It's very easy, that's just a 4 way interchange with carpool lanes as well.
Here's a 5-way. It's very easy, all you do is have to follow the signs.
They can't understand it's easy to understand when you're driving, but looking at it as a whole, third person, it's a bit cluttered. But honestly, if it confuses you, you are retarded.
Why you have to explain stuff in text?
Like you could just put a symbol/picture and it will be faster to read.
But it will be faster to recognize and read symbols than text.
These are just. I've made this in like 5 mins and it solves all problems. If there's too much traffic you can just make more lanes.
Not worth superior American engineering.
>mfw the highway interchanges I make in Cities Skylines
No matter what I do, they are ugly as fuck.
US intersections are autistic at best (especially la)
Maybe there are some over/under passes but it must be really hard. Americans drive everywhere and car culture completely took over, that's why America is full of cities like this. Urban planning at it's worst.
You can have really neat planned cities that are made with walking in mind, Arabs seem to have the best projects of this kind but very little is completed. I actually would say that US cities aren't really planned, it's just growing suburbs with the occasional walmart or highway, nobody is really trying to plan it so it's livable. The cities that were more planned are New York or many European cities (mainly the parts that were built during the 19th century).
Cincinnati didn't used to be so bad. After WW2, we basically decided to destroy our own cities to build ugly highways everywhere.
For a long time, our cities were very dense and walkable.
>good urban planning is terrifying to euros
New York is literally the most well planned city in the world.
Move to the east coast for well planned cities, live on the west coast if you prefer car culture.
Yeah it didn't used to be that bad. IIRC I saw a picture of Denver before it looked like this and instead of the parking lots there were skyscrapers. Automobiles ruin cities.
>Tfw live on the East Coast where most of the ugly super highways are limited to New Jersey
>Tfw I could walk to the next town over if I felt like it
Virginia really is quite awesome
I didn't even realize europeans didn't use grids until I was in college.
Yup. This is what Indianapolis used to look like. If only they had continued this way.
I agree that New York seems fairly well planned, wouldn't call it the best in the world but whatever, good enough. A huge number of US cities have atrocious planning, even on the East coast.
it's better this way as everyone owns their own home, and homelessness is effectively eliminated since they can't move around outside of ghettos
>homelessness is effectively eliminated
dude, the us has like 10x the amount of homeless as Europe
Seriously it makes sens for the US to use a grid, since the cities were built from scratch you might as well organize them, but the average american city look like shit tb.h now.
Thankfully you have the nature around
The best part about living in sacramento, is that my grandparents built a 10-lane freeway over what was once a waterfront district of bistros and apartments. Now it's a freeway.
Meanwhile the local trains use track laid down in 1860.
Omahan here. You literally can't survive here without a car. Carcucks destroyed America.
>Americans ITT unironically supporting suburban car culture.
They're not that common but you can find some, generally much more thought out than in the US.
But what triggers me isn't the grid it's the fact there isn't an efficient common transportation system in most of these that doesn't involve a road
As a consequence there are roads cutting the city everywhere, loads of parking lots, unnecessary pollution etc
Fucking americans and their fucking grids
barcelona is one of the only cities in europe with lots of grids. and it's still a better city than 99% of american cities because it's actually a livable place that you can live inside of.
protip: trains take up far more space
Depends on the place, really. Many cities are starting to remove parking lots while adding more accessibility for pedestrians.
Barcelona is actually a very nice city, don't know exactly how livable it is (I just keep hearing complaints about the tourists). It probably has a decent public transportation system, it's actually very easy to create good public transit in grid cities but this doesn't work in the US because of car culture and privatization.
there are efficient transportation systems there, it's just that they're owned by private companies and passenger transport isn't profitable
Y'all need a French or Japanese high speed railway that being said
I was actually surprised to find out the US trains aren't as top of the line and develloped as they are in Europe, I always thought they were since the railroad during the conquest of the West was a big deal
as opposed to rail lines cutting through everywhere? It's bad enough in shitcago
pic related is what happens when trains inevitably kill someone, traffic stops entirely since trains are fucking massive
Except Barcelona is an extremely well planned city, with lots of options regarding transportation, and you can live your whole life there without using a fucking car.
I think there's even an electric train there or something.
it's because nobody normal takes trains because planes are simply faster, and trains don't service places normal people live (suburbs)
Our train systems were built to last, not be top notch, at least in the parts that train travel is still relevant.
Amtrack for example is just getting new trains after 30 years of using the old shitbox cars that didn't even have bathrooms. The NY subway is one of the oldest in the world and it shows with how decrepit the cars look.
It's not a grid but it makes enough sense
>implying rural people give a shit if they drive with a suspended license
>implying anyone gives a shit about driving with a suspended license
What are the police going to do, arrest you? You'd have to get pulled over again for breaking the law twice.
Planes are faster man. Taking HSR from LA to NY would take way too long.
i guess the code word is density
barcelona feels like it is a city. you can walk around for hours and you're still in the city, you can get lost in that place
that's what separates north american and european cities
Or you could do both, depending on your needs.
Your entire continent is a pollution ridden shithole, dude.
Contrary to what you might expect, Barcelona is actually super easy to get around. The way they set up the whole public transport system is nothing short of genius.
Alberto laid out most of the info >>53931734, but I want to point out that the buses in question are fucking huge. They can easily seat somewhere between 100-120 passengers.
American railroads were originally built to handle massive steam locomotives which were extremely heavy and required wide turns. Over time dieselization happened and the railroads here bought fleets of smaller, but modular locomotives that could run on all the track their older locomotives could. Which means that there was never any incentive to upgrade lines, beyond allowing for double-stack containers. Freight train speeds are capped at 50 mph as well.
Meanwhile jet planes became big and the interstate system was built taking all potential passengers.
t. train autist
>oh john what a wonderful city ! let's go and take a walk, see what we discover
>WAIT WAIT WAIT SUSAN I NEED MY MAP I'M AFRAID WE'LL GET LOST
You could have HSR along the coasts.
LA to NYC would never be feasible.
San Fransisco-LA-San Diego?
That would be cool. You avoid the hassle of the airport, and it would probably be faster than taking the plane, too.
back in 1950 it was free money for cities, as the feds paid 90% of the construction cost
of course, with freeways now hitting the end of their lifespans, the feds aren't picking up the refurbishing cost which is why most freeways look like shit now
There's a reason most west coast cities have garbage public transportation systems.
Imagine living here and seeing a smelly homeless person walking in your neighbourhood.
>america will NEVER have good cities again because carcucks and suburbancucks don't wanna give up their fast food drive-thrus
We have things called "ring road".
It's a highway going in a circle around a city. Much better than having a highway cut picrelated.
It's only feasible now because the airlines are consolidating and want to eliminate commuter and regional routes, since they aren't as profitable as long haul ones. This has led to a massive expansion in bus service.
The problem is that on the east coast, you need to get 13+ states to work together. This is difficult. for example Massachusetts chose to finish the Big Dig rather than connect it's biggest rail lines. In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie personally killed a much-needed Hudson rail tunnel replacement project. So everyone suffers.
On the west coast, all the railroads are owned by massive freight companies that make all their money serving the ports. Meanwhile, building new track is ridiculously expensive and requires land takes, which is a problem because everyone sues. Also the geography tends to be mountainous, which makes everything ten times more expensive.
>the more you know
Didn't you hear? French is going to be the world's most spoken language by 2050.
Although I probably prefer denser, more planned cities, I have to say, LA is a really impressive place, nonetheless. They fucked it up so bad they made it right, somehow. Being the world's undisputed capital of culture, entertainment and fun, basically, it's a lot like old Rome. And the weather, too! Fuck me.
Fuck, I miss California.
that's true, the layout of our cities will slowly fix over time.
but modern architecture is shit, so it's going to be dense buildings of soulless buildings. we missed the golden age of the 1700-1900s where buildings were not only built in a good layout, but were also architecturally good.
American cities are fuckhuge.
Compare Houston, population 6.5 million, to Paris, population 12.3 million.
You need the freeway just to go shopping.
>Fuck, I miss California.
of course you would, as a european you would be attracted to a state that openly models itself off your country
just fyi california is new spain now, especially LA which is majority spanish. It's fully european and honestly spain can have it all back
>there no point in discovering USA cities it's buildings or suburbs
Pretty much. The most you'll find is a meme museum or "local culture" center in the larger towns. That or the local bar or church.
>capital of anything other than shitty mexican food
just fyi your culture is actually made in chicago, but filmed in LA. Or was before sacramento cut all the subsidies studios used to get to balance the state budget
t. strategic tax "planning" pro
>golden age of the 1700-1900s
It could be like 40 minutes or so slower. But you avoid the TSA, you avoid the travel time to and from the airport (which probably makes up for the time you lose), and it's just more comfortable.
I don't want to be the guy shilling for HSR, but it seems like a very nice concept, even though it may not be extremely profitable and requires massive initial investment.
cheaper option though, probably?
you also have to consider that travelling by plane is longer than just the flight time
- travel time to the airport
- showing up in early before the flight leaves
- the flight time itself
- picking up luggage if you brought any
- getting to the city
a train takes you from the city center to another. there's no fuss involved
We have ring highways too. But we also have highways cutting across the center, because taking a normal road from the edges to the center would be an absolute nightmare for traffic.
>and replaced it with this
What the hell
When I think about how people almost riot in France when there's a new weird building somewhere (Seriously a lot of people are pissed at the Défense in Paris for instance) or an old one is going to get destroyed, I can't imagine this
chicago is where the jews live, it's where culture is made (after being financed by their cousins in new york)
what does LA have? Lots of mexicans. It's a wasteland of taquieras and taco trucks
most aren't that big actually. american cities are usually 300 or 400,000 people in the actually city and then a few million people living in post-1960 suburbs spread out over hundreds of miles. they wouldn't have been this ugly and spread out had we not built the highways in the first place. it was the highways which catalyzed suburbia and it is the highways which allow suburbia to exist.
>tfw going to church
pretty nice one desu
omaha has been cucked by the car in ways that you cannot even imagine.
this used to be our main post office.
we replaced it with...
AND WE REPLACED IT WITH THIS
>hahah catholics amirite guize
>lol brown ppl
Which cold Mid-West shithole do you come from, and when was the last time you saw a Latino person?
It's just a testament to what humans are capable of if they really put their mind to it. Its vastness is simply mind blowing. Being from Oslo, it's pretty much the complete opposite of what my city is. Oslo can be seen in half a day. If you were to drive on every road in Los Angeles, you'd need an eternity and a half.
I can see why most Americans might not be terribly fond of Los Angeles, but I think they at least should stop and consider that a century ago, you'd find virtually nothing resembling a city, whereas now, it's a clusterfuck of the same million bajillion bungalows over and over again, freeways and endless amounts of concrete slabs 19 million people call their home.
Maybe in the 60's, you can get plane tickets for cheap nowadays.
>travel time to the airport
The same thing with a train station
>showing up in early before the flight leaves
That's also the same with a train station unless you get absurdly lucky
>the flight time itself
Ummmm, also with a train
>picking up luggage if you brought any
That takes 10 minutes at most here.
>getting to the city
Most airports are really close to cities here in the US. Also there are taxis that go to and from the airport all the time.
In the 1960's/70's it was a thing to "modernize" and futurize buildings, and old stuff was seen in a negative light and often removed.
It was really stupid, but you can see brutalism in europe as well.
>americans are literally too retarded to notice when a neighbourhood gets sketchy and to leave
>too pussy to experience the wonder of a new city without a fucking tour guide
it's a shame you're retarded and can't keep your wits about you like an adult like you would LITERALLY ANYWHERE ELSE
I encountered this one yesterday. Dont know the name though. Somewhere in the village.
you mean in the fucking suburbs
lol who cares
>americans are literally too retarded to notice when a neighbourhood gets sketchy and to leave
Are you saying there are parts of Paris that look like Bogata so it's easy to tell when you've gone somewhere you shouldn't be?
>It was really stupid, but you can see brutalism in europe as well.
Oh yeah i'm not denying that, but that transformation was, well, brutal
I mean nobody goes to the USA to see pretty old buildings (I guess) but still how come everyone thought it was a good idea
Protip: when it looks like this, don't go
Don't thank me
I drive through this on the way to work usually
Also was in this one 3 days ago. It is a fucking fortress.
this is what omaha used to look like
anyway, the greatest JUST story in omaha is that in 1989, we destroyed more buildings in one year that were on the National Historic Register than any other city in American history. no other city has beaten our record. we destroyed all of the old, brick buildings so that a large corporation could build an ugly building with lots of grass around it. wanna know the funniest part? even though we destroyed half of our city so that they would be happy, in 2015 they announced that they are leaving omaha.
>but still how come everyone thought it was a good idea
I dunno, I think they were all obsessed with space travel and efficiency at the time, and those ugly box buildings were often seen in sci fi comics of the time.
and a general rejection of past ideals
New York is one of the reason people come, but those who do usually don't do it specifically to see the Chrysler and the Empire State, not like you'd go to some Euro city because of its medieval center
That's what I mean
The Empire State is overrated tb.h when I went there was like 3h waiting to get at the top so I went to the Chrysler, no waiting and it was as impressive
>it's a shame you're retarded and can't keep your wits about you like an adult like you would LITERALLY ANYWHERE ELSE
>live in a shitty american neighborhood
>could literally get shot
>go to europe
>get threatened with a two inch knife
Gee I wonder why I'd not give a fuck
yeah, okay, i'm not saying that travelling by train is quicker than by plane, i'm saying it's less stressful.
you don't have to show up 1 or more hours before the train leaves the station, and you don't have to go through any kind of security check or think about with getting from the airport to the city center when you reach your destination
most importantly, when you travel with train you can buy your tickets just before entering the train. it's not like with air travel where you have to order your plane tickets one or two weeks before take off because the prices vary so much
it's probably cheaper too most of the time
Yes. If you walked into it at night by yourself and something happens to you it's pretty much your fault. Then again, the worst that could happen in the intra-muros is you get your phone stolen.
Personally, I've had bad experiences with just 'trusting my instinct' and going to a shitty restaurant with overpriced food while the actually good one was right down the street.
Don't try reasoning with the autocucks.
Generations of anti-rail propaganda and the stagnation of U.S. rail technology at a 1960s level has led to a truly sad state of affairs from which we may never recover.
no, if it's older than 20 years old then we tear it down
famous example: old penn station in NYC
The destruction of Penn Station is actually what created the modern historic preservation movement.
They tried doing the same thing to Grand Central a few years later, but backed down in the face of public outcry.
Here's the new one.
Of course, but keep in mind that Omaha and lots of Midwestern states were going nearly bankrupt and needed to do something to not become like Detroit. It's a sad state of affairs.
Jesus christ, shut the fuck up. Railroads have always been an essential part of the US economy. The Auto industry thrived in the US compared to Europe precisely because of Ford.
>the stagnation of U.S. rail technology at a 1960s level
Maybe because those train cars were literally built to last decades?
>texas in charge of not sprawling out and having permanently shit cities
You still have the grand central. And honestly, I think having the will to develop and build new things, even if some old ones need to come down, is not a bad thing.
European skylines are immensely boring because they lack that will. Anything that's older than 20 years is considered a historical building and should stay where it is until the end of time.
"skylines" are lame and don't actually add to the city.
besides, EVERYONE has skylines now. skyscrapers aren't cool now that any arab or chink can buy some slaves to build 50 of them.
i'd rather have many medium height buildings instead of a small portion of tall buildings with tens of miles of one story buildings.
Automakers in the mid-20th century lobbied hardcore at federal, state and local levels to prevent any sort of "soshulist" financial aid/subsidy to rail/tram networks, while they happily suckled at the government teat. It wasn't until the industry literally collapsed that Washington was forced to cook up Amtrak.
>besides, EVERYONE has skylines now. skyscrapers aren't cool now that any arab or chink can buy some slaves to build 50 of them.
This is what people with shitty skylines think
Grand Central was threatened with demolition in the 70's because the building had decayed so badley. The wall murals were covered in ash and soot and a woman was killed when a tile fell from one of the ceilings.
>Is there any bright architecture in Norway btw?
Oh, plenty! Bergen has a lot of really whacky, unique architecture and there are tons of seaside villages along the Agder coast that look nothing like anything you'll see anywhere else. West Oslo is also really underrated.
You have to consider that we were really underdeveloped. Quite poor, too. We'd been cucked by both Sweden and Denmark, respectively, over a period of roughly 700 years. As much as I would like to not blame it on our brothers, it's mostly their fault.
>Robert Moses wanted to build highways across Manhattan
Thanks Jane Jacobs
oh please. nyc (and hong kong) are basically the only exceptions because they're the only cities with endless amounts of skyscrapers. for 99% of the rest of the urban world though, skyscrapers are shit. they're just "muh dick" towers for kitsch poor brown people who finally earned some money. i'd rather every skyscraper in my city be broken up into 3-4 medium buildings. you get the proper density, and THEN you build skyscrapers if you need to. for 99% of the urban world, they don't need to. NYC is different because Manhattan has a small amount of space compared to the large amount of demand, so they HAVE to build upwards.
This is essentially what happens now
Part of the reason why people start to get nostalgic about an architectural style once its gotten a bit older (75ish years), almost all the shitty cheap examples of it are gone.
See why victorian architecture came back, Beaux arts popularity rebounded, ect.
New York gets this absolutely perfect.
I strongly disagree. Skylines add a lot to a city. Not that it's the only criteria for what makes a good city. But I honestly don't think any European cities can compete with NYC on any of the others, either.
Agreed. But I think having a unitary style is also nice.
>I was actually surprised to find out the US trains aren't as top of the line and develloped as they are in Europe
As others have said US passenger trains may not be very high-tech compared to Japan and parts of Europe, but their rail freight transportation is extensive, heavily used, efficient, and profitable.
No they didn't, that's an invention made up by people who like conspiracies. In reality, the Autoindusty was almost entirely privately owned by the time of its peak until it was nationalized after WWI, from which point on it was characterized terrible safety standards, which caused people to stop using trains as they used too.
> Some routes had been built primarily to facilitate the sale of stock in the railroad companies; they were redundant from the beginning. These were the first to be abandoned as the railroads' financial positions deteriorated, and the rails were routinely removed to save money on taxes.
Before AMTRAK, railroads in the US were reknown for their numerous scandals and for skirting any attempt at government regulation.
>and THEN you build skyscrapers if you need to.
Literally the thing that makes skyscrappers get build in 99% of cases in the US.
If a skyscraper is economical to build is largly a function of real estate prices. As lots of cities have CBD (central business districts) with pricey real estate, then taller and taller office towers/apartments/condos are the best way to make a return on investment.
And lots of cities in the US besides NYC have large skylines with vibrant downtowns as the result.
i disagree entirely. almost all of the buildings built in NYC post-1940 are ugly
look at the garbage in your own picture. you've got a beautiful building, and then directly to its right you have some soulless 1970s box building. it's shit. NYC is a quilt of ugly.
>they're just "muh dick" towers for kitsch poor brown people who finally earned some money
There are tons of places where upward is the only choice, or the smartest choice.
>almost all of the buildings built in NYC post-1940
Yep I see that
In the future tho with the speed trains will be able to achieve (few days ago the magnetic Japanese train was tested) it may be profitable even for people and not merchandise, depending on the cost
You have it completely wrong
The worst sprawl in the US is bad because it's unplanned and disorganized. Different developers just keep adding to it without any overall growth restrictions or infrastructure
Actually planned US suburbs, called smart growth, are vastly better because they're built around train/metro lines, bike paths, mixed-use residential areas etc.
In the US
Planed: Efficient, dense, low pollution, green, use of space, mixed transportation, walkable
Unplanned: Chaos, crime, slums, sprawl, pollution, disorder, inefficiency, economic loss
i disagree with your post too. the "good" buildings of today are objectively less attractive than the average buildings of yesteryear. buildings back then were so attractive that today we reminiscence about WAREHOUSES. old, economical warehouses of the past are literally more attractive than billion dollar modern buildings
also, pic related in NYC was torn down because they were considered it ugly because architectural standards were so high back then. nowadays, this building is more beautiful than anything built in the past 50 years.
architectural standards are NOT relative. newer is not better. the styles back then were attained by centuries of study and development to reach certain beauty standards.
The boxes mixed in with all the old and the new is what makes NYC interesting.\
A city that size with only one style of building would look horrible.
>No they didn't, that's an invention made up by people who like conspiracies.
No, you're thinking of the "Streetcar Scandal"
>In reality, the Autoindusty [sic?] was almost entirely privately owned by the time of its peak until it was nationalized after WWI, from which point on it was characterized terrible safety standards, which caused people to stop using trains as they used too.
Because we're the only ass-backwards country that viewed it as a business and not a public service.
"Hey, you have to install these fancy signals, and you're gonna pay for it out of pocket. Now brb, gonna go pump shit-tons of tax dollars into your competition"
>Before AMTRAK, railroads in the US were reknown for their numerous scandals and for skirting any attempt at government regulation.
AFAIK, the railways were beholden to 19th century regulations until the Staggers Act of 1980.
I'll certainly concede, railroad companies were conniving, manipulative shits in the early 20th century, when they were ultra-successful. That wasn't the case after WWII, though.
I disagree. It's a good idea to have varying styles.
>The boxes mixed in with all the old and the new is what makes NYC interesting
it's not interesting though. literally every city in north america looks exactly the same: an acultural chaotic clusterfuck
I love old world European cities
I really like classical, uniform American cities
I hate messy, mixed-style "just fuck my shit up senpai" postmodernism that we see today
Toronto looks like absolute shit because they have the mistake idea that internal variety creates a good cultural theme and city spirit, it ends up just being a generic mess without a consistent character to differentiate it from other cities
If it's posted here, chances are it's a joke.
But in the real world, most people aren't really that sinister. They just might not realize the long-term effects or harm their actions are causing.
There's not a city in the world that looks anything like New York
I know, I don't feel the least bit embarrassed I """""fell"""" for his sarcasm.
We unironically have rural trash who do this thing called "coal rolling" here, so you never know if one of those things have discovered the internet
"It may be profitable, depending on the cost" is about as meaningful as "it may be big enough, depending on its size" or "I may be rich enough, depending in how much money I have".
I agree entirely. American cities have been ruined beyond salvation.
No, there aren't famillia
All other cities look mostly like garbage, particularly because of their affinity for slicing up the whole place with six lane freeways.
>the "good" buildings of today are objectively less attractive than the average buildings of yesteryear.
But to be serious the simple reality is you have no idea what the average buildings of yesteryear looked like.
Because pic related was far more common than what you posted, by a factor of more than 10 to 1.
This is what your average building of yesteryear looks like.
However, what has predominately survived are the more expensive stonework structures, and oftentimes the good ones at that. Gaudy, unusual buildings usual get torn down, as do follies. Thus you are left with a catalog of buildings that has little relation to what it would have been in 1870.
Shiny glass skyscrapers are generic. They're being built across the world now. When you see one, you never know if it's a McSkyscraper in Shanghai, Tokyo, NYC, London or Taipei now. It's like seeing a mcdonalds store
The more this generic, globalist style is built the more unique and indigenous vernacular is replaced, replacing the styles that actually set a city apart
Had to look it up but Jesus Christ, I couldn't live in the vicinity of people who did that.
They need to start imposing jail time for people who willingly do this stuff to the environment, the world is too far gone unless something changes quickly.
>how you want your tripartite familia?
>Because we're the only ass-backwards country that viewed it as a business and not a public service.
Yes, cause you don't buy tickets to go on trains in Europeans countries.
>"Hey, you have to install these fancy signals, and you're gonna pay for it out of pocket. Now brb, gonna go pump shit-tons of tax dollars into your competition"
The CEO of CBQ bought a Diesel car that had not been properly tested in order to save costs. Implying its the Feds fault it happened makes no sense.
>AFAIK, the railways were beholden to 19th century regulations until the Staggers Act of 1980.
The ICC, in charge of regulating all rail traffic, was created in the 1930's
My point is, the Railroads couldn't compete with the rise of the Automobile, and the scandals that came up certainly didn't help them.
New York isn't all glass though.
There is a healthy mix as it stands, and architects have started to move away from pure glass designs.
This is no architectural masterpiece, but it's not cookie cutter glass either. Just went up.
It isn't just the modern, though. New York has done a very good job of acquiring and preserving the best architects and architecture from around the world. Other cities in the US and not many others in the world can boast the variety that New York has. It also helps that they don't have the London problem where they build a few jutting buildings out of the short cityscape. It's old, it's new, and it has organic growth.
I wish I could have gotten to witness the aesthetics of early 20th century cities.
And there's more good designs going up.
I wish it were illegal too, but lolbertarians always protest any "nanny state' restrictions against even the most heinous things because it makes them looks ideologically pure
In the US a vehicle is not road-legal if it can't pass a yearly emissions and safety inspection technically, I guess they could be arrested based on that.
>Yes, cause you don't buy tickets to go on trains in Europeans countries.
Collecting farebox revenue = Private ownership
>The CEO of CBQ bought a Diesel car that had not been properly tested in order to save costs.
It was an EMD E5 locomotive, and the issue was that the engineer missed a red signal.
>Implying its the Feds fault it happened makes no sense.
The Feds put a substantial financial burden on an already troubled industry, hampering their ability to compete, while simultaneously subsidizing the competition. I never said they caused the accident.
>The ICC, in charge of regulating all rail traffic, was created in the 1930's
>My point is, the Railroads couldn't compete with the rise of the Automobile, and the scandals that came up certainly didn't help them.
And my point is, had their industry received any sort of government assistance prior to totally collapsing, we might have something resembling a first-world passenger rail network today.
itd be fucking awesome right guys
>le born in wrong generation faice
This is an example of smart growth over sprawl. Originally they were planning to allow more suburban sprawl for miles and miles, but instead decided to compress it into a smaller area built around metro stations. Something like 90 square km of potential suburban sprawl comrpessed into around 15. There are integrated bike lanes including bridges over buildings, walkable to a metro station that goes straight to DC, residents use like 40% less petrol than suburban sprawlers nearby
Emded up being a huge success and one of the most desirable places near DC
Not enough efficiency.
Should have used one of these
why cant we get great architecture like this today?
just look at all this soul
>Collecting farebox revenue = Private ownership
The ICE division of Deutsch Bahn is privately owned dude, it controls most railway traffic throughout Central Europe.
>The Feds put a substantial financial burden on an already troubled industry, hampering their ability to compete, while simultaneously subsidizing the competition. I never said they caused the accident.
The industry was in trouble in the first place because it literally built railroads it didn't use to please it's shareholders.
>had their industry received any sort of government assistance prior to totally collapsing
It didn't totally collapse, it responded to the demand in the market like it was supposed to. AMTRAK exists in order to better manage the construction and management of railways so that the overbuilding they saw wouldn't happen again.
>we might have something resembling a first-world passenger rail network today.
You were never going to see passenger rail going through every town in the US. Federal highways were necessary to link up the country in a way that railroads simply couldn't manage.
just look at this craftmanship
not like the soulless modern architecture we get now
where did it go so wrong?
In some ways, yes
The highways were almost always directed through neighborhoods that were trash. In many places it was seen as a way to fight urban blight while using federal funding to do so.
Most places also had blight laws that made eminent domain easy.
This is one of the main criticisms of the highway in the bronx - that it was intended to destroy poor black neighborhoods.
It might not look like much, but consider that it was deliberately built to prevent this:
The success of smart growth projects put the a big nail in the coffin of sprawl. Suburban sprawl apologists (some even exist here) lost the argument that sprawl is more efficient and safe.
Again pic related is not a city downtown or even a town, but a suburban neighborhood well outside of DC
No, because contrary to memes there hasn't been a real right-wing here. The "Right" got taken over by neoliberals who value money over tradition. The slightest bit of inefficiency or bother with an old building, a park, a house and its flattened for another office park. This pseudo-right got Amerifats thinking that environmentalism and traditionalist conservation vere commie things, so shit got all weird and backwards here. Ultimately it's all about materialism and money for the pseudo-right, and to a lesser extent religion, so culture and the arts are not profitable or valuable, nor is the environment to them.
They're stuck in a total bubble, I wouldn't have known about true conservatism if it weren't for the internet and the ability to talk to foreigners/read foreign things.
>to find old buildings as ugly as modern buildings, he has to compare multimillion dollar hideous soulless office buildings to literal shanty towns
lmao. modern architecture is such shit.
FACT: NYC would be much, much, much more beautiful if they had kept their early 20th century empire style.
>The ICE division of Deutsch Bahn is privately owned dude, it controls most railway traffic throughout Central Europe.
It looks to me as though DB is a private company that is 100% owned by the German government, so it's essentially the same thing as Amtrak.
>The industry was in trouble in the first place because it literally built railroads it didn't use to please it's shareholders.
Well shit, better let the whole thing die.
>It didn't totally collapse, it responded to the demand in the market like it was supposed to.
i.e. by collapsing
> AMTRAK exists in order to better manage the construction and management of railways so that the overbuilding they saw wouldn't happen again.
While it's better than nothing, let's be real - It's a bare minimum effort and quite under-funded. Maybe letting the few railroads that did install those signals after your Naperville wreck turn around and dismantle them before handing service off to Amtrak was a bad idea.
>You were never going to see passenger rail going through every town in the US.
To clarify, I'm not arguing for a national network of bullet trains. Amtrak more-or-less goes where it needs to go. It's the state and local level where rail transit failed, particularly west of the Mississippi. It's insane that we have dozens of moderately sized cities relying entirely on highways and (maybe) buses.
>Toronto looks like absolute shit because they have the mistake idea that internal variety creates a good cultural theme and city spirit, it ends up just being a generic mess without a consistent character to differentiate it from other cities
No city can have an entirely uniform look. A young city like Dubai might. Toronto is relatively young compared to European cities and even some large American cities. So, its architecture reflects what was built at that time. Since its a young city, many of the skyscrapers have a modern look and thus do not possess a nice Art Deco skyscrapers like New York and Chicago. Buildings of this style do exist but they're small and are hidden.
Toronto didn't start off on an island like New York or Hong Kong and has lots of land around it. Therefore, sprawl was inevitable like many other North American cities. It does have 'nodes' where the city has a concentration of skyscrapers outside downtown, which helps break the 'sprawl look' of the city.
On a street level though I've seen a few Torontonians boast about how the diversity is what makes the city unique. Problem is they made it so it's hard to tell if a street view there is from Toronto, Chicago or Cincinnati etc.
I agree with you on that; architecture wise, the city isn't that unique compared to other American cities. However, Toronto has done a slightly better job of countering sprawl by having a concentration of skyscrapers in midtown and elsewhere.