De-urbanisation - is it time to go back to the country?

[Dresderstan]

Texas: a place with ranches in the suburbs

Clearly you have not been to Texas my friend, and did I not mention Pennsylvania?

A lot of Pennsylvania is rural

I can vouch for this, as a native from PA, this is quite true.

[Thermodolia]

Three hours? How naïve.

But seriously I’d love to have commuter rail however the state government hates it

Wasn't there a MARTA expansion voted down by Gwinnett County earlier this year?

Unfortunately. The county government, which when they set the voting date was 100% republican, they knew that setting the date for the referendum in the middle of March wouldn’t pass.

The republicans here in the state do not like transit

[Holy Tedalonia]

Texas: a place with ranches in the suburbs

Clearly you have not been to Texas my friend, and did I not mention Pennsylvania?

Where do you live in Texas (I'm assuming you do by your sig).

Metropolitan Texas, but I've live throughout the country and travelled all across it. Tennessee is my families get together location and as such I am very familiar with it.

[Outer Sparta]

Wasn't there a MARTA expansion voted down by Gwinnett County earlier this year?

Unfortunately. The county government, which when they set the voting date was 100% republican, they knew that setting the date for the referendum in the middle of March wouldn’t pass.

The republicans here in the state do not like transit

Considering the fact it's "socialism" and "big government" of course they won't support it.

[Northwest Slobovia]

The problem is that the Railroads refuse to let passenger rail, outside of Amtrak, to use their rails. Also the state refuses to fund rail transit in favor of highways, plus there’s a lot of racists still around and they don’t want transit because it might bring “those people” in.

Yes, you would need to cut a deal with the railroads.
But Maryland and Virginia managed to do it.
The railroads will do it, if you pay them enough or improve their infrastructure enough.

That's true in other places as well: some of Chicago's commuter trains run on private railroad tracks. Other commuter lines used to be privately held, but are now run by governments: the Metra Electric used to be the Illinois Central Electric, and the South Shore Line used to be owned by the South Shore and South Bend Railroad.

[Thermodolia]

Sadly yes

Apparently the "getting stuck in traffic" vote is more popular than the "spending tax dollars to expand public transit" vote.

It’s more of the local government purposely putting the date in some random month and then doing jack shit to promote it

[Outer Sparta]

Where do you live in Texas (I'm assuming you do by your sig).

Metropolitan Texas, but I've live throughout the country and travelled all across it. Tennessee is my families get together location and as such I am very familiar with it.

Is it metro Houston or Dallas or some other city?

[Outer Sparta]

Apparently the "getting stuck in traffic" vote is more popular than the "spending tax dollars to expand public transit" vote.

It’s more of the local government purposely putting the date in some random month and then doing jack shit to promote it

Often times, local government is the worst. Remember kids, local elections are very important!

[Holy Tedalonia]

Metropolitan Texas, but I've live throughout the country and travelled all across it. Tennessee is my families get together location and as such I am very familiar with it.

Is it metro Houston or Dallas or some other city?

Metropolitan Texas is a region. Dallas is the certain point but I live in the suburbs

[Novus America]

A lot of Pennsylvania is rural

I can vouch for this, as a native from PA, this is quite true.

Pretty much all PA between I-79, I-80 and 81 is rural wilderness.

[San Lumen]

I can vouch for this, as a native from PA, this is quite true.

Pretty much all PA between I-79, I-80 and 81 is rural wilderness.

And we ought to keep it that way

[Outer Sparta]

I can vouch for this, as a native from PA, this is quite true.

Pretty much all PA between I-79, I-80 and 81 is rural wilderness.

Tell me about it. Driving through Pennsylvania is mostly boring except cool mountain scenery.

[Dresderstan]

I can vouch for this, as a native from PA, this is quite true.

Pretty much all PA between I-79, I-80 and 81 is rural wilderness.

Not all of it, the Wyoming Valley is a mix of suburban areas with small urban-like cities, I.E. Wilkes-Barre and Scranton.

[Orostan]

[R]ail transport, which should be given priority as they are objectively the best mode of transport.

If you believe there is a single "best" mode of transport for all situations, you should read up on transit planning. All modes have tradeoffs. Trains are good for moving large numbers of people between fixed spots, but they have immense capital costs and can't be rerouted to meet changing demands in where people live and work without further great capital costs. There are tradeoffs even within the design space for trains between, for example, number of stops and overall top speed/transit time. I happen to like trains, but they're not the answer for all transit questions.

They're not even "objectively the best" in big cities, which is why cities have buses, cars, bicycles, and often several different kinds of trains ("heavy"/commuter trains, subways and/or elevated trains, and light rail/trolleys/streetcars/trams/whatever they're called today). Private cars are not the problem, they are good solutions for certain transit problems even within dense urban areas.

Trains are the best all-round form of transport. That is what I meant. Bikes, cars, and light rail all have their place in the transit network. A train can take you from the center of one large city to the center of another, a subway can take you from that city center to other parts of the city. I say that trains are the best mode of transport because they're incredibly space efficient and can, and should, serve as the primary mode of transport (excluding last mile) in cities and on intercity routes where an aircraft is unnecessary.

Fuck no. Investment in public transport, specifically rail transport, and the densification of cities needs to happen. Suburbs should’ve never been built and should be depopulated in favor of denser cities. Cars should be relegated to last-mile transport and made auxiliary to rail transport, which should be given priority as they are objectively the best mode of transport.

t. going into urban planning

Suburbs are amazing dude, I can understand this opinion coming from europe or japan, but if its from a fellow american I'd respectfully disagree. See europe and japan is already dense, and compact and have the functions in place for a dense society. However americas pretty frontier, and it doesn't have the railways networks europe or japan has.

To put these institutions in place on a massive country is silly, as it would be far costlier then the denser and smaller countries like japan or europe.

As an American, I must tell you that from an urban planning perspective suburbs are terrible. They have inefficient land use, inefficient transport, and necessitate large highway networks to make their car-based transport truly functional. The US should pursue a policy of densification and should completely eliminate the inefficiency produced by suburbs. While you're correct that the USA has much less population density than countries with huge rail networks, the suburb is still part of the problem. For midwestern towns and areas which are unsuitable for densification or just lack the population and have the space, towns should form the basis of planning. Rail should always play a part in intercity trips, especially in places like the midwest where air travel would be too under utilized and expensive to be effective. Cars require massive infrastructure investment and personal expenditure, not to mention their inefficient nature. What I am trying to say here is that the principle of a rail network as the core of a large transport system can, and should, be applied to the US. I'm not arguing for the abolition of the car (though that'd be great), I am arguing for getting rid of its place at the center of American transportation.

[Outer Sparta]

Pretty much all PA between I-79, I-80 and 81 is rural wilderness.

Not all of it, the Wyoming Valley is a mix of suburban areas with small urban-like cities, I.E. Wilkes-Barre and Scranton.

State College is in the middle of the state.

[Rezmaeristan]

It would be nice, but we'd have to have WW3, a zombie apocalypse, or anything that would cause a massive population reduction for it to be anything other than suburbanization. Because if too many people go back to the countryside, eventually it just becomes suburbs.

[Orostan]

It would be nice, but we'd have to have WW3, a zombie apocalypse, or anything that would cause a massive population reduction for it to be anything other than suburbanization. Because if too many people go back to the countryside, eventually it just becomes suburbs.

>implying the small town meme isn't just a meme

[Ifreann]

If we can make it feasible for people to live comfortably either in cities or not, then shouldn't we do that and leave people to choose whichever they prefer? Is there a need to push people either way?

[Sagarmatha]

It would be nice, but we'd have to have WW3, a zombie apocalypse, or anything that would cause a massive population reduction for it to be anything other than suburbanization. Because if too many people go back to the countryside, eventually it just becomes suburbs.

Overpopulation is a myth.

[Orostan]

It would be nice, but we'd have to have WW3, a zombie apocalypse, or anything that would cause a massive population reduction for it to be anything other than suburbanization. Because if too many people go back to the countryside, eventually it just becomes suburbs.

Overpopulation is a myth.

Rezmaeristan is right though. Anything that is economically even slightly viable and is spread out enough to make it 'not a city' is going to end up looking like a suburb on sterioids.

[Rezmaeristan]

It would be nice, but we'd have to have WW3, a zombie apocalypse, or anything that would cause a massive population reduction for it to be anything other than suburbanization. Because if too many people go back to the countryside, eventually it just becomes suburbs.

Overpopulation is a myth.

So let's picture this. Densely populated urban areas start emptying out because city-dwellers want to live in rural areas. But there's so many of them that everyone having 20 acres and living far apart in the countryside becomes impossible. So eventually the rural area becomes a suburb. And then everyone starves because there's no farmland, which means no food.

[Outer Sparta]

Overpopulation is a myth.

Rezmaeristan is right though. Anything that is economically even slightly viable and is spread out enough to make it 'not a city' is going to end up looking like a suburb on sterioids.

Any kind of urbanization is inevitable. I mean, look at the rise of the Sumerians and their cities thousands of years ago.

[Sagarmatha]

Overpopulation is a myth.

So let's picture this. Densely populated urban areas start emptying out because city-dwellers want to live in rural areas. But there's so many of them that everyone having 20 acres and living far apart in the countryside becomes impossible. So eventually the rural area becomes a suburb. And then everyone starves because there's no farmland, which means no food.

Fact: with arable land you can feed a family of four with two acres. Meat, eggs, dairy, fruits and vegetables. Two acres to eat better than most people in their tenements, stuffing themselves with preservatives and shelf stabilizers. Yummy yummy microwave meals.

You literally need one acre and decent soil to feed your family. No one is asking for 20 acres for every individual. Stop being dramatic because you got embarrassed. Literally every single family could have that, but even if it were a 60:40 or 80:20 split there is even more arable land. But thats not good for the consumerist machine and GDP so >>>:(

[Orostan]

So let's picture this. Densely populated urban areas start emptying out because city-dwellers want to live in rural areas. But there's so many of them that everyone having 20 acres and living far apart in the countryside becomes impossible. So eventually the rural area becomes a suburb. And then everyone starves because there's no farmland, which means no food.

Fact: with arable land you can feed a family of four with two acres. Meat, eggs, dairy, fruits and vegetables. Two acres to eat better than most people in their tenements, stuffing themselves with preservatives and shelf stabilizers. Yummy yummy microwave meals.

You literally need one acre and decent soil to feed your family. No one is asking for 20 acres for every individual. Stop being dramatic because you got embarrassed. Literally every single family could have that, but even if it were a 60:40 or 80:20 split there is even more arable land. But thats not good for the consumerist machine and GDP so >>>:(

Why do you hate industrial civilization and want to die at 20 of a scratch?

[Sagarmatha]

The literal Roman Empire had an age expectancy similar to ours adjusted for infant mortality and war. Holy **** you guys.