The biggest problem for American mass transit is that it has been stigmatized. This is an unknown phenomenon in the rest of the world and is impossible to solve without draconian measures.
Those "neighborhoods" of one mile by one mile with avenues surrounding them are the perfect locations for better development for everyone: more density along the avenues, with three or four floors of residences with commercial and social spaces on the ground floors, leaving the current detached houses in the middle (maybe a transition between them with row houses?). More density means more commercial activity, more housing means housing prices are not as high, and people can still live in their detached houses with ammenities and destinations near them, without having to rely on their cars.
OTOH, forcing density along the avenues means putting more people (and poorer people who can't afford houses) closest to the noise and pollution of all the cars on the avenues, while rich people live in their quiet interior blocks. If we're going to have height caps at all, I'd prefer Japanese style ones based on the width of the street. I don't know Japan's exact rules, but let's say that you can build as tall as the width of the right of way, plus any front setback you use. So if the right of way (not just curb to curb) is 60 feet, and you're 6 feet back from the sidewalk, you can build up to 66 feet. This provide a 1:1 height:width ratio, which Jeff Speck proposed was close to 'ideal' to most human sensibilities.
@@Trainton235 ? but theres no one to ride it. The US population is basically in five clusters: West Coast, Gulf Coast, Midwest, Northeast. BUild bullet trains there. Theres not much in between but there are cities scattered veryyyyyyyy widely (think salt lake city to denver to kansas city) so night trains will do. Random towns with population 200 can get thruway buses
@@Trainton235 Conventional twin-rail systems work better, since the technology is not only well proven, but other technical issues allow for the use of conventional rail than maglev; for example, maglev trains cannot easily be switched from one track to another, and there'll always be the possibility of the dreaded LOLA (Loss Of Levity Accident).
Russia also has passenger rail lines across its territory and good public transport infrastructure on their cities literally the largest country on earth, never understood that argument seems like such a dumb excuse, specially for Americans given rail was the way the entire country was built lol
@@Kanadabalsam Russia does have good transportation system inside the city but i doubt its decent to use railway accross siberia. Though i get what you mean by that USA has every good reason to revitalise its railways
@@astro3666 "....but I doubt its decent to use railway across Siberia." At this moment, literally THOUSANDS of people are using the Trans-Siberian Railroad to travel from Moscow to Vladivostok.
Too big? Americans build interstate highways, but they can't build railways. Stop this Car dependency nonsense. This ain't your own silent generation no more.
The first part of your video was pretty solid but I have to quibble with later parts. While I'm all for land value tax, we don't need land tax and height minimums so much as we need to _allow_ taller buildings with less parking. Under current zoning: you talk about filling in empty parking lots; that's illegal. Various mixed use along the transit line? Possibly also illegal, at least for parts of it. And the problem isn't car company lobbies so much as NIMBY homeowners. The same communities that blocked freeways also fight to block apartments and businesses (especially in San Francisco). The relevant "car lobby" is people worried about 'traffic', especially but not just people who are car owners themselves.
It's not "America" that is too big (though that might be true in isolation, not specifically relating to the context of public transport), but it's _the US._
