Beijing just opened two new metro lines (number ten across town and number eight to the olympic sites) along with an "airport express" rail line.
« Maliki's Game-Changer | Main | The Walkback »
Transit Porn, China Edition
19 Jul 2008 05:03 pm
Comments (74)
That's kick ass. I love NYC's subways* but they suck going North/South in Brooklyn and Queens. This looks like you can go in any direction and get close to your destination.
* - connectioning three land masses (island of Manhattan, Long Island (BKN/QNS), and the mainland US (the Bronx)) is hard and that is what the initial expenditures were focused on in building the system. When the system was designed the North/South axis didn't justify a line and now that it does land prices make it a pricy proposition
That's a pretty weird set up of metro lines. It certainly looks as if it could have been built to make it more efficient though of course it's hard to tell from a stylized map and it may be required by the geography of the city. Still, one would think the rationality of the Moscow or Paris metro set-ups would be the thing to aim for if at all possible.
Hey Matt,
I know this isn't a "requests" post, but I wanted to suggest this while its in my head.
Could you maybe talk a little bit about the possible economic ramifications of if/when we close shop in Iraq and thousands return to the states. Will this pretty much guarantee that the economic downturn will extend due to the sharp uptick of people returning home? Something similar to the post-Korea downturn that happened right before the 50's-60's boom? What impact would the continued econ problems (with no ability to blame an ongoing war) have on an Obama administration? I may not have stated this artfully, but you get my gist I hope.
Forgive me if I re-post this question when you do put up a requests thread.
That's not transit porn, that's transit Cinemax, at best.
This is transit porn:
http://sparklette.net/archives/642/tokyo_large.gif
Note that this is subway map, so the train lines are actually de-emphasized. The Yamanote line (the checked line) is what really ties the whole system together (just like The Dude's rug).
The rectangles are stations close to bars that serve Hoegaarden on tap (j/k, but actually almost true).
Beijing was pretty awful in terms of public transportation. And taking a cab is not for the faint of heart. The subway was pretty useless, there was never a station near where you want to go. For a city of over 10 million people, the set-up with 3 lines was pretty ridiculous. The purple line is new too, by the way.
When I was in Beijing in 2005, I wound up using the Beijing subway system a fair amount. I'd have used it more if I hadn't had to walk a mile to the Yonghegong subway stop (or take a cab).
They appear to have done quite a bit since then, too. The purple line wasn't open in 2005, and I'm pretty sure the light blue 10 line wasn't either. The purple line would have passed pretty close to my hotel.
The subway line itself was fairly impressive, although it did get pretty crowded at times (and I don't think we ever caught it at the height of rush hour).
Well, let's see if this link to the Amsterdam tram map will work. Mind you, this is just for the tram system.
Trams, herbalizing coffee houses, Dutch beer- that would almost make women obsolete.
I should add that when I say it was impressive, I just mean the subway cars. The ones I rode on were pretty new, and many of them had an electronic map showing where you were in the system. Coverage was not so great--primarily the core of the city (inside the Second Ring Road).
Genghis would be so proud. Or Kublai, I guess. But Genghis too.
Genghis would be so proud. Or Kublai, I guess. But Genghis too.
Oh yeah, baby, put that purple line into your blue circle!
Try this link for the Tokyo subway map. This subway/rail system really, really rocks! As ID said, the Yamanote line (the dashed grey line making a ring around the city) ties the whole thing together, but also note how most of the subway lines terminate where it's easy to make a connection to a suburban train, usually across the platform. In fact, sometimes you can continue your ride from subway to suburban on the same carset (no change of train). Imagine being able to go from Wall St. to Westchester without changing from subway to Metro North...
Try this link for the Tokyo subway map. This subway/rail system really, really rocks!
Yeah, it looks great. Who wouldn't relish the opportunity to commute to work on that?
mixner- you realize that video is almost 20 years old and they don't do that anymore, right?
ou realize that video is almost 20 years old and they don't do that anymore, right?
You do realize you don't know what you're talking about, right?
Tokyo has a population density 250% greater than NYC. The number of people on their trains reflects A) that density and B) different cultural standards for personal space and interaction. Using Tokyo's sardine packed train cars as an excuse to hate on transit in general is ridiculous. Other cultures can and do make different choices about the acceptable passenger density of their transit. If a train is so popular that it's drawing massive crowds you can introduce pricing tiers so that people who can't stand brushing up against their fellow man can pay for a car with bigger seats and better service.
The Japanese railway system handles 60 million passenger journeys per day. The London underground 4 million. I can only speak for the latter and, yeah, it kind of sucks - but it also works reasonably well and gets you from A to B.
I'm dying to know how Mixner would want to accommodate this number of people using alternative ways of transport.
Tokyo has a population density 250% greater than NYC. The number of people on their trains reflects A) that density and B) different cultural standards for personal space and interaction. Using Tokyo's sardine packed train cars as an excuse to hate on transit in general is ridiculous. Other cultures can and do make different choices about the acceptable passenger density of their transit.
If they're happy with having to get around like sardines packed in a can, good for them. Doesn't mean anyone else would be, and certainly not Americans. And somehow, I doubt the Japanese are happy with it either. It's a matter of necessity, not desire. If there's one thing the Tokyo subway screams out, it's "For God's sake, don't build any more cities like Tokyo. It has waaaaay too many people in waaaaay too small an area."
I think Japan's population is falling, so perhaps things will get better and in the future Japanese people will no longer have to live in shoeboxes or travel like sardines. But that's going to take a while.
...and in the future Japanese people will no longer have to live in shoeboxes or travel like sardines. But that's going to take a while.
I often take the subway at one of the busiest subway stations in Asia, and I live and work on one of the busiest streets. I, and millions of others, wouldn't have it any other way.
The Moscow Metro has more than 9 million rides a day (more than 2 million per day more than New York City) and is not more crowded than New York- less so usually. The big difference is that trains run more often- during rush hours you never wait more than a minute and a half between trains and you _never_ wait more than 5 minutes. 2 minutes is the average. In New York I don't want pushers but I would like someone who stood by the doors yelling "move the fuck in, ass-hole" so I didn't have to do it myself all the time.
David Penner,
I, and millions of others, wouldn't have it any other way.
Seems rather implausible, especially the "and millions of others" part.
If there's one thing the Tokyo subway screams out, it's "For God's sake, don't build any more cities like Tokyo.
Yeah, and while we're at it let's not build anymore countries with a high population density...
Seems rather implausible, especially the "and millions of others" part.
Over 100,000 people use Gangnam Station everyday. You don't think there are millions of people all over the world in a similar situation--who like living the way they do?
Yeah, and while we're at it let's not build anymore countries with a high population density...
We don't actually "build" countries, novakant. At least, not in the sense that we build cities. If Japanese family planning and land-use policies had been different, they probably wouldn't have ended up having to live like sardines. Perhaps you think America should emulate Japan's policies in these areas. I doubt many other Americans would think that's a good idea.
The Japanese fertility rate is now well below replacement level, and the country doesn't have many immigrants. The population is projected to decline massively over the next few decades. So maybe riding the Tokyo subway 20 or 30 years from now, if it still exists, won't be quite as unpleasant as it is today.
Remember, we are supposed to gear the world to Mixner's tastes. If Mixner wouldn't want to live a certain way, no one would want to live that way.
"Beijing was pretty awful in terms of public transportation. And taking a cab is not for the faint of heart. The subway was pretty useless, there was never a station near where you want to go. For a city of over 10 million people, the set-up with 3 lines was pretty ridiculous. The purple line is new too, by the way.
Posted by cedichou | July 19, 2008 6:58 PM"
Very true. My first apartment in Beijing was about a 45 minute walk from the nearest station (on the plus side, this helped me lose 15 pounds in a couple of months). Getting a cab to go to work/the station to go to work is near impossible at that time in Beijing (at least in my neighborhood) and would often take between half an hour to an hour before I would spot an empty cab. The buses are also packed and can be annoying (the intercoms don't work well and half of them don't have screens or anything saying what the next stop is, so if you are on a long journey, it can be easy to lose track of where you are. I would hate to experience that as someone who spoke no Chinese).
Other cultures can and do make different choices about the acceptable passenger density of their transit.
Distant and strange cultures like Chicago
Reality Man,
Remember, we are supposed to gear the world to Mixner's tastes. If Mixner wouldn't want to live a certain way, no one would want to live that way.
Yes, that's right, RM. The decades-long exodus of people, homes, jobs, shopping areas, restaurants and recreational facilities in America away from old-style high-density cities and into sprawling new low-density cities and suburbs, and the decades-long shift in transportation usage from mass transit to private motor vehicles, doesn't actually reflect the wishes of the American people. Somehow, Mixner bent them to his wishes and forced it on them. Golly, I didn't know I was so powerful.
Your name is just soooo ironic. You seem so utterly divorced from reality in so many ways.
The decades-long exodus of people, homes, jobs, shopping areas, restaurants and recreational facilities in America away from old-style high-density cities and into sprawling new low-density cities and suburbs, and the decades-long shift in transportation usage from mass transit to private motor vehicles...
...fueled by oil priced according to the cost of production rather than by what the market would actually bear will be unsustainable in the mid to long range future.
You started so well I though I'd just give you a boost over the finish line.
People smell. Eew.
Over 100,000 people use Gangnam Station everyday. You don't think there are millions of people all over the world in a similar situation--who like living the way they do?
Maybe they do, but that wasn't what you said. You claimed "I, and millions of others, wouldn't have it any other way."
Really? You don't think the vast majority of people might prefer a more comfortable, more convenient, less stressful, less crowded commute and work environment?
I suspect the vast majority of people who use the subway to get to work aren't doing it because they "like" using the subway, especially not at rush hour, but because it's the only practical or cost-effective option for them given their particular living and working situation. Rich people in New York don't generally use the subway. They take taxis or have their own cars and drivers. Even ordinary New Yorkers will use taxis for much of their travelling within the city. Even in Manhattan, which has the most extensive and comprehensive transit system in the country, taxis are faster, easier, more convenient and more comfortable for most trips outside rush hour, and people who can afford to use them do so for those reasons.
Mixner:
If you want to believe the Youtube video you linked to is how it is 24/7 at every station on every line in Tokyo, and all of the "rabbit hutch" cliches, that's your business. Meanwhile I'm going to enjoy all of the positive externalities of urban density Matt is always going on about (i.e., tons of shopping, restaurants, parks concert venues, and yes, Belgian beer on tap) within say a 10 minute walk from my apartment. And what is a car stuck in traffic if not a sardine can?
DMonteith,
...fueled by oil priced according to the cost of production rather than by what the market would actually bear will be unsustainable in the mid to long range future....
[continuing]...as long as smaller cars, diesel cars, hybrid cars, compressed natural gas cars, flexfuels, biofuels, electric cars, and all other means of increasing automobile fuel efficiency and switching to alternate fuels somehow disappear from the face of the earth, and the irrational, paranoid fantasies of peak-oil nutjobs somehow turn out to be true.
Finished that for you, D.
I was recently using a subway to commute back and forth from work. And it is definitely true I would have preferred to be magically transported directly from my apartment to my office instantaneously and at no cost. In that sense, I only liked the subway better than the real world alternatives, and not better than magic.
However, in the real world I did prefer the subway to driving, even though I had a car and could have afforded a parking spot across from my building. The basic issue was that the subway was just as fast as driving thanks to congestion, and cheaper. Plus, sometimes after work I would go out for drinks.
Again, though, if my slightly tipsy post-happy-hour self could have been magically transported home at no cost, that would indeed have beaten the subway.
Meanwhile I'm going to enjoy all of the positive externalities of urban density Matt is always going on about (i.e., tons of shopping, restaurants, parks concert venues, and yes, Belgian beer on tap) within say a 10 minute walk from my apartment.
Make sure you wave to your neighbors as they move out for a better life in the suburbs, after they finally get fed up with the cramped housing, noise, crime, dirt, crowding, inconvenience, lack of open space and other problems of urban density. As they continue to leave, you may find many of those shops and restaurants you like closing down for lack of business.
Once they're in the suburbs, your former neighbors will probably find that within a 10-minute drive of their spacious, comfortable, modern, well-apointed suburban home, they have access to a large variety of malls, shopping centers, parks, recreational and entertainment facilities, etc., that actually provide them with a far greater choice of options than you have within a 10-minute walk of your apartment.
Thanks for reminding me, DTM, of one of the biggest externalities of all: the option of going out with my buds and getting absolutely 'faced without worrying about killing anyone/getting killed on the way home.
And Mixner, believe it or not there are plenty of taxis in Tokyo, particularly when the economy is down (being a cabbie is famously kind of a Plan D employment option). Expensive, I'll grant you.
DTM,
The basic issue was that the subway was just as fast as driving thanks to congestion, and cheaper.
On average, commuting by public transportation takes almost twice as long as commuting by car. New York, the most transit-rich state in the country, has the longest commutes of all.
Dodger Fixer,
Absolutely--it was quite clear to me that no one wanted to live around the subway station in my former neighborhood. I'm sure that is why the rents and home prices were relatively high--people offering property needed to make up for a lack of demand by raising prices.
NYC.gov: "during the spring of 2002 was 4.8 miles per hour, just 1.4 miles per hour faster than the average walking speed of humans."
Rich people who value their time in Manhattan don't drive or take cabs. They walk or take public transit. Some people take cars or car services because they desire the privacy of a car more than they value the efficiency of transit but that choice isn't dictated by the quality and/or effiecency of their transportation options.
DTM,
Absolutely--it was quite clear to me that no one wanted to live around the subway station in my former neighborhood.
Not "no one," but probably "fewer and fewer people over time." Almost all the cities dense enough to support subway systems have been losing population for many years. Which city are you referring to?
Mixner,
Well, then I assume you support policies to add more public transit routes along commuter paths and more frequent service during commuting times, which would reduce the average time of public transit commutes.
Mixner,
My subway stop was in Arlington County, Virginia. Arlington, incidentally, has been growing steadily in population.
Rich people who value their time in Manhattan don't drive or take cabs. They walk or take public transit.
Yes, that must be why the New York subway is full of bankers and executives. Why, just the other day I saw Donald Trump and Martha Stewart on the A-train.
Have you ever even visited New York? Outside of rush hour, the vast majority of trips within Manhattan are much faster by taxi than subway. Even in the unlikely event that the starting and ending points of your trip are conveniently located right next to subway stations, so that you don't have to walk several blocks at each end of your trip just to get to and from the station entrance, and those stations are on the same line, so that you don't have to make a transfer, and there are no delays buying a metrocard or getting to the right platform, and your train arrives right when you get to the platform, you're still likely to save time by taking a taxi instead.
[amending again]...unless,
smaller cars, diesel cars, hybrid cars, compressed natural gas cars, flexfuels, biofuels, electric cars, and all other means of increasing automobile fuel efficiency and switching to alternate fuels...
...are able to ramp up quickly enough, do not suffer from diminishing returns in rapid fashion, behavior changes such as carpooling, combining trips, etc. become permanent and increase with time, overall oil production declines do not approach the 14% rates that recent large producers (Cantarell, North Sea) have been experiencing, current net export declines of 2% do not accelerate, battery technologies advance and are deployed rapidly, Bush does not bomb Iran, the economy threads the needle of maintaining enough momentum to sustain demand for new technology vehicles while at the same time absorbing the high fuel prices that provide strong incentives to make the switch, and all relevant policy options/subsidies are eliminated/enacted in accelerated fashion, and the preferences of people do not change over time.
If all this happens, then Mixner's suburban utopia is sustainable. Hooray! Everyone relax. Nothing could possibly go wrong here.
Through the power of assertion, the blisfully ignorant fantasies of our resident Panglossian techno-glibertarian troll have been proven to be far more reliable than any reasonable consideration of possible alternatives. QED.
"Outside of rush hour . . . ."
Strangely, though, it turns out that what travel is like during rush hour actually matters to many people. It is almost as if there was some correlation between the term "rush hour" and when people were actually travelling.
DTM,
Well, then I assume you support policies to add more public transit routes along commuter paths and more frequent service during commuting times, which would reduce the average time of public transit commutes.
Why would you assume that? Do you believe any expenditure that would reduce commute times is justified, no matter how large the cost or how small the benefit?
My subway stop was in Arlington County, Virginia. Arlington, incidentally, has been growing steadily in population.
Arlington is an affluent suburb of Washington D.C. and is not representative of urban areas in general. Every time you try to promote transit with "examples," you appeal to a highly unusual, unrepresentative, atypical location that means nothing with respect to trends in population, transportation patterns and land-use policies in the United States in general. Washington isn't even typical of old-style, dense northeastern cities, most of which are losing population, as I said. There's a whole big wide nation outside of the northeast corridor, DTM. Maybe you should visit it some time.
Mixner - I used to live and work as a dispatcher in NYC. That's why I'm so sure you are talking out of your ass. You keep repeating the same unsourced snark again and again without any factual backup. Ante up a fact or two now and then now and then, potzer.
Commenters cite high property values, high ridership totals, and slow vehicle traffic times to you and all you ever do is pull the string on your chest and repeat the same unsourced crap about Tokyo sardine cans and Donald Trump. Well...you're tired!
Newsflash! New York has long commuting times because it's got high paying jobs and many people travel a great distance to get to those jobs creating traffic and crowded trains and buses. There are more jobs in Manhattan then there are people who live in Manhattan. Those people have to GET to Manhattan somehow. You seem to think this is some kind of socialist conspiracy. It's not. It's evidence of capitalist success.
Have you ever driven a car? Or are you some kind of stunted freak like Robert Moses who thought roads should be called "parkways" because they were like rolling parks. Moses, of course, never drove. I like looking at the trees too when I was a kid. When you have to keep your eyes on the road to avoid violent metal death it's another story.
Mixner,
Yes, you have told me that the Northeast isn't representative of the United States, nor is the Great Lakes region, nor is Texas ... so why not add Virginia to the list?
By the way, it is indeed true that Arlington is pretty pricey, and the places near Metro stops are particularly pricey. Which as I noted is really great evidence of how no one wants to live in such places. Well done.
I'll concede the point to Mixner, that if time is all you value, a taxi will likely be faster "outside of rush hour."
Of course, rush hour is typically the busiest time of the day. It's not a coincidedence that this is termed "rush hour." As it happens, that's when very large numbers of people are making their commutes - all at the same time.
This sounds to me a little bit like saying "outside of night time, the sun shines for most of any given 24-hour period." But whatever.
At any rate, time is very often not the only factor to be considered. Taxis are much more expensive than the subway for trips of any length. And realistically, someone relying exclusively on taxis is probably better off just buying a car in the first place.
Personally, I live in Chicago and rely on public transportation more or less exclusively. I've found that, yes, it can take me significantly longer to get places than with a car. But when I factor the economics into the equation, public transit wins out by a huge margin. I'm looking at $75/month for a CTA pass, against at least $500/mo for the car payment, insurance, gas, etc. Relying on a taxi would be far more expensive than that, even. Really, who travels like that anyway?
An extra 15-20 minutes - if that - to get downtown just isn't worth that much money to me. It's not even close.
Mixner - First you tell me I've never been to New York, then you tell DTM he should see more of America. Who the hell are you, the second coming of Lewis & Clark? People can grasp the general concepts that have similar parallels across the world. Why can't you just accept that people don't agree with you instead of pretending that you have some superior personal experience that allows you access to some kind of zen like wisdom and everybody else is an uninformed ass. Maybe you have it backwards.
Arlington is an affluent suburb of Washington D.C. and is not representative of urban areas in general.
This is just too funny. I never realized that "affluent suburbs," containing residents that commute into big cities, were so unusual. DTM, what kind of bizarre place is this Arlington you speak of?
DMonteith,
Your latest is just full of false, implausible and irrelevant claims:
...are able to ramp up quickly enough,
Given that mass-market smaller cars, diesel cars, flexfuel cars, hybrid cars, etc, are available right now and that not even the most paranoid peak-oil freaks are predicting an immediate end to oil production, this doesn't seem like a terribly serious risk.
do not suffer from diminishing returns in rapid fashion,
Ditto.
behavior changes such as carpooling, combining trips, etc. become permanent and increase with time,
Huh? Carpooling is merely one method of cutting fuel costs. Combining trips is another. Increasing the fuel efficiency of gasoline cars is a third. Telecommuting is a fourth. Switching to alternate fuels is a fifth. And so on. There are obviously many ways in which fuel costs could be reduced. We don't necessarily need any increase in carpooling at all to maintain fuel costs, let alone a "permanent" one. In fact, given the relative inconvenience of carpooling, I suspect increases in carpooling will play only a small and temporary role in offsetting recent rises in gas prices. The big changes will come from switching to more fuel-efficient cars and alternate fuels.
overall oil production declines do not approach the 14% rates that recent large producers (Cantarell, North Sea) have been experiencing, current net export declines of 2% do not accelerate,
Another highly implausible scenario. Of course even a 14% decrease in oil supplies would be completely offset by a 14% increase in efficiency or conservation.
The remainder of your post repeats this same basic fallacy. You pretend that if just any one of your laundry list of risks to energy costs comes true, then it will render our long-standing transportation and infrastructure policies "unsustainable." You need to think more quantitatively, D. You need to produce some credible analysis of the magnitude and impact of these alleged risks on actual behavior, instead of just regurgitating your laundry list as if anything that has the potential to increase the cost of driving, no matter how small the increase or how remote the risk, spells doom for the "suburban utopia" you hate so much.
strannix,
Well, you have to understand that only two kinds of people count in Mixner's world: people who are not affluent enough to afford to live in places like Arlington, and people who are so affluent that they live in Manhattan and don't have jobs they need to get to during rush hour.
Oh, and Chicago? Clearly not "representative" of the United States either. In fact, by process of elimination, it turns out the only place representative of the United States is a room in the basement of Mixner's mom's house, population of one.
joejoejoe,
Newsflash! New York has long commuting times because it's got high paying jobs and many people travel a great distance to get to those jobs creating traffic and crowded trains and buses.
More nonsense. New York's long commute times have nothing to do with "high paying jobs." Lots of other parts of the country have lots of high-paying jobs but much shorter commute times. The long commute times in New York are the result of that state's population and infrastructure densities. In particular, the hyperdense concentration of jobs in midtown and lower Manhattan. That extreme density requires the daily transportation of very large numbers of people into and out of a very small geographical area. That means most of those people must rely on mass transit rather than being able to drive. And mass transit is slow. That's why New York has such long commute times. It's all about the density.
DTM,
Yes, you have told me that the Northeast isn't representative of the United States, nor is the Great Lakes region, nor is Texas
With respect to the issues that were being discussed in each case, they're not. That's why your appeals to them in an attempt to justify broad policy claims are specious. And you got your facts completely wrong about population in northeastern cities, anyway. You listed a bunch of northeastern cities and claimed they are gaining population (Pittsburgh, etc.). I gave you links to the Census Bureau's official population estimates that proved your claim was wrong for every single city in your list.
But of course, rather than rethink your position in light of that information, you simply pretend your being wrong somehow doesn't matter. As I said, your position is all about wishful thinking, about what you want to be true, what you would like to be true. You have no interest in facts or evidence that contradict your predetermined, faith-based conclusions.
Can someone help me untie my argument?
a 14% decrease in oil supplies would be completely offset by a 14% increase in efficiency or conservation.
Listen carefully, ignoramus: as I've told you before, these have been 14% annual declines. Y'know, year on year, compounded, continuous. That's why I've been talking about decline rates.
There's no use talking to you.
Also, you haven't responded to my points in the "dude, where's my oil thread" so I'll just assume that you concede your ignorance and are congenitally incapable of assimilating new information. It's a deadly combination with your Tourette's syndrome triggered by the word "transit", but we all have our crosses to bear.
We don't actually "build" countries, novakant.
You don't say!
Hmmmm, I see the 8 line does not go downtown but dead-ends on the 10. Methinks Beijing might have the same kinds of transportation issues as Atlanta did in 1996? You know, only one possible route to the Olympic sites and way too much dependence on cars?
Also, amusing to see that Mixner has reached new heights of ridiculousness by arguing that NEW YORK would be better off without transit. Hmm, can you say "24-hour-traffic-jam?"
There's a European city with an expressway system of American-style extensiveness and connectivity, except with one key difference -- traffic actually moves. It's called Paris. It also has the best public transit. These two things are connected, believe it or not.
Also, amusing to see that Mixner has reached new heights of ridiculousness by arguing that NEW YORK would be better off without transit. Hmm, can you say "24-hour-traffic-jam?"
I'm not sure that's actually what he's arguing. At least as far as I can tell, he's arguing that mass transit is a necessary evil in New York because of its density.
The real core of his argument, seen in his Tokyo comment above, seems to be that we simply shouldn't build dense cities that require mass transit. Now that we have, people are doomed to slow transit times, at least until people get so tired of it that they move out of those cities.
So you see, it's really not so ridiculous.
We spend about 2 percent of our GDP on infrastructure. China, So. Korea and competitors in Europe are spending 5 percent or more.
Worse, our two percent is being spent in the wrong places -- namely on new infrastructure rather than rebuilding existing infrastructure and investing in mass transit in our cities, where over half of Americans live.
strannix,
At least as far as I can tell, he's arguing that mass transit is a necessary evil in New York because of its density.
How dare you accurately state what I wrote, strannix. Don't you know the game around here is to pretend I wrote something completely different to what I actually wrote, and then attack that made-up version?
The real core of his argument, seen in his Tokyo comment above, seems to be that we simply shouldn't build dense cities that require mass transit. Now that we have, people are doomed to slow transit times, at least until people get so tired of it that they move out of those cities.
That's pretty much it, yes. I am not opposed to greater density or more transit where there is genuine demand for it. But the overwhelming trend of the past half-century or more has been towards lower density, more sprawl, and a shift from public transportation to private cars. I am very strongly opposed to efforts to spend large sums of public money on transit and high-density development where there is no clear demand for it, in the hope that the demand will somehow materialize after it has been built. I am very strongly opposed to efforts to use the power of government to coerce people into shifting from private cars to public transportation. I am very strongly opposed to efforts to use the power of government to coerce people into shifting from low-density suburban lifestyles to high-density urban lifestyles. This kind of social engineering is just typical left-wing authoritarianism. The authoritarian left isn't interested in how Americans actually want to live. The authoritarian left isn't interested in policies that reflect the actual values and priorities of the American people. The authoritarian left simply wants to impose its vision of what people should want and should value on them whether they like it or not. Since we live in a democracy, our transportation and infrastructure policies will continue to reflect the will of the people in the long run and in the country as a whole. That will is clearly at odds with the high-density, transit-friendly lifestyles favored by Matthew Yglesias, DTM and other transit-boosters here. So their project is ultimately doomed to failure, whatever limited and short-term successes they may have in imposing their vision of the good life on particular communities through false and dishonest argumentation about efficiency, pollution, etc.
DBX,
Also, amusing to see that Mixner has reached new heights of ridiculousness by arguing that NEW YORK would be better off without transit.
Amusing to see that DBX has reached new heights of lying about what other people have written.
The overwhelming trend of the past half-century or more has been that the levees of New Orleans will not be breached by the storm surge of a large hurricane. Therefore, any expenditure on flood prevention is authoritarian social engineering by the left.
"That's a pretty weird set up of metro lines."
It makes sense when you know the layout of the city - which is organized around highways that go in rings around the city center. Line 2 goes along the 2nd ring road, line 10 will eventually go around the 3rd. Line 8 was built to connect with the Olympic stadium.
There are also an incredible number of buses, and a couple of light rail lines as well. The City is also very bike centric.
I'm living right next to a 10 line stop, so I'm happy to have this up and running - I was afraid that the delays in opening it would continue indefinitely.
"That's a pretty weird set up of metro lines."
It makes sense when you know the layout of the city - which is organized around highways that go in rings around the city center. Line 2 goes along the 2nd ring road, line 10 will eventually go around the 3rd. Line 8 was built to connect with the Olympic stadium.
There are also an incredible number of buses, and a couple of light rail lines as well. The City is also very bike centric.
I'm living right next to a 10 line stop, so I'm happy to have this up and running - I was afraid that the delays in opening it would continue indefinitely.
"That's a pretty weird set up of metro lines."
It makes sense when you know the layout of the city - which is organized around highways that go in rings around the city center. Line 2 goes along the 2nd ring road, line 10 will eventually go around the 3rd. Line 8 was built to connect with the Olympic stadium.
There are also an incredible number of buses, and a couple of light rail lines as well. The City is also very bike centric.
I'm living right next to a 10 line stop, so I'm happy to have this up and running - I was afraid that the delays in opening it would continue indefinitely.
"That's a pretty weird set up of metro lines."
It makes sense when you know the layout of the city - which is organized around highways that go in rings around the city center. Line 2 goes along the 2nd ring road, line 10 will eventually go around the 3rd. Line 8 was built to connect with the Olympic stadium.
There are also an incredible number of buses, and a couple of light rail lines as well. The City is also very bike centric.
I'm living right next to a 10 line stop, so I'm happy to have this up and running - I was afraid that the delays in opening it would continue indefinitely.
You know what's funny? Restating Mixner's argument to make it sound as silly as possible, and then having him come along and say, yes, yes, that's exactly what I meant!
Oh, and dude: "coerce". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That's right, strannix. "Mass transit is a necessary evil in New York because of its density" is hilarious. And I'm pretty sure I know what "coerce" means, but you don't seem to.
Do you have, you know, anything resembling an actual argument to make? Or even a clear position? Do you seriously think we should we building our new cities to resemble Tokyo, or Manhattan? Do you seriously think most Americans want to live like that?
strannix, as a New Jerseyite who used to work in the financial district and take the train into Manhattan every day, I can definitely relate to what Mixner is saying. Sure, there was a certain excitement to working in the city. And it was nice to be in Manhattan if I wanted to go out there after work. But mostly I remember just how unpleasant the whole experience was. Driving to the station in Newark, parking the car, taking the train to Penn Station, then having to get the subway downtown. It was a pain. And some days it took forever. The crowds, the noise, the stress. Fuhgettaboutit.
Now I work at an office park in Jersey that's a 20 minute drive from my house. I wouldn't change back for the world. I still go into Manhattan often on the weekend. But now I do it because I want to. Not because I have to. And I usually drive.
Do you have, you know, anything resembling an actual argument to make? Or even a clear position? Do you seriously think we should we building our new cities to resemble Tokyo, or Manhattan? Do you seriously think most Americans want to live like that?
Of course I do. I explained my thoughts upthread - that for a lot of people, cost is a big factor in the equation, and you're not even acknowledging that factor. It's not all about how long it takes to get from point A to point B.
The question of whether "most" Americans want to live one way or the other is a strawman. It's very clear that millions and millions of Americans DO want to live in dense cities. We know this because millions and millions of people live there now. On purpose even. Without being coerced. After all, these places are dense precisely because lots of people live there.
And it's fair to assume that millions more want to. Property values in densely populated areas are extremely high, so we know the demand is there.
So yes, while in your world we shouldn't build dense areas because transit times are too long, there's precious little indication that this view has any relevance to anything other than where you personally choose to live.
"strannix,"
The question of whether "most" Americans want to live one way or the other is a strawman. It's very clear that millions and millions of Americans DO want to live in dense cities. We know this because millions and millions of people live there now. On purpose even. Without being coerced. After all, these places are dense precisely because lots of people live there.
The point is that dense cities are losing population to sprawling cities and suburbs. Fewer and fewer people are choosing to live in dense cities. More and more people are choosing to live in suburbs. We're not building any more cities like New York. We're gradually dismantling them. Our new cities look like Phoenix and Houston and San Antonio and Las Vegas. Not like New York and Tokyo.
And in case it has escaped your attention, most of those workers converging on Manhattan each morning don't live there. They only work there. They live in the outer boroughs, or in New Jersey or Connecticut or Westchester County, so they can enjoy the advantages of lower density lifestyles. They're not riding the commuter rail and subway into Manhattan and because they "like" it, but because it's the only practical, cost-effective way to transport vast numbers of workers into a small geographical area. The subway is, to use your phrase, a "necessary evil" in cities with very high population/employment densities. In our new cities, which have much lower densities, there are no subways and there never will be. Or, at least, if any new subways are ever built in the United States at all, they will be only very, very limited ones serving the highest-density core parts of the city.
so they can enjoy the advantages of lower density lifestyles.
Most of them move there because they want to enjoy the lower cost. Median sales price of a Manhattan apartment was $975,000 in the second quarter of 2008. Average sales price, excluding the sales at The Plaza and 15 Central Park West, was $1,490,000.
The median in the Bronx is $375,000, Brooklyn $530,000, Queens $490,000, Staten Island $405,000
Comments closed August 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I lived in Shanghai a couple of years ago. They have a new metro system that is first rate: very clean and efficient. And it is also pretty cheap too. Taxis are also good. The buses...well, they are okay.
Posted by adlsad | July 19, 2008 5:50 PM