Not too interested in finding my post from a year or two ago where I assembled the stats, but nobody seems to recognize that suburbanization in the US is as much as the above-mentioned factors the result of the robust growth of the nation's population and decrease in household size as compared to the other modern nations.  The U.S. national population has grown from something like 150 to 300 million since 1950 as compared to Germany's growth from 65 to 82 million.  I'm going by memory on those stats.

The suburbs offered (and still offer) a convenient way to segregate the population. That probably appealed to a lot of white Americans as much as anything elese.

 

I agree - this probably had more to do with the exodus to the suburbs than the decline of mass transit.  I've heard stories of realtors back in the day going to all the white residents on a block encouraging them to sell once a black family had moved in (or bought anywhere nearby).  Their argument was basically that the neighborhood was obviously going to hell and property values were going to fall so, best to sell ASAP. 

 

Additionally, some have argued (and I don't know if it's true or not) that the forced desegregation of schools scared the white residents of the day, so they moved into more homogenous communities to avoid it.  Like it or not, msot schools are still pretty segregated today since (most) cities are pretty homogenous today. 

 

If you look at the demographic changes, the trend starts once a neighborhood becomes 20 something percent black. I think it's related to the 80/20 pareto principle, which applies to a lot of things in socio-economics.

Cities are enviroments scaled to people, suburbs are enviroments scaled to cars.

 

In America, the sad reality is that the cities have somewhat become the suburbs (more car dependent). Through many decades of rampant demolitions, our cities are only a shell of their pre-WW2 selves and surface lots are practically everywhere.

 

America = pedestrian unfriendly

 

This is exactly why several American cities (certainly not the case with Columbus) have such a hard time staging a solid comeback, they've become quasi-suburban thereby stripping them of the many reasons one would live in a city in the first place. That's not to say there aren't people who will move in and try to get things changing (or just wait for others to do that, God bless them either way) but I'm sure there are not nearly as many that would rather move into an already vibrant city, which is what I think many more young Ohians do. It's either make a big investment in a shell of a city that might come around in several years or live in one which doesn't need revitalization. Regarding the former, the upside of our large cities is that they are coming back (looking to continue in that direction) step-by-step and one really appreciates the development in these cities whereas others take it for granted.

Not too interested in finding my post from a year or two ago where I assembled the stats, but nobody seems to recognize that suburbanization in the US is as much as the above-mentioned factors the result of the robust growth of the nation's population and decrease in household size as compared to the other modern nations.  The U.S. national population has grown from something like 150 to 300 million since 1950 as compared to Germany's growth from 65 to 82 million.  I'm going by memory on those stats.

 

This nation's immigration policy is the #1 factor as to why the US is growing faster vs. European nations. I doubt you will find any statistical expert on the subject that would argue any other case. Not that suburbanization isn't a factor, but immigration outweighs it by so much it gets 'sidenoted' for the most part.

 

European countries have been extremely restrictive on who lives in their nations. Countries that have a larger open door policy, such as France with their North African neighbors, are now working to close those doors. There are alot of things I like about Europe, but their xenophobia of all people different living there isn't one. :)

Cities are enviroments scaled to people, suburbs are enviroments scaled to cars.

 

In America, the sad reality is that the cities have somewhat become the suburbs (more car dependent). Through many decades of rampant demolitions, our cities are only a shell of their pre-WW2 selves and surface lots are practically everywhere.

 

America = pedestrian unfriendly

 

This is exactly why several American cities (certainly not the case with Columbus) have such a hard time staging a solid comeback, they've become quasi-suburban thereby stripping them of the many reasons one would live in a city in the first place. That's not to say there aren't people who will move in and try to get things changing (or just wait for others to do that, God bless them either way) but I'm sure there are not nearly as many that would rather move into an already vibrant city, which is what I think many more young Ohians do. It's either make a big investment in a shell of a city that might come around in several years or live in one which doesn't need revitalization. Regarding the former, the upside of our large cities is that they are coming back (looking to continue in that direction) step-by-step and one really appreciates the development in these cities whereas others take it for granted.

 

Yet Columbus is the most auto-centric city in Ohio. Go figure. :)

Cities are enviroments scaled to people, suburbs are enviroments scaled to cars.

 

In America, the sad reality is that the cities have somewhat become the suburbs (more car dependent). Through many decades of rampant demolitions, our cities are only a shell of their pre-WW2 selves and surface lots are practically everywhere.

 

America = pedestrian unfriendly

 

This is exactly why several American cities (certainly not the case with Columbus) have such a hard time staging a solid comeback, they've become quasi-suburban thereby stripping them of the many reasons one would live in a city in the first place. That's not to say there aren't people who will move in and try to get things changing (or just wait for others to do that, God bless them either way) but I'm sure there are not nearly as many that would rather move into an already vibrant city, which is what I think many more young Ohians do. It's either make a big investment in a shell of a city that might come around in several years or live in one which doesn't need revitalization. Regarding the former, the upside of our large cities is that they are coming back (looking to continue in that direction) step-by-step and one really appreciates the development in these cities whereas others take it for granted.

 

Yet Columbus is the most auto-centric city in Ohio. Go figure. :)

 

I think any city in Ohio can make the case of being the most "auto-centric."

^How can that be?!?!?  The 3 C's each have their own reliable, functioning, and comprehensive transit systems that allow their residents to live care free about an automobile  :roll:

Exactly.  We are Germany sans Hasselhoff.

Cities are enviroments scaled to people, suburbs are enviroments scaled to cars.

 

In America, the sad reality is that the cities have somewhat become the suburbs (more car dependent). Through many decades of rampant demolitions, our cities are only a shell of their pre-WW2 selves and surface lots are practically everywhere.

 

America = pedestrian unfriendly

 

This is exactly why several American cities (certainly not the case with Columbus) have such a hard time staging a solid comeback, they've become quasi-suburban thereby stripping them of the many reasons one would live in a city in the first place. That's not to say there aren't people who will move in and try to get things changing (or just wait for others to do that, God bless them either way) but I'm sure there are not nearly as many that would rather move into an already vibrant city, which is what I think many more young Ohians do. It's either make a big investment in a shell of a city that might come around in several years or live in one which doesn't need revitalization. Regarding the former, the upside of our large cities is that they are coming back (looking to continue in that direction) step-by-step and one really appreciates the development in these cities whereas others take it for granted.

 

Yet Columbus is the most auto-centric city in Ohio. Go figure. :)

 

I think any city in Ohio can make the case of being the most "auto-centric."

 

So make the case. :)

Some of the remarks on those rankings....

 

Hmph.... Elk Grove California only 5 years old?  I dont think so...it was an old railroad town on the SP main into that San Joaquin, and started to suburbanize in the 1980s or even before, so its a lot older than 5 years.

 

And Modesto and Stockton being the least affordable?  That is funny as these have become bedroom community locations for the San Jose and East Bay areas, due to their being affordable vis a vis very high housing prices in the Bay Area.  It could be that the Bay Area commuters have driven the local housing markets so high that those places really have become unaffordable for the locals.

 

 

Cities are enviroments scaled to people, suburbs are enviroments scaled to cars.

 

In America, the sad reality is that the cities have somewhat become the suburbs (more car dependent). Through many decades of rampant demolitions, our cities are only a shell of their pre-WW2 selves and surface lots are practically everywhere.

 

America = pedestrian unfriendly

 

This is exactly why several American cities (certainly not the case with Columbus) have such a hard time staging a solid comeback, they've become quasi-suburban thereby stripping them of the many reasons one would live in a city in the first place. That's not to say there aren't people who will move in and try to get things changing (or just wait for others to do that, God bless them either way) but I'm sure there are not nearly as many that would rather move into an already vibrant city, which is what I think many more young Ohians do. It's either make a big investment in a shell of a city that might come around in several years or live in one which doesn't need revitalization. Regarding the former, the upside of our large cities is that they are coming back (looking to continue in that direction) step-by-step and one really appreciates the development in these cities whereas others take it for granted.

 

Yet Columbus is the most auto-centric city in Ohio. Go figure. :)

 

I think any city in Ohio can make the case of being the most "auto-centric."

 

So make the case. :)

 

Easy.  You're in Ohio.

>This nation's immigration policy is the #1 factor as to why the US is growing faster vs. European nations. I doubt you will find any statistical expert on the subject that would argue any other case.

 

Right, but the birthrate among "natives" is still higher in the US than in any other industrialized country, I think it's 2.2 versus something like 1.4 in Germany and China is 1.2 due to forced abortions.  In fact the wildest predictions out there (following current trends, and so obviously things will change) see the US population surging from 300 million to 400 million by 2100 while Germany's population shrinks from 80 million to only 20 million.     

 

Also, if Columbus is the most auto-centric city in Ohio, it is still Manhattan compared to the southern cities, even Miami and Atlanta, the only two cities down there with heavy rail transit lines.  There's nothing like High St. in the entirety of the south, especially after New Orleans took it on the chin.   

 

 

^how's Nashville traffic these days?  When I lived there 5 years ago, it was becoming horrible on West End.

 

>There's nothing like High St. in the entirety of the south, especially after New Orleans took it on the chin.   

 

That's very true. I remember that Nashville folk used to talk about Hillsboro Village as if it were the mecca of mixed-use districts. And its just one block long!

>This nation's immigration policy is the #1 factor as to why the US is growing faster vs. European nations. I doubt you will find any statistical expert on the subject that would argue any other case.

 

Right, but the birthrate among "natives" is still higher in the US than in any other industrialized country, I think it's 2.2 versus something like 1.4 in Germany and China is 1.2 due to forced abortions. In fact the wildest predictions out there (following current trends, and so obviously things will change) see the US population surging from 300 million to 400 million by 2100 while Germany's population shrinks from 80 million to only 20 million.

 

I would speculate that the birth rate among immigrant families is higher than that of the natives. Just a hunch picked up living in an "immigrant enclave."

>That's very true. I remember that Nashville folk used to talk about Hillsboro Village as if it were the mecca of mixed-use districts. And its just one block long!

 

Maybe 3 blocks, but certainly no longer than that.  I spent five or so years of my adult life in Tennessee, I doubt most people on this forum could begin to imagine how dispersed the south is. 

 

Maybe 3 blocks, but certainly no longer than that.  I spent five or so years of my adult life in Tennessee, I doubt most people on this forum could begin to imagine how dispersed the south is. 

Aren't you like 25 and went to Ohio University?

^yeah, i guess its more than one block. But those are very short blocks.

 

How's the West End traffic?

No I'm 28, if anyone cares.  I went to OU for grad school, I think I was 23 when I started there and went to UT Knoxville (the main UT campus) for undergrad + a year of working = 5 years in Tennessee. 

 

West End Ave. is not too big of a deal, there is some foot traffic surrounding Vanderbilt University but having "only" 11,000 students it generates nowhere near the volume of foot traffic that the big universities do in Ohio and there is not much of a college-type commercial strip there. 

 

And btw Athens is definitely the most pedestrian-oriented place in the state, few freshmen and sophomores have cars and maybe 60% of other undgrads and grads do.   

Cities are enviroments scaled to people, suburbs are enviroments scaled to cars.

 

In America, the sad reality is that the cities have somewhat become the suburbs (more car dependent). Through many decades of rampant demolitions, our cities are only a shell of their pre-WW2 selves and surface lots are practically everywhere.

 

America = pedestrian unfriendly

 

This is exactly why several American cities (certainly not the case with Columbus) have such a hard time staging a solid comeback, they've become quasi-suburban thereby stripping them of the many reasons one would live in a city in the first place. That's not to say there aren't people who will move in and try to get things changing (or just wait for others to do that, God bless them either way) but I'm sure there are not nearly as many that would rather move into an already vibrant city, which is what I think many more young Ohians do. It's either make a big investment in a shell of a city that might come around in several years or live in one which doesn't need revitalization. Regarding the former, the upside of our large cities is that they are coming back (looking to continue in that direction) step-by-step and one really appreciates the development in these cities whereas others take it for granted.

 

Yet Columbus is the most auto-centric city in Ohio. Go figure. :)

 

I think any city in Ohio can make the case of being the most "auto-centric."

 

So make the case. :)

 

Easy.  You're in Ohio.

 

Good point. :)

BTW

 

Population changes

 

Big population gain in Columbus (big center splotch over the entire state of Ohio), but big population loss in the midwest (big splotch over the entire state of Ohio) :D

^neato

 

you'd think that detroit would be red also with the entire state posting its -growth

No I'm 28, if anyone cares.  I went to OU for grad school, I think I was 23 when I started there and went to UT Knoxville (the main UT campus) for undergrad + a year of working = 5 years in Tennessee. 

 

West End Ave. is not too big of a deal, there is some foot traffic surrounding Vanderbilt University but having "only" 11,000 students it generates nowhere near the volume of foot traffic that the big universities do in Ohio and there is not much of a college-type commercial strip there. 

 

And btw Athens is definitely the most pedestrian-oriented place in the state, few freshmen and sophomores have cars and maybe 60% of other undgrads and grads do.    

 

I was asking about the auto traffic. I lived a block away from Centennial Park and the traffic at rush hour was horrendous. It just seemed to get worse and worse. With Nashville's growth, lack of legitimate mass transit and the inability to widen those roads, I'm curious as to how its changed over the past 5 years.

 

Pedestrian traffic...West End is not the nicest street to stroll down.

>I was asking about the auto traffic. I lived a block away from Centennial Park and the traffic at rush hour was horrendous. It just seemed to get worse and worse. With Nashville's growth, lack of legitimate mass transit and the inability to widen those roads, I'm curious as to how its changed over the past 5 years.

 

Well I think West End is around 8 lanes wide, the main problem with Nashville is that there are typically few alternate routes from point A to B, especially outside of 440, meaning all traffic from disparate sources heading to disparate destinations is forced onto just a few major routes.  This is a common problem throughout the south and is exacerbated by the lack of a township grid.  One would think since some parts of the south were inhabited 100 years earlier than Ohio that there would be a denser network of rural roads but this doesn't really seem to be the case from what I've seen. 

 

And another comment regarding Nashville -- people there constantly talk about its "growth" when much of that perception is due to the metro's relatively small size.  For example, if a downtown is 10X10 blocks, adding 10 blocks only adds 10%.  But a 5X5 block downtown can easily be perceived as being as big as a 10X10 block downtown, having as many residents and daily workers, etc. when in fact is is only 1/4 as big.  To develop 10 new blocks around a 25 block downtown will dramaticlaly change it, therefore the same amount of growth will be perceived as a much bigger deal.   

 

 

 

Also, if Columbus is the most auto-centric city in Ohio, it is still Manhattan compared to the southern cities, even Miami and Atlanta, the only two cities down there with heavy rail transit lines.  There's nothing like High St. in the entirety of the south, especially after New Orleans took it on the chin.   

 

But then there's Houston (and by some extent Memphis, thought their transit system is now at the "toddler" stage.

Also, if Columbus is the most auto-centric city in Ohio, it is still Manhattan compared to the southern cities, even Miami and Atlanta, the only two cities down there with heavy rail transit lines.  There's nothing like High St. in the entirety of the south, especially after New Orleans took it on the chin.   

 

But then there's Houston (and by some extent Memphis, thought their transit system is now at the "toddler" stage.

 

I wouldn't put it at toddler stage. Maybe infant.  Memphis really sunk a lot of cash into the trolley line that extents into the medical district. However, the trolleys don't go over 20 mph and they do not connect any residential areas. Its a real waste of money. Memphis' trolley line is like Cleveland's waterfront line--more often than not, the trains are devoid of any passengers.

Also, if Columbus is the most auto-centric city in Ohio, it is still Manhattan compared to the southern cities, even Miami and Atlanta, the only two cities down there with heavy rail transit lines.  There's nothing like High St. in the entirety of the south, especially after New Orleans took it on the chin.   

 

But then there's Houston (and by some extent Memphis, thought their transit system is now at the "toddler" stage.

 

I wouldn't put it at toddler stage. Many infant.  Memphis really sunk a lot of cash into the trolley line that extents into the medical district. However, the trolleys don't go over 20 mph and they do not connect any residential areas. Its a real waste of money. Memphis' trolley line is like Cleveland's waterfront line--more often than not, the trains are devoid of any passengers.

 

On Memphis, I agree.  the main street line goes where down the street, there are no people, I think it should have been on third.  The waterfront line is worse than RTA's WFL.  the dumbest part is the two lines don't even connect.

 

Houston, just a waste of money...and if there is one more report of a trolley/car accident. I'll personaly ask that the houston line be demolished and the money be sent to RTA!

I thought there was more to Memphis's system.

I spent all of August in Houston, I'll be more than happy to push the plunger to blow that city up.  :shoot:

I thought there was more to Memphis's system.

I spent all of August in Houston, I'll be more than happy to push the plunger to blow that city up.  :shoot:

 

BET!  I'll meet you at minute maid park or the Enron HQ or on Main St. in front of Foley's Department store!!  :-D

 

Houston, is an over rated city.  Sorry to 'city-bash".  Houston's saving grace is the Galleria mall!  It's a shoppers paradise!  It's a fabulous first rate mall!  Yet the galleria area feels like a fortress and is rather generic and the traffic near is a NIGHTMARE.  However, I'd die if TowerCity had ¼ of the Houston Galleria's stores!  :|

 

If some of you thinks driving east on Euclid, Superior, St. Clair, Woodland, etc...is scary.....Try some of those west side areas of houston between the inner and outer loop!.....whew!  Not cute or safe!!  Also, we think some of our cities have downtown parking lots wastelands.....look at Houston's downtown sea of parking lots. 

I thought there was more to Memphis's system.

I spent all of August in Houston, I'll be more than happy to push the plunger to blow that city up.  :shoot:

 

I had a few friends that went there over Christmas break. They pretty much hated it; it had far too much crime and was generally unkept.

Houston has struck me as a fairly lawless, weather-beaten, completely disorganized place.  If anything it proves that a thriving downtown is not at all necessary to have a thriving metro region in the United States; the story with it and Dallas to a large extent is that people from all over rural Texas have steadily moved to these cities in the way other remote cities like Atlanta and Minneapolis have attracted people from the surrounding regions.  The midwest's disadvantage is to a large extent the large number of cities in close proximity -- they are all completing for the same businesses, people, students, airline hubs, trucking hubs, etc. and have a difficult time distinguishing themselves from one another, at least in people's minds. 

 

Not to say that Houston is an uninteresting place, to the contrary it's quite interesting in a lot of ways, but there are definitely few pedestrian-oriented areas, no central square that I can remember, and no shortage of gaudy buildings.  I was there last the week that Enron Field opened, that building encapsulates everything wrong with Houston and the recent wave of stadium construction.   

 

Also, the lack of concern for pedestrian-oriented urban areas and traditional streetscapes in the south I think stems as much from its lack of growth after the Civil War as the mindset where people identify much more with the countryside as being the "south" than the cities.  I don't think people there really identify with their cities as much as they do with being descendant of an agrarian landscape and way of life.  It certainly doesn't hurt the boosterism of the south either when the cities lacked so much of what was lost in the northern cities, and so there is not this lingering hangover from the loss of department stores, grand railroad stations, etc., because they quite simply were never there to begin with.

 

I thought there was more to Memphis's system.

I spent all of August in Houston, I'll be more than happy to push the plunger to blow that city up.  :shoot:

 

Memphis has two parallel trolley lines that have east-west routes downtown. They can do a good job of moving people between entertainment districts within downtown. They added another line that connects downtown to the very sleepy and derelict medical center (a mile away). The trolleys are cosmetic and are not convenient for commuters. They have a plan to convert them to light rail and extend them out to the airport, but that may be just a pipedream.  Overall, the trolleys are inefficient and only serve to give more evidence to the anti-tax, SUV crowd that subsidized mass transit is a waste of their money.  Sad.

 

And btw Athens is definitely the most pedestrian-oriented place in the state,

 

Too bad its small and in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why.

Houston, just a waste of money...and if there is one more report of a trolley/car accident. I'll personaly ask that the houston line be demolished and the money be sent to RTA!

 

But if I'm not mistaken, Houston's single 7.5 mile light-rail line has a higher ridership than any of the RTA rail routes.

 

Also, the lack of concern for pedestrian-oriented urban areas and traditional streetscapes in the south I think stems as much from its lack of growth after the Civil War as the mindset where people identify much more with the countryside as being the "south" than the cities.  I don't think people there really identify with their cities as much as they do with being descendant of an agrarian landscape and way of life.  It certainly doesn't hurt the boosterism of the south either when the cities lacked so much of what was lost in the northern cities, and so there is not this lingering hangover from the loss of department stores, grand railroad stations, etc., because they quite simply were never there to begin with.

 

I don't necessarily agree with this.  Some of the finest pedestrian-oriented areas in the country are in the South, including Charleston and Savannah.  Richmond was once a thriving city, and is very much suffering a post-industrial hangover.  Atlanta was founded as a railroad hub, but I believe they demolished their grand old train station. 

 

Southern cities don't seem to have suffered (Charlotte, for example) because they were backwater towns compared to the mighty industrial centers of the Northeast and Midwest.  Most of these cities never saw significant investment until the era of air conditioning, though, so they "started new" after suburbanization and gaudiness became the de facto principles of development.

 

 

 

Houston, just a waste of money...and if there is one more report of a trolley/car accident. I'll personaly ask that the houston line be demolished and the money be sent to RTA!

 

But if I'm not mistaken, Houston's single 7.5 mile light-rail line has a higher ridership than any of the RTA rail routes.

 

 

without knowing anything whatsoever about the specifics of houston. I do know that commuting patterns don't change overnight.

But if I'm not mistaken, Houston's single 7.5 mile light-rail line has a higher ridership than any of the RTA rail routes.

 

without knowing anything whatsoever about the specifics of houston. I do know that commuting patterns don't change overnight.

 

I find that Houston to Cleveland fact hard to believe.  I don't have facts, but I PERSONALLY know three, well now two people who live on that line.  One lives as close to the McGreggor station as I do to the Coventry Green Line station, which takes all of 42 seconds to reach the westbound platform, (Yes, I've timed it!) and neither will ride the the train.  I've been on it twice, my impression was it sucked!  What i've heard from Houstonians is people don't want to ride cause a) it goes nowhere b) built on a dangerous street ie as in the number of accidents PRIOR to the rail line opening and c) one person even stated, it's not even a real train and its stupid to give up the convienience of their car.  It has been reported that future "rail" will be BRT, the ironic part about that is it will be a much watered down version of ECP.

 

The Houston Train stop near our office is five blocks away.  Equivalent in Cleveland, walking from the corner of Ontario/Euclid (Higbees) to East 6 St.  None of the people use it, when I asked why they just laughed, this aint the north.

>Too bad its small and in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why.

 

Key to the pedestrian character of Athens is that the school attracts few commuting students from the thinly populated surrounding area unlike OSU or UC.  For the most part students walk to class or take shuttle buses from newer apartment complexes on the town's periphery.  That is why there are relatively few large parking lots at OU, almost no parking garages, and with the exception of Bromley Hall no high-rise dorms.  As I have stated several times, it speaks volumes that the university with no planning or architecture school has the best campus in the state -- it's largely a result of geography, chance, and at that critical point in the late 1950's deciding to build traditional buildings instead of modern ones.      

 

Also, it was THE first university west of the mountains, but it grew very slowly until around 1955, when the size of the university's housing was doubled in anticipation of the baby boom kids hitting college age.  Apparently many new dorms sat empty for a few years and drained the place's finances which led to the notorious open enrollment period that caused a flood of hippies and Vietnam War dodgers to descend on the place.  This is what changed OU from a sleepy school in the country to the top 10 party school it is today.   

 

>I don't necessarily agree with this.  Some of the finest pedestrian-oriented areas in the country are in the South, including Charleston and Savannah.  Richmond was once a thriving city, and is very much suffering a post-industrial hangover.  Atlanta was founded as a railroad hub, but I believe they demolished their grand old train station. 

 

I haven't been to Charleston, but I think Savannah is a bit overrated and carries on as a sort of tourist-fueled museum town.  I remember there being Wal-Mart's, etc., just a 5 minute drive from the historic area.  But the larger issue is that the oldest southern cities, the ones that actually have potential to be denser traditional cities are not the ones that are currently growing.  New Orleans, Chattanooga, Savannah, Charleston, and an honorable mention to Birmingham -- they've all been left in the dust by nearby sprawl cities.   

 

>Southern cities don't seem to have suffered (Charlotte, for example) because they were backwater towns compared to the mighty industrial centers of the Northeast and Midwest.  Most of these cities never saw significant investment until the era of air conditioning, though, so they "started new" after suburbanization and gaudiness became the de facto principles of development.

 

On one hand their large old buildings tend not to be as large as those in the north, so they are easier to redevelop.  For example Nashville's renovated Union Station is nowhere near as big as the station sitting emplty in Detroit.  There might only be one example in each southern city of the big brick multistory warhouses that rot by the dozen in the north.  A unique part of redevelopment in the south today is that bungalow and other modest single family homes near downtowns are being redeveloped into businesses, restaurants, bars, and so on in a way that is not seen as much in the north.  At its best these secondary areas are taking on a "college town" type atmosphere, Nashville has about 5 of these areas.  That said the density is nowhere near where it needs to be to warrant rail transit in these areas.     

 

 

 

But if I'm not mistaken, Houston's single 7.5 mile light-rail line has a higher ridership than any of the RTA rail routes.

 

 

Dan is definitely right.  Recent APTA ridership stats show Houston's avg daily LRT ridership at 4 times that of Cleveland's (http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/06q2lr.pdf) and growth trends show the spread is growing.  Mind you Houston is now a much bigger city/county than Cleveland.

 

An easy rule of thumb: unless it's Memphis or the Statan Island railway, Cleveland's rail ridership, light rail or heavy, is always the lower of any head to head comparison.

>This nation's immigration policy is the #1 factor as to why the US is growing faster vs. European nations. I doubt you will find any statistical expert on the subject that would argue any other case.

 

Right, but the birthrate among "natives" is still higher in the US than in any other industrialized country, I think it's 2.2 versus something like 1.4 in Germany and China is 1.2 due to forced abortions.  In fact the wildest predictions out there (following current trends, and so obviously things will change) see the US population surging from 300 million to 400 million by 2100 while Germany's population shrinks from 80 million to only 20 million.     

 

Also, if Columbus is the most auto-centric city in Ohio, it is still Manhattan compared to the southern cities, even Miami and Atlanta, the only two cities down there with heavy rail transit lines.  There's nothing like High St. in the entirety of the south, especially after New Orleans took it on the chin.   

 

 

 

 

The last WHO statistical estimate I saw....even with 'native' born.....mind you that includes 2nd-generation immigrant families that have a tendency to have more kids than say 3rd- or 4th- generation, the US would grow about 2-3 million every 10 years. With not nearly as many 2nd-gen immigrant families in Europe's total's 'native' born stats, it makes the birth rate more skewed. This one is all about immigration, of which I don't mind the open door policy. It's one of the handful of things that has set us apart from Europe in a better way.