Elevated Rail: Boston and Beyond

Matthew said:
I argue that it is the comparison of interest, because public transit and walking are complementary modes. On the other hand, automobile infrastructure is almost invariably detrimental to walking and certain types of transit (mixed ROWs). Remember, we just spent $22 billion because people hated walking under the "Green Monster" (and also it was falling apart).

It is irrelevant to me if the transit is provided by steel wheels or rubber tires.

I also don't care -- for this purpose of discussion -- about places out on Rt 128. I said "within cities" and Rt 128 is clearly not inside a city. Cars will always be best for sprawl-to-sprawl transportation.
Click to expand...

Mathew -- you need to read some history

What you call sprawl and associate with things such as the GI Bill after WWII and other "meddling" has its roots in the very beginning of settlement in Massachusetts

Boston was settled (officially) in 1630 as the port for the Massachusetts Bay Colony -- a theocratic colony founded by what today would be called the educated elite
As soon as the seaport settlement was anchored and functioning efficiently -- people started moving out -- here's a sample heading NW from the Boston Stone in the Blackstone Block -- basically following Mass Ave.

1) Cambridge (near Harvard Sq.) -- (3 mi line of sight or 8 miles due to roads to the Boston neck) was settled in 1630-1631 as Newtowne the capital of the colony
a) the first college in North America (Harvard) was instituted in 1636 to train ministers for the colony
b) all the rest of Cambridge is mostly 19th Century
2) Arlington (6 miles from Boston) was originally settled in 1635 as a farming village within the Cambridge land grant under the name Menotomy
a) major advantage was water power available along Mill Brook
b) In 1637 Captain George Cooke built the first of seven mills were built along the stream, including the Old Schwamb Mill, (1650) which survives to this day -- the longest working mill in the country.
c) incorporated on February 27, 1807 as West Cambridge
d) In 1867 renamed -- Arlington to honor of those Civil War dead buried in Arlington National Cemetery
e) Classic streetcar suburb and somewhat summer resort at Park Circle where the Watertower off Rt-2 is located
1870 3,261 —
1880 4,100 +25.7%
1890 5,029 +22.7%
1900 8,603 +71.1%
1910 11,187 +30.0%
1920 18,665 +66.8%
1930 36,094 +93.4%
1940 40,013 +10.9%
1950 44,353 +10.8%
1960 49,953 +12.6%
1970 53,524 +7.1%
1980 48,219 −9.9%
1990 44,630 −7.4%
2000 42,389 −5.0%
2010 42,844 +1.1
3) Lexington (10 to 12 miles line of sight) was first settled in 1642 as an agricultural extension of Cambridge, Massachusetts
a) In 1691 incorporated as Cambridge Farms -- a parish with a separate church and minister, but still under jurisdiction of the Town of Cambridge
b) in 1713 incorporated as Lexington -- a separate town
c) provided Boston with much of its produce for many years
d) population grew very slowly for many decades
e) in 1846 of the Lexington and West Cambridge Railroad, later the Boston and Maine Railroad open -- Lexington became a bedroom community and a summer resort (1850 census 1,893 residents)
f) East Lexington was settled later as a manufacturing center and functioned quasi-independently until the late 19th Century
g) Lexington's conversion to bedroom community accelerated when streetcars made it to Arlington Heights and eventually in the early 20th C the Middlesex & Boston Street Railway line made commuting from as far as the Bedford border possible-- later cars started to be available though roads were still primitive
1880 2,460 +8.0%
1890 3,197 +30.0%
1900 3,831 +19.8%
1910 4,918 +28.4%
1920 6,350 +29.1%
1930 9,467 +49.1%
1940 13,187 +39.3%
h) after WWII high tech boomed along Rt-128 and population surged
1950 17,335 +31.5%
1960 27,691 +59.7%
1970 31,886 +15.1%
2010 31,394
4) Bedford -- 15 miles from Boston was first settled around 1640
a) the town proper was incorporated in 1729 with land from Concord (about 3/5) and from Billerica (about 2/5)
b) a purely agricultural community for many decades: 1850 975 residents -- 1920 1,362 residents
c) Street railway and later automobiles and superhighways transformed it first into a bedroom community and then high tech industry center
1920 1,362 +10.6%
1930 2,603 +91.1%
1940 3,807 +46.3%
1950 5,234 +37.5%
1960 10,969 +109.6%
1970 13,513 +23.2%
2010 13,320
5) Carlisle -- 19 miles from Boston -- first settled in 1651 on parcels of land of the neighboring towns of Acton, Billerica, Chelmsford and Concord.
a) became a district of Concord in 1780 and was officially incorporated as a town in 1805.
b) still mostly agricultural though becoming a bedroom community for Rt-128
c) very slow growth until very recently -- mostly due to 2 acre zoning
1850 632
1920 463
1930 560 +21.0%
1940 747 +33.4%
1950 876 +17.3%
1960 1,488 +69.9%
1970 2,871 +92.9%
1980 3,306 +15.2%
1990 4,333 +31.1%
2000 4,717 +8.9%
2010 4,852
6) Lincoln -- 15 miles from Boston -- settled in 1654 -- considered a part of Concord
a) in 1754 incorporated as a separate town due to the distance to an established parish
b) agricultural community even after the arrival of the railroad
1850 719 —
1860 718 −0.1%
1870 791 +10.2%
1880 907 +14.7%
1890 987 +8.8%
1900 1,127 +14.2%
1910 1,175 +4.3%
1920 1,042 −11.3%
c) population began to increase with opening of Rt-2 -- now Rt-2A -- never developed any industry except for the part of Hanscom inside the town
1930 1,493 +43.3%
1940 1,783 +19.4%
1950 2,427 +36.1%
1960 5,613 +131.3%
1970 7,567 +34.8%
d) as is true for most of these communities population peaked in the late 1960's and early 1970's with the Baby Boomers having kids
1980 7,098 −6.2%
1990 7,666 +8.0%
2000 8,056 +5.1%
2010 6,362
7) Concord -- 19 miles from Boston -- settled in 1635 when British settlers led by Rev. Peter Bulkley and Simon Willard negotiated a land purchase from a local tribe
a) in 1635 incorporated as Concord in appreciation of the peaceful acquisition
b) situated at the confluence of the Sudbury and Assabet rivers -- the rivers were rich with fish and the land was lush and arable -- slow grow agricultural community
c) in 1845 the Fitchburg Railroad opened from Boston to Fitchburg -- later sold to the Boston and Maine Railroad in 1919 and then the MBTA in 1976 -- today's Fitchburg CR Line -- 2 stops in Concord -- slow growth as agricultural and bedroom community
1850 2,249 —
1860 2,246 −0.1%
1870 2,412 +7.4%
1880 3,922 +62.6%
1890 4,427 +12.9%
1900 5,652 +27.7%
1910 6,421 +13.6%
1920 6,461 +0.6%
d) old Rt-2 and growing number of automobiles
1930 7,477 +15.7%
1940 7,972 +6.6%
1950 8,623 +8.2%
e) new Rt-2 and Rt-128 -- birth of Concord as high tech center
1960 12,517 +45.2%
1970 16,148 +29.0%
1980 16,293 +0.9%
1990 17,076 +4.8%
2000 16,993 −0.5%
2010 17,668 +0.5%
 
I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the point. Transportation and land use are inextricably intertwined, certainly. None of those outer communities can exist without Boston being a vital, import-replacing city. Prior to the Revolutionary War, Boston was the top trading city in the New World, so it's not surprising that many of these suburbs got an early start.

Are you trying to imply that highways are what leads to economic prosperity? Because there's no shortage of highways in the Rust Belt...
 
whighlander said:
Urb -- not to belabor the point -- BUT -- People like driving -- as it offers a freedom of action not possible with rails and schedules

That's why as soon as they could drive with a reasonable prospect of arriving hale and hearty -- train travel started to decline {e.g. South Station 38 million served back in 1913 } -- far fewer today

Note that this was far before there were:
1) loose, low density suburbs
2) air transit as an option
3) any really well designed highways

No amount of wishful thinking or fancy clusters of words (e.g. Transit Oriented Development) and even more obscure acronyms is going to change that fact of human behavior
Click to expand...

So every single person who IS driving WANTS to drive? As ironic as it sounds, that's simply not always the case.
 
Matthew said:
I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the point. Transportation and land use are inextricably intertwined, certainly. None of those outer communities can exist without Boston being a vital, import-replacing city. Prior to the Revolutionary War, Boston was the top trading city in the New World, so it's not surprising that many of these suburbs got an early start.

Are you trying to imply that highways are what leads to economic prosperity? Because there's no shortage of highways in the Rust Belt...
Click to expand...

Mathew - -the points were these:
1) the history and land use in New England is different from much of the rest of the US because of the nature of the founding people and the government they put in place
a) correlary is that what in most places would have been a physically larger city turned very quickly into Boston and surrounding independent cities
2) because for the most part New England's principle resource has been the innovation of its people -- innovation is and must be a way of life
3) Greater Boston and New England has been a key Innovator in transportation on-going since the 1600's

4) Each successive innovation has had some impact on the settlement and growth of the communities in the Greater Boston Area -- note some overlapped so the chronological order is only approximate
a) sailing ships
b) canals and canal boats
b) steam ships and steam railroads
e) horse car lines
f) electric traction -- street running
g) electric traction subway, trolley protected ROW
h) diesel-electric traction long-haul & Internal combustion powered ships
i) automobile and underwater tunnels
j) airplane
k) Interstate highway & Big Dig
l) Terrafugia (airplane that is street legal)

5) a similar chronological list can be developed of the motive power for the industry in the region
a) wind for ships
b) water for mills
c) coal for mills and transportation and electricity
d) hydro and coal for electricity for mills and some transportation
e) oil / gas for transportation and electricity for industry
f) nuclear for electricity
g) electricity for computation & communications

6) The growth and redistribution of the population and infrastructure in New England has been driven by the growth or lack-there-of of the regional economy (gross and in detail) -- which in turn has depended on the innovation process creating new industries to replace old ones that move away or disappear due to the natural economic minuses of the region

7) The best way to compensate for a lack of natural resources is to have good transportation of goods and people and now increasingly communications of information with as wide a reach as possible at as low a cost as possible
 
Sounds good. But I don't follow you when you say highways are a replacement for railways. We've tried to use them as such, but it's an experiment which is failing. The virtue of automobile travel is that its fairly independent, at least, until congestion inevitably strikes. On the other hand, it's also highly inefficient from a throughput point-of-view. And finding space to store hundreds of thousands of vehicles downtown during working hours? Ridiculous. There's a trade-off to be had here. Transit (even buses) is much more space efficient, and space matters in cities. Wherever land is cheap, the automobile will rule.

The rising price of gas is starting to overwhelm the hidden subsidies we here in America give to highways and car travel. By international standards, we still have it good, at $4/gallon. Despite that, people are still fleeing to transit. Can you imagine when it gets to $5+? Or if the users of gasoline were ever forced to directly shoulder more of the maintenance burden for the roads? Have you noticed that freight railroads are booming again? Trucking companies receive a humongous implicit subsidy, not coming close to paying the cost of their damage to the roads. Yet, multi-modal long-distance container transport is more popular than ever.
 
The whole point of cities is that they cluster lots of people close to lots of amenities. People desire this. But when you have a high density, land use efficiency becomes extremely important. Cars waste thousands of acres that could be put to better use. As a person who prefers urban living, meaning that I am geographically close to places of work, shop, and play, I have no desire to waste space on cars that belong to people who prefer living greater distances from everything.
 
Matthew said:
Sounds good. But I don't follow you when you say highways are a replacement for railways. We've tried to use them as such, but it's an experiment which is failing. The virtue of automobile travel is that its fairly independent, at least, until congestion inevitably strikes. On the other hand, it's also highly inefficient from a throughput point-of-view. And finding space to store hundreds of thousands of vehicles downtown during working hours? Ridiculous. There's a trade-off to be had here. Transit (even buses) is much more space efficient, and space matters in cities. Wherever land is cheap, the automobile will rule.

The rising price of gas is starting to overwhelm the hidden subsidies we here in America give to highways and car travel. By international standards, we still have it good, at $4/gallon. Despite that, people are still fleeing to transit. Can you imagine when it gets to $5+? Or if the users of gasoline were ever forced to directly shoulder more of the maintenance burden for the roads? Have you noticed that freight railroads are booming again? Trucking companies receive a humongous implicit subsidy, not coming close to paying the cost of their damage to the roads. Yet, multi-modal long-distance container transport is more popular than ever.
Click to expand...

Mathew, Henry -- the Megapower US which we have grown accustomed to since WWII is made possible by President Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System

Yes we have the most economically important freight railways in the world -- and freight hauled by railroads is vital to our economic well being -- BUR its the IH's that have made the US through the flexibility of travel options that they enable

When it comes to passenger rail in the US there are only a handful of realistic corridors outside to Bos-Wash -- the rest of the distances between city-pairs are too large for even high speed rail to make a dent -- without some officious and draconian bureaucratic mandates
 
HenryAlan said:
The whole point of cities is that they cluster lots of people close to lots of amenities. People desire this. But when you have a high density, land use efficiency becomes extremely important. Cars waste thousands of acres that could be put to better use. As a person who prefers urban living, meaning that I am geographically close to places of work, shop, and play, I have no desire to waste space on cars that belong to people who prefer living greater distances from everything.
Click to expand...

Henry -- I would agree with your contention as to why cities have existed historically -- However, a lot of the reason is not much there anymore, i.e. the need for large relatively unskilled labor pools

In the Information Era dominated by high speed communications -- aka the Knowledge Economy - you need to find a reason why the highly skilled workers -- who can often work literally anywhere on the planet -- want and need to cluster in the cities. Nonetheless, at least so-far an increasing fraction of the earth's population is being located in major metro areas (developed world) or mega-cities (developing world)

But the argument about wasted space for cars in a city is very thin -- outside of surface parking lots which often server as placeholders for development -- most of the land devoted to cars in cities -- would be there in the absence of passenger cars:
you need roads for the delivery of goods -- trucks are not going away
you need roads for the transit of people in limos and cabs
you need roads for bicycles and skateboarders, etc.
you also need roads for buses and street-running rail vehicles
 
I'm working from the presumption that cities are and will continue to be the economic engines of society. I think it's fundamental to human nature, and no amount of communications is going to change that. If anything, we've seen more people move back into the city as the Internet age progresses. I think the prediction is 70% of the world's population will be living in a city by 2050.

As for wasted space, I think you are underestimating it. You are right that of course we need streets for delivery, some private vehicles, public transit, bicycles, walking, etc. But I want to make a fine distinction between street and road, as Charles Marohn does,
Roads move people between places while streets provide a framework for capturing value within a place.
Click to expand...
By this distinction, cities should be filled with streets, which support a mixture of pedestrians and vehicles, and places for businesses to take root. Roads in cities are just vehicle infrastructure, but don't have other redeeming qualities. Unfortunately, a lot of the 20th century has been spent turning streets into roads.

You'll notice that in older cities, either here or overseas, many of the streets are still friendly to pedestrians, even where they've been adapted somewhat to cars. The typical characteristics are (relatively) narrow width, short blocks, and lots of variety in terms of usage, style, and age. Exceptions abound, but that's the general trend of streets that were built before cars.

On the other hand, for efficient automobile travel, you want to make the road wide, with fewer intersections, and less distraction. In other words, good roads are almost exactly the opposite of a good street!

So there's a tension. Speeding up car travel can only be done at the expense of pedestrians on the same route. One possibility is grade separation. We know how that worked out. Oddly, in other countries, they have less hang-ups about building underneath highways, whereas here it is invariably an empty space. Not sure why. In addition, all those ramps needed to get cars down from the elevated road waste a lot of space. And if you don't use surface parking lots, then you need to devote half your street width to parking, and build a lot of garages too. Garages are expensive and their main redeeming character to the street is that they are slightly less obtrusive than surface lots.

So, in summary, roads which are good for cars make for poor streets, and grade separation just makes tons of dead space. Really, I don't see any way around this, other than to accept that car travel inside cities is going to be slow, and to have patience. The flip side is that cities take up a relatively small portion of land, so building nice highways between cities means most of the journey can be fast. But the idea of building those highways into the hearts of cities has done unaccountable damage, and wasn't even the original intent of the interstate highway system.
 
whighlander said:
Henry -- I would agree with your contention as to why cities have existed historically -- However, a lot of the reason is not much there anymore, i.e. the need for large relatively unskilled labor pools

In the Information Era dominated by high speed communications -- aka the Knowledge Economy - you need to find a reason why the highly skilled workers -- who can often work literally anywhere on the planet -- want and need to cluster in the cities. Nonetheless, at least so-far an increasing fraction of the earth's population is being located in major metro areas (developed world) or mega-cities (developing world)

But the argument about wasted space for cars in a city is very thin -- outside of surface parking lots which often server as placeholders for development -- most of the land devoted to cars in cities -- would be there in the absence of passenger cars:
you need roads for the delivery of goods -- trucks are not going away
you need roads for the transit of people in limos and cabs
you need roads for bicycles and skateboarders, etc.
you also need roads for buses and street-running rail vehicles
Click to expand...

I just want to start by saying that you need to remain focused. Your earlier essay on the virtues of the interstate system and our national freight rail network is interesting, but completely irrelevant to this discussion, which regards transporting people in dense urban areas.

Anyway, regarding your contention that people no longer need to cluster together, there is a preponderance of evidence that we nevertheless choose to do so. Given that choice, why does our transportation policy work against this ideal? Please note, I'm not talking about rural and suburban highways, but only urban areas. Too much land is used by cars for parking, for resting (ie sitting in traffic), and moving people who have no choice because the better land use rail line doesn't exist (or has been so underfunded in favor of roads that it fails on service quality).

If you doubt that roads can be smaller, I'd point out the different sizes between roads in Boston and roads in New York. There are sections of Boston with population densities that aren't far from New York's density. And yet we have very little in the way of high rise, or even mid rise housing. The secret? Narrow streets. We use less of our land for cars, so we can achieve density without building as high.

Of course we need roads. Delivery vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and yes, private cars. But we don't need as many. Imagine if every Blvd. width road in Boston had a reservation with light rail. Many more people could quickly travel through that corridor than can currently do so. That's an improvement. It increases freedom to quickly and easily transit that section of the city. There is a need for cars, no question, even in cities. But they shouldn't receive the highest priority over other needs.
 
Fifth Avenue and Broadway in NYC are quite wide, and also teeming with pedestrians. So I don't quite buy the "road vs street" distinction you are making.

Mass. Ave. from Harvard to Porter Square is another wide street or road that is quite pleasant for pedestrians to stroll.
 
It's a matter of utilization, Ron. Wide streets used predominately for cars are wasting space. Wide streets used for pedestrians, cyclists, light rail, street vendors, etc., are efficient uses of space.
 
The "road vs street" distinction has nothing to do with width. I've just observed that narrow streets tend to be more pedestrian friendly, but there are exceptions. NYC has managed to get by even though every street north of the Village is wide. Some of the blocks are too long too. It's a handicap, but it's not unconquerable. Generally speaking, the interesting spots have lots of distractions and cross streets to mix things up. Also, pedestrians in NYC are fearless, which helps. Here too.

Mass Ave is fairly wide but Cambridge does take steps to ensure pedestrians can cross. That's really the issue at hand. If you see something interesting on the other side of the street, how much work does it take to get to it?

Marohn's definition of a "road" is one where such possibilities are minimized, in order to increase vehicular flow. His definition of a "street" is one where such possibilities are maximized, in order to increase land value.
 
whighlander said:
Mathew, Henry -- the Megapower US which we have grown accustomed to since WWII is made possible by President Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System
Click to expand...

Two World Wars gutting the other world powers' international systems of trade and decimating their industrial bases, followed by a postwar shift (both world wars) to fairly uncompetitative protectionism and exponential welfare statism, launched the US into an economic superpower. There was simply no one left to compete with or buy goods from on a scale that the US could. As the rest of the world has rebuilt their industrial base, reestablished international trade, opened markets, and became competitive geopoliticaly, the US is slowly shifting back to a realistic sphere of influence similar to what existed prior to the first World War. Albeit with different competiting powers dominating the globe than the previous century.

Highways have done economically for the US other than decentralization of housing and industry in addition to heavily burdening the government with the costs of maintaining transportation infrastructure, which previously was handled by private enterprise (turnpikes & railroads).
 
Matthew said:
The "road vs street" distinction has nothing to do with width. I've just observed that narrow streets tend to be more pedestrian friendly, but there are exceptions. NYC has managed to get by even though every street north of the Village is wide. Some of the blocks are too long too. It's a handicap, but it's not unconquerable. Generally speaking, the interesting spots have lots of distractions and cross streets to mix things up. Also, pedestrians in NYC are fearless, which helps. Here too.

Mass Ave is fairly wide but Cambridge does take steps to ensure pedestrians can cross. That's really the issue at hand. If you see something interesting on the other side of the street, how much work does it take to get to it?

Marohn's definition of a "road" is one where such possibilities are minimized, in order to increase vehicular flow. His definition of a "street" is one where such possibilities are maximized, in order to increase land value.
Click to expand...

Henry wrote
I just want to start by saying that you need to remain focused. Your earlier essay on the virtues of the interstate system and our national freight rail network is interesting, but completely irrelevant to this discussion, which regards transporting people in dense urban areas.

Anyway, regarding your contention that people no longer need to cluster together, there is a preponderance of evidence that we nevertheless choose to do so. Given that choice, why does our transportation policy work against this ideal? Please note, I'm not talking about rural and suburban highways, but only urban areas. Too much land is used by cars for parking, for resting (ie sitting in traffic), and moving people who have no choice because the better land use rail line doesn't exist (or has been so underfunded in favor of roads that it fails on service quality).

If you doubt that roads can be smaller, I'd point out the different sizes between roads in Boston and roads in New York. There are sections of Boston with population densities that aren't far from New York's density. And yet we have very little in the way of high rise, or even mid rise housing. The secret? Narrow streets. We use less of our land for cars, so we can achieve density without building as high.

Of course we need roads. Delivery vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and yes, private cars. But we don't need as many. Imagine if every Blvd. width road in Boston had a reservation with light rail. Many more people could quickly travel through that corridor than can currently do so. That's an improvement. It increases freedom to quickly and easily transit that section of the city. There is a need for cars, no question, even in cities. But they shouldn't receive the highest priority over other needs.
Click to expand...

Mathew, Henry -- you both sound like you are writing a dissertation or at least a scholarly review paper (without the plethora of references)

These kind of generalities are best described by my middle-brother's favorite expression:
"All Generalities are False"

You have the Parisian Blvds -- wide with lots of cars -- yet the "Champs" is one of the most urban - pedestrian friendly streets in the known world (at least by my personal experience)

Paris also has one of the least pedestrian friendly intersections is the world at the Arc De Triomphe, -- at least at the surface
Charles de Gaulle - Étoile et le Place Charles de Gaulle

and also several points where peripheral highways dump cars into the city's streets

http://www.connexionfrance.com/Pari...ique-bouchons-Sytadin-12233-view-article.html
title.jpg


Paris has Europe's worst traffic jams
November 05, 2010
PARIS has the worst traffic jams in Europe and drivers can lose up to 70 hours a year if they are on the road on Tuesdays between 8.00 and 9.00. ...Jams can add 10 minutes to a simple 30-minute journey to work and back.

A study showed that London is next worst, then the heavily urbanised Ruhr basin in Germany, although the UK as a whole suffered the heaviest country-wide delays, with major blackspots in Manchester on Fridays between 17.00 and 18.00 and the Blackwall Tunnel in London....

Paris has major embouteillages every day at the Périphérique entry points of Porte d'Ivry, Porte d'Italie, Porte de Sèvres, Porte de Bercy and Porte de Saint-Mandé, where the average traffic speed is just 23kph.
Click to expand...

London has narrow streets, some wide streets and several great intersections such as Piccadilly Circus and Trafalgar Sq. -- often complete with giant traffic jams

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q...sb&biw=1680&bih=916&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

In general despite having the worlds most complete public transit system and a lot of people who walk -- London also has horrible traffic jams

Sorry -- But you propose too simplistic solutions to exceedingly complex system problems.

if people are to like to live in cities -- which seems to be the case -- we need design the cities infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the walkers, the riders, the transit riders, and yes the automobile drivers

In different cities in different climates or even certain districts of a city such as Boston -- that goal may be best met with narrow streets and pedestrian malls -- e.g. the area are FH/QM or perhaps DTX

In other places such as the Pru it might mean Gerbil Tubes, Pedestrian Bridges and Pedestrian "Subways" under major intersections

There just is no one-size fits all solution
 
Lurker said:
Two World Wars gutting the other world powers' international systems of trade and decimating their industrial bases, followed by a postwar shift (both world wars) to fairly uncompetitative protectionism and exponential welfare statism, launched the US into an economic superpower. There was simply no one left to compete with or buy goods from on a scale that the US could. As the rest of the world has rebuilt their industrial base, reestablished international trade, opened markets, and became competitive geopoliticaly, the US is slowly shifting back to a realistic sphere of influence similar to what existed prior to the first World War. Albeit with different competiting powers dominating the globe than the previous century.

Highways have done economically for the US other than decentralization of housing and industry in addition to heavily burdening the government with the costs of maintaining transportation infrastructure, which previously was handled by private enterprise (turnpikes & railroads).
Click to expand...

Lurk -- that is so far from reality -- I'm not sure I know where to start the rebuttal

Interstate highways created the ideal nest to nurture the technology culture which literally has re-made the world in one human lifetime

two phrases Rt-128 and Silicon Valley are the Lexington and Concord of the Technological Revolution which shows no sign of slowing let-alone stopping

Note neither of those phrases has the name of a city -- both speak of regions -- and both created the new world in what was essentially virgin agricultural territory -- I doubt if we were cooped-up in cities with all their regulatin and permittin -- that the transistor and the Integrated Circuit would have gotten very far

its not an accident that the traditional industrial culture, tied to cities and unions -- was lost in the dust of the new gazelles building, growing and building again new companies, new plants, new centers all in the suburbs of the Big Cities and in the shadow of the great research universities. The Big City downtowns provided services needed by the new companies such a law, finance and accounting -- but the entrepreneurs lived in the suburbs with their companies.

Now we've spread the virus of our successful model to several receptive places in the world and the revolution continues. The most recent development for the more developed economies is that as much of technology has transitioned from a hardware orientation to softer, webbier stuff focus -- cities with the right stuff are re-becoming attractive as places of employment and consequently as places of habitation for some of the employees. In fact -- quite a few of the next gen companies are rethinking the need to be in the suburbs and they are even dragging their money folks along with them.

A slightly different trajectory has been followed by the Bio-Pharmas who came along much later in the 60 year tech rev -- and who benefited more from the urban infrastructure for university hospitals and such and mostly just had some flirtations with the suburbs (with a few exceptions such as AZ and Shire who've rooted themselves on Rt-128).
 
Ugh, you've missed my point almost entirely.

Seeing congestion in London and Paris doesn't mean something is wrong. It means something is right! Something is making people really want to drive there, even though traffic sucks. It is not possible to accommodate both walkers and drivers perfectly. One or the other has to give. The good public transit in those cities means that auto congestion does not limit their economies, because lots of people can still travel despite the traffic.

The observed "fundamental law of highway congestion" is that you cannot build your way out of congestion problems. In econ-speak: "The elasticity of vehicle miles traveled to highway miles available is close to 1."
 
I'd just like to point out that Kraft Foods was considering a downtown Chicago location as part of the company split. They settled on keeping the Grocery and Snack company headquarters in the suburbs. These problems are not unique to Chicago.

Why might that be?

Pro for being in city:
Nice view from the office
Younger workers without family prefer city life
Prestigious address

Cons for being in city:
Terrible public schools
terrible commute from places with yards, decent schools, and the amenities of the suburbs
Extremely high cost of office space relative to suburbs
Lack of ability to expand office space
all the CPG competition is in the suburbs
High cost of travel expenses for anyone going to headquarters on business
 
That list is farcical. The advantage of being in the city is proximity to people and other businesses/commercial activity. For businesses that need it, there's nowhere else to go. Some types of work don't benefit from proximity. Those companies that don't need the city, either because they're self-sufficient, or due to something idiosyncratic, tend to move out to cheaper land.

Nothing new about that. It's been happening ever since there were cities.

If you are having trouble believing me, ask yourself this question: "Why is the cost of downtown office real estate so extremely high?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top