That’s not how cities work. That’s just how America decided to approach that problem.
To spell it out for you: your commute is always in your local area. The size of your country is not relevant to your local area. What is relevant, is density. Density though, has nothing to do with the size of your country. Unfortunately, you are about twice as dense as Hong Kong.
Your local area is trees now. Two and a half hours of trees. And a hideous tower thing painted to look like a marlboro cigarette, that people use as a landmark.
Not that I disagree the other commenter kind of…went off the deep end at the end, there. But if your suggestion is not that we take everyone in most of the middle states and shove 'em all together into what would probably come to 3-4 mid-sized American cities — so I guess a medium European one, an event that will absolutely never happen anyway — then your remaining solution to the city density/commute thing must be…to…increase the density?
Is that what you guys are asking? The only problem with America is that there aren’t enough Americans? Especially in Wisconsin?
I think you still completely misunderstand almost everything.
Long commutes are the result of bad city planning. Most of the long commutes are not in rural areas, but essentially from the outskirts of a city to the city center.
America decided to build huge suburbs devoid of any meaningful jobs. Suburbs are low density, so you need to build a lot of them to house the people, but that also means a lot of space is taken up by hardly any people. So the distance between your house and your job is simply longer.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the country. You don’t plan a city on a national scale. That happens locally.
This entire thread is another example of the “murica never bad, murica special” trope. North America isn’t magically a completely different place from everywhere else.
Reading the comments you are replying to has me wanting to kick their teeth in with how brain dead they are. Kudos to you for trying to explain how cities work to them though.
The suggestion is that you permit the building of higher density housing. Note that currently, the law actually forbids doing this in most of America. Something anyone opposed to “big government” (like any American conservative claims to be) should be horrified by. (While left-leaning people should be horrified by it because it’s terrible for the environment, makes cost of living worse, and has negative social effects.)
Some people would still choose to live further out, and that’s totally fine. But a lot of people would choose to live closer to their place of work, which they can now afford to do because you’ve suddenly got 3 terraced homes and some parkland in the space that used to only hold 1 sprawling house and a mostly-unused yard. And even better, as you increase density, the relative efficiency of public transport goes up, and if it’s frequent and reliable, many people will choose to use public transit rather than drive everywhere because it’s just less stressful and easier. Or they might cycle instead.
Either way, they’re getting a car off the road and decreasing congestion, making it faster and easier for everyone else who still does drive.
Anyway the question is: why is there so much space between you and your job? If you can’t realistically move closer to your job, you’re either just too attached to your home (that’s a personal choice) or there’s just no housing available. In this case, you’d likely drive through large suburbs. Which take up land, but house hardly any people. This is a city planning issue.
Actually no suburbs it was from rural texas into oklahoma. And it was an important job since hospital needs lab techs and if he moves then his wife moves and a whole county looses their only obgyn
Are you completely insane?
Your response has nothing to do with my comment.
Here I’ll speak slowly
We have a big country. Big spaces mean longer commute. City design can't change physics of space-time.That’s not how cities work. That’s just how America decided to approach that problem.
To spell it out for you: your commute is always in your local area. The size of your country is not relevant to your local area. What is relevant, is density. Density though, has nothing to do with the size of your country. Unfortunately, you are about twice as dense as Hong Kong.
Not very passive of you but dayum!
Your local area is trees now. Two and a half hours of trees. And a hideous tower thing painted to look like a marlboro cigarette, that people use as a landmark.
Not that I disagree the other commenter kind of…went off the deep end at the end, there. But if your suggestion is not that we take everyone in most of the middle states and shove 'em all together into what would probably come to 3-4 mid-sized American cities — so I guess a medium European one, an event that will absolutely never happen anyway — then your remaining solution to the city density/commute thing must be…to…increase the density?
Is that what you guys are asking? The only problem with America is that there aren’t enough Americans? Especially in Wisconsin?
I think you still completely misunderstand almost everything.
Long commutes are the result of bad city planning. Most of the long commutes are not in rural areas, but essentially from the outskirts of a city to the city center.
America decided to build huge suburbs devoid of any meaningful jobs. Suburbs are low density, so you need to build a lot of them to house the people, but that also means a lot of space is taken up by hardly any people. So the distance between your house and your job is simply longer.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the country. You don’t plan a city on a national scale. That happens locally.
This entire thread is another example of the “murica never bad, murica special” trope. North America isn’t magically a completely different place from everywhere else.
Reading the comments you are replying to has me wanting to kick their teeth in with how brain dead they are. Kudos to you for trying to explain how cities work to them though.
The suggestion is that you permit the building of higher density housing. Note that currently, the law actually forbids doing this in most of America. Something anyone opposed to “big government” (like any American conservative claims to be) should be horrified by. (While left-leaning people should be horrified by it because it’s terrible for the environment, makes cost of living worse, and has negative social effects.)
Some people would still choose to live further out, and that’s totally fine. But a lot of people would choose to live closer to their place of work, which they can now afford to do because you’ve suddenly got 3 terraced homes and some parkland in the space that used to only hold 1 sprawling house and a mostly-unused yard. And even better, as you increase density, the relative efficiency of public transport goes up, and if it’s frequent and reliable, many people will choose to use public transit rather than drive everywhere because it’s just less stressful and easier. Or they might cycle instead.
Either way, they’re getting a car off the road and decreasing congestion, making it faster and easier for everyone else who still does drive.
What haopenes when commute is is 200km
This is what people call “rather uncommon”.
Anyway the question is: why is there so much space between you and your job? If you can’t realistically move closer to your job, you’re either just too attached to your home (that’s a personal choice) or there’s just no housing available. In this case, you’d likely drive through large suburbs. Which take up land, but house hardly any people. This is a city planning issue.
Actually no suburbs it was from rural texas into oklahoma. And it was an important job since hospital needs lab techs and if he moves then his wife moves and a whole county looses their only obgyn
that’s when you get a new job or move, a 200km commute is patently insane
We don’t all live in cities genius. Cities are shit. Outside of cities, public transportation and bikes are shit.