors for workers and everyone [and the environment] else impacted. Other countries not so much.
Infrastructure construction is more about administration than engineering. If the people in charge have not administered similar projects before, they will make mistakes.
Public insight, health, worker welfare, and environment are pretty universal values in developed countries. What may set the US apart is their particular version of the common law system. A lot of people have the standing to sue someone, causing unpredictable delays and cost overruns for an infrastructure project. In many other countries, most cases related to infrastructure projects are handled by administrative courts. They will determine narrowly whether all the relevant laws were followed, and do so cost-effectively and in a predictable time.
Experience with the decisions of the relevant courts in similar cases is a major component of basic competence in infrastructure projects. If you can predict what the courts are willing to approve, you can plan the project accordingly. If you can predict how much time and money the court process will take, you can include that in the plans. But if you don't have the experience or the courts are unpredictable, you are bound to make mistakes.
> Construction is expensive because we value public insight into projects and health factors for workers and everyone [and the environment] else impacted. Other countries not so much.
Railway construction in Spain and France is at least half the cost of the United States. Both "value public insight into projects and health factors for workers and everyone [and the environment] else impacted".
Exactly. I already don't go into the large relatively nearby city as much as I used to because of both general inclination and traffic/parking hassles. Which is fine.
But if people in the main stop going into the city you'd probably see a drop-off in the city amenities that make many people want to live there in the first place.
This is like that phrase “nobody goes there anymore it’s too popular”. The surface parking lots would be replaced with things people want to go downtown for in the first place, never mind additional residences which mean more customers for businesses.
Nowhere in the world, and I mean the entire world, has the scenario in which surface parking lots are replaced with other productive uses have resulted in a drop off in city amenities - it’s a non-sequitur. The businesses and residences that replace the lots are city amenities. Adding them has the opposite effect that you describe.
Think about it another way - what if we add surface parking lots? What would you drive to downtown to do? There wouldn’t be anything there because the amenities would have been replaced by mostly empty parking lots.
We can also just have multi-story garages. We can actually increase parking (on a social scale) while removing surface parking lots. That would create amenities and allow folks like yourself to easily come to town. Would it cost? Sure. So what?
Just go (or don't go) to places based on how much of a hassle it is to do so. If enough people--local or otherwise--want to visit good for them. I definitely make choices based on how easy or hard it is to get to the destination.
I hear ya. I'm the same way. Funny enough we actually actively try to avoid going to the suburbs in our metro, especially some of the areas with Costco and such because the traffic and anger and road rage is just so god damn stupid and I think, frankly, things have gotten rather dangerous. Maybe I'm getting old. I find it much easier and less stressful to just walk over to somewhere and grab what we need when that is an option.
It's not the battery, its the lack of OS updates. I can't install new certificates, or get access to app stores. They're useless.
In fact, the lack of a replacement battery has never prevented me from keeping something working, only software or physical damage.
reply