Seriously, why is this idea being thrown around? It's not based in reality, and just fuels into pessimism. I'm American, so I'll mostly focus on what I'm seeing here.
There has been so much progress, even just over the past decade. I think the reason that it feels like not much is being done is because the United States is so Massive. Even just New York can contain Beligum, Switzerland and the netherlands.
Looking at the US on a macro scale could give someone a picture of a country eternally doomed to have shitty transit and suburban sprawl forever. Thankfully, we have a beautiful think called local government.
There are a good number of places that you can go in the US that are very walkable and have good transit. Sure, it's not on the level of Europe, but it's definitely a good starting point if we're talking about progress. Especially if we're talking about progress within our lifetimes.
There are a lot of cool projects going on in the US right now, such as new rail lines, rail extensions, new BRT lines, and work being done on density. And of course roped into that we can't forget about the massive California High-Speed Rail project, which if successful could have major implications for rail in the United States at large.
Is this enough? No. But it is real progress, and a sign that we're at the beginning of real change in this country for transit and walkability.
And if you still think the US is shit and you really feel inclined to move out of your current suburban hell hole, you don't even have to leave the US to do so. There are cities where you can go today in the US where you don't have to own a car and can get around by walking. Not everything is a 6 lane stroad with giant parking lots and dead strip malls. We have DC, Philly, Boston and NYC as prime examples, which may not seem like much but NYC alone has 8.8 million people and could sure as shit fit way more.
Sure, we may never live to see the whole US become the netherlands, but I don't think it's unrealistic to think that certain places in the US could be seriously be at that level within our lifetimes.
I don't think you understand the critique. The problem is all of the single-story and two-story construction. There's no way to fix that quickly. It took a century to build it all. It's going to take twice as long to migrate all of that low density into higher density construction and decrease the mileage required to live normal lives. Right now, the average suburbanite has to travel an insane number of total miles to do the basics of what they need to do for their families - food, healthcare, schooling, shelter, clothing, socializing, multi-generational relationships, work.
It's not like local governments can build light rail or even busses to even 50% of the necessary things. Plus they'd have to change zoning codes against all the NIMBY pushback, plus it would take decades to consolidate those activities into higher density buildings.
No, the USA is fucked and it's going to remain fucked for a long time.
I just don't understand how any of this means the US is fucked. For example, in Georgia the majority of the population lives in small area of the state. Even if there's a lot of suburban sprawl in the area, there are transit solutions that can accommodate for that, and we don't have to tear up any suburbs to do it.
You're right. We absolutely could build transit solutions, but people become dejected because we don't. At least not in many places.
I'm in the SF Bay Area. It's been dense here for a long time and there's plenty of tax money sloshing around, but transit improvements move glacially slowly. I want to ride my bike to work. I want to take the bus to my kids pool. But I can't. The infrastructure isn't there, and there is no concerted regional effort to build it. Sure, we might have high speed rail in California decades from now, but meanwhile I have to keep driving literally everywhere. Unfortunately.
Yeah I hear you. Fortunately for CA HSR it seems like they're pretty set on finishing up in about a decade, and I hope that remains the case and you get to see it and use it.
No they're not going to finish in a decade. That's only the section between Merced and Bakersfield. Currently planned to finish between 2030-2033 but that's assuming no more delays and they stay within budget, which is somewhat doubtful. A lot of work has happened, true, but not a single mile of track has actually been laid.
There is no money appropriated so far for the entire line, and so nobody has an idea when, if ever, high speed rail between SF and LA will happen.
No no, didn’t you hear? The US is FUCKED.
Do people use it? What is the ridership? Are the stations accessible without cars, or are they in the middle of nowhere?
There's no money for it, doing it requires obtaining rights of way the city doesn't have, the belt highways are built specifically to prevent this, etc, etc, etc. The amount of time it would take to build these systems is its own problem. The only way to do it would be under socialist central planning, and it absolutely wouldn't make any sense to build it into the suburban sprawl. Doing so would cement that sprawl by building additional infrastructure into a footprint that logistically is unsustainable anyway.
So it'll just take a long time to un-fuck it. Maybe we won't even see it in our lifetimes. It also won't be easy, but if everyone gives up and moves then we're basically guaranteed failure.
Ebikes can do most errands in suburbs given the proper infrastructure. The only thing they can't do is a long daily commute, but if we build transit to major job sites then you only have to ebike to the station.
Motorists are psychopaths. Start suspending their licenses. Most people are incapable of safely operating a vehicle. The infrastructure will come when we reach critical mass of carless nimby assholes. That and parking minimums yadda yadda. You catch my Tokyo drift.