Just keep in mind that they are all huge financial centers that make huge amounts of money without any factories or brick-and-mortar infrastructure. They have highly limited living space due to being located on a peninsula, island, or in a mountain valley. And they are “chic” places to live (which might be the same as being huge global financial centers).

In general, I think it is hard to make a good argument with comparisons of the US to the small and unique European countries like Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, etc.

The whole concept of a ~10 minute walk (< 1/4 sq.mi. area) from any transit station is not just not about your home, but locations where one gets off & the access to jobs & such.
I thought you knew that?

You have avoided many other points & questions, such as:
inconvenience for shopping & carrying products by transit & walking (5-15 minutes) & the higher prices; the advancements by using petroleum, of which transit use 75%+ as the energy source, & the per passenger-mile traveled per energy use, which is not an advantage (varies).

I did not expect any direct answers.
I do not really expect much intellectual discussion from those wanting to change: behavior, wants, spatial layouts & such, while having much hypocrisy, & disassociation from economics. And, for which they wish their goals by gov coercion & taxpayers.

The normal responses are to: distract, avoid points, change the subject, etc.

That is typical for most of Those: being lefties, big-gov types, lacking knowledge & ability, who cannot logically support their principles, unable to distinguish between conditions, etc.

The SF & Oakland (close-in, w/nearby suburbs) areas have plenty of density & transit — even across the bridges or by fairy [sic].
You should be able to meet your needs.
Not on a BART stop? Bad choice.
Problem w/TODs & that most residents have cars too (+ earning above the mean)?
And limited expensive retail choices?

Convince us.
Familiar w/Hong Kong & the Tokyo UA?
Many differences.

Such is the very high demand for urban living in attractive cities–something a number of people on this blog don’t seem to get–or the fact that the U.S. has a huge shortage of such areas compared to the proven demand.

If the transit network is designed correctly, it should give you a choice of shopping destinations, not just around the transit stop you live near. This is exactly the point of having a network in the first place!

Paul:
Yes, in the mountains most Swiss live along the valleys, which are natural corridors. However, most of the Swiss live in the northern plain of the country, which extends in an arc from Geneva to Lausanne, to Berne, Zurich and St. Gallen. Much of this area is hilly but also there are much wider valleys than farther south in the Alps.

If you look at a map of the S.F. Bay Area, you’ll see most of the population lives along linear corridors. In most urban areas, there are usually well-defined travel corridors, even in the most dispersed.

A major reason I get annoyed at blanket assertions that rail “isn’t feasible” is that rail critics tend not to offer any criteria where they think rail IS feasible, other than vague statements about how it “works” in places like New York City, but no specifics about ridership or economic thresholds. In contrast, the Japanese, Germans and a few others HAVE established minimum criteria, which I referenced in an earlier post.

And no, I don’t think rail is justified in every case. Hardly!

Contrary to the assertions of Scott, I am generally opposed to wasteful expenditures that are grossly out of line compared to likely ridership. An excellent example of a bad project is the $6-$7 billion BART extension to San Jose compared to the several hundred million needed to upgrade existing Capitol Corridor services. BART might carry somewhat more riders, but not commensurate with its extremely high cost.

I also wished that transit operators would go to the trouble of building up their bus networks first before jumping into rail. In the Twin Cities for example, there is a very strong case for LRT along University Avenue between downtown St. Paul and downtown Minneapolis due to the very heavy ridership there, as opposed to say, that stub line in Norfolk, where the transit operator has not previously built the bus ridership. With the latter, meeting ridership projections is much more a crap shoot than the former.

I think we have to make a distinction here between existing rail systems and panned ones. Yes Europeans want to keep their existing systems but are not nearly as ready to build new ones as the cost is so high. The same is true in the USA, existing commuter systems like those to NY and Boston and heavily used and are supported but new systems are much more controversial as they are so expensive.

Cites and are built around their transportation system that was economically dominant when the city was laid out. Medieval cities work well for walking, cities laid out in the 1890-1910 work well with commuter rail etc. In the USA in 1920 and Europe after about 1950 cities are built around the car. Visitors from the USA usually miss this as they visit the old historical centers of cities, not the new areas on edge of Paris or London which is built around the car.

Switzerland is a special case as the population tends to live along he bottom of valleys that rail naturally runs though, hence the population is naturally strung along a line ideal for rail. With abundant hydro power Switzerland was able to electrify rail systems in the early 1900′s and then keep this economical infrastructure. These conditions do not exist in many other places.

The Swiss have also built an extensive freeway system, and the my recollection is that 74% of passenger miles are still traveled by car in Switzerland, but I am happy to be corrected by references.

As to the quality of life in Switzerland, in the mid 1990′s I knew a Canadian professor who was offered a position in Zurich for about $180,000 per year, probably around twice what he was making in Canada. After the job interview he explored the housing market and discovered that there was no way he could buy a house in Zurich on that salary, and would have to commute a considerable distance to where he could afford to buy, or live in a small apartment in Zurich. Since he had a comfortable house and garden a ten minute drive from his office in Canada he did not take the Zurich position, he said he did not want to commute. It turns out that most of the Swiss I know live in condominiums, they cannot afford to live in a house with a garden. So Switzerland has some advantages and disadvantages.

My point about you not living in a in a low density area — not a higher density Bay city (not necessarily SF) & you driving to some places, is partially that you do not “walk the talk.” Live where there is a plethora of transit?

A slightly similar excuse could be said about electricity use – that P&G has vast majority from fossil fuels or nuclear, but renewables are not offered, despite being <10% of overall national consumptions & their higher price. Although, moving to Washington using hydro won't change national consumption — so not exactly comparable, but if you live w/out a car — would have 1 less driver. How much you drive?

Sure, go ahead & advocate for tranit, but please realize the higher costs [mostly charged to non-users] & the less usefulness for transit in lower densities. Low ridership w/fewer persons near stations is unfeasible. One should not expect transit routes to come to them in areas w/less than ideal conditions. Make your [limited] choices to live, work, shop, etc where there is widespread transit.

Densities for large areas (counties, states, nations) are irrelevant for determining the potential access to transit. The Bay Area’s metropolitan density of about 1,000/sq.mi. is little value.

The Bay's urbanized area density, 5,000+ (2nd nationally; LA UA 1st) is more worthwhile. It's still not indicative, but SF's 16,000 is (especially its job concentration), plus Oakland & other nearby cities, above 10,000 are.

The 4th & 5th (approximately) densest UAs, LV UA (Las Vegas) & the NYC UA have vastly dif transit uses. Know why? Seems like not.

There are many factors conducive to transit. Look at the VTA’s LRT – terrible performance [& 20+ yrs old] – compare to the recent Phoenix LRT, which has higher ridership, w/ <½ the miles & at a lower density, which is surprising.

Focused density needs to be examined, to consider transit viability, such as the CBD, which is mostly about white-collar job concentration. Most of those workers have cars too, living in suburbs. You do know that looking at commuter transit use is different & much higher than trips, passenger-miles, usefulness & is composed of many car-owners?

Consider density around transit stations & up to a ~10-minute walk, which would encompass, at most, a ¼ square mile, depending on street layout. So, a rider needs to locate one’s home near a stop & find a job & other destinations within other stops’ walking range.

Do you want to shop by walking from your home or a transit stop? That entails much less choice & higher prices. A full-sized grocery needs about a 30,000 customer-shed, mostly from drivers. A big-box or a department store needs 100,000+. Walking & riding w/ many purchases is very inconvenient, especially after sunset [for many] & in weather elements.

There are many difs w/Switzerland. (I’m not that familiar.) Their transportation usage stats were not provided. The country does score well on freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking).
Their transit usage might have a higher % of visitors. Their smaller dwellings & fewer consumer goods purchases are something to consider for their happiness, utility & inefficiency.

A case: where I grew up in suburban Chicago, it was a mile away from any retail, but within 4-miles (< 9 minutes), 4 million’ sq. of shopping. (RTA routes were not near)

Most of the EU nations have a very high gas-tax & car-tax; much not for vehicle infrastructure – so there’s a price disincentive to having a car, plus there are many slower routes. Would you prefer to live there? Or you like forcing your preferences on others & wanting most of the cost to be paid by others? You do know that the cost of living there is really high?

Care to address previous questions?
Such as your pejorative, generalizing weasel words?
What is apologizing for the gasoline engine?
How much less development would there be without?

Would like to continue, twice longer & re-ask previous questions, but…

For the record, there are 2,518 municipalities in Switzerland, which cover 100% of the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Municipalities_of_Switzerland

The average population is slightly more than 3,000 persons each; the largest is Zurich with a bit more than 350,000. The population density of Zurich city is about 10,000/square mile, 1/3 less than San Francisco.

No, not everyone has to live in dense cities like San Francisco, as the Swiss “hellhole” example shows. Actually, all but the tiniest Swiss burgs have access to clean, reliable bus or rail service that runs at least once per hour, in most cases much more often than that. Even the least populated canton, Graubunden, manages to generate 146 annual transit rides per capita–quite low by Swiss standards–despite its small population of 192,000 spread over 2,743 square miles (70/square mile).

If you actually want to learn something, I suggest the book Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age by Australian Paul Mees. Among other things, Mees points out that density–while important, particularly in terms of frequencies that can be provided and productivity particularly in terms of passengers served per hour––is important, the quality of service provided has more impact.

While higher density means more productivity relative to the number of passengers per hour served by a given train or bus service, it has little direct impact on “average load” served.

According to the SBB (google “sbb networking the region”), collectively their S-Bahn (suburban railway) services carry 56 passenger miles per train mile; in contrast, the RhB railway of Graubunden carries about 58.5 passenger kilometers/train kilometer traveled in 2010 (http://www.rhb.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Ueber_RhB/Organisation/Statuten_und_Berichte/Geschaeftsbericht_2010_low.pdf).

As previously mentioned, the average density of Canton Graubunden is 70/square mile. The average density of Switzerland is about 494/square mile, e.g., less than half that of the Bay Area. But the RhB’s average load per train is higher than the SBB’s average of all S-Bahn services!

So Scott, explain to me again, how “density” is such an overwhelming factor in explaining transit success? Or to be successful, “everyone” would have to live at San Francisco densities, which is 50% higher than in Zurich–where annual transit rides per capita tops 800 vs. less than 300 in San Francisco, BTW…I know why, but you wouldn’t like the reasons…

Certainly gasoline prices are one of the differences between Switzerland and the U.S., but not between urban and rural parts of that country. Also, the S-Bahns in Switzerland operate where “downtown” parking is severely restricted compared to U.S. cities; but in Graubunden, the only areas where parking is heavily restricted would be “downtown” Chur, the largest city but with only 35,000 and an urbanized area smaller than the City of Napa. There is also basically NO congestion in Canton Graubunden of any consequence.

Putz.

Bullshit!!

The fact that decent transit alternatives are NOT available to the vast majority of U.S. residents, or denizens of the Bay Area, is more than sufficient justification for advocacy.

Certainly if we wanted to, we could have transit as good as available in that hellhole of humanity, Switzerland!

But instead, idiots like Michelle Bachmann and the teabaggers believing that improved transit and related matters under U.N. “Agenda 21″ would turn the U.S. into a transit-based dystopia.

Yeah, like Switzerland! Gee, what a hellhole!! No wonder the U.S. is increasingly the laughing stock of the civilized world!

Paul:
Anti-rail diatribe ignored. Try preaching your eccentric views about “wasteful rail” to the Swiss, the Germans, the Japanese, hell, even the Bulgarians and Romanians! Only in the U.S. do such ignorant and bizarre viewpoints (undeservedly) gain traction.