Berlin has a fantastic public transport system, but 70% of is less than 70 years old. Istanbul's public transport system is truly terrible, but it's a nearly 3,000 year old city that gets nearly a +/- 50 degree C temperature range over a year.
Paris has an ok metro, but in general public transport isn't that great compared to say, Berlin, London or Barcelona.
London has a ridiculously overdeveloped public transport system that will get you from a to b but it's massively oversubscribed and the roads are rammed most of the time. To be fair, London is generally oversubscribed and rammed most of the time.
The metro in Paris is way nicer to use - more reliable, cheaper, drives very often and has a far reach. Same goes for Vienna and Hamburg.
I even prefer smaller middle sized cities systems, in France and Germany, at least on the day when they are working - and if they are not completely stupid, like causing themselves to be always late by letting the bus driver control the bus ticket. But I disliked Berlin in general.
No, it's not a planning problem, it's a "people don't want to live there" problem.
In the US people are simply not interested in living in a high density low population city.
They want either high density, high population, or low density, low population.
They would love low density, high population, but those don't exist much, so urban sprawl is the next best thing.
But let's agree to disagree.
(Obviously "Not all" - some like to live in big cities.)
- Do people really "want" to drive 10/15 minutes to pick up the milk they forgot last time they went to the store?
- Do people really "want" to spend huge amounts of money on a car, insurance, gas.
- Do people really "want" to spend huge amounts of time in traffic on their way to and from work every day?
I could go on, but I think the answer is generally "no" to all those questions. And that's leaving out all the deleterious health effects we know commuting and the suburban lifestyle can cause.
What people really want is safe places, good schools, short commutes, good shopping/food choices, outdoor spaces, etc. We've been sold a bill of goods since Levittown on the "american dream" that offers the solution to all the problems of cities by creating an entirely different (and I'd say overall significantly greater) set of problems. It's treating the symptoms instead of the disease.
- Do people really "want" to pay twice as much for half the living space?
- Do people really "want" to share walls on all sides and have a person above and below them?
- Do people really "want" to step out their door and have a major roadway packed with cars (or buses if we're ditching cars) right there?
I think the answer is generally "no" to all those questions, too.
Well, it does not work in bigger cities as well except NYC, Chicago and to some extent Boston. Also, OP talks about SF, which for it's size and population can have a good public transport system.
I have actually.
And it works perfectly in huge cities, and it doesn't work in the smaller ones.
> The transportation problem in the US is city/urban planning, and not one solved by building more roads and putting more cars on them.
No, the transportation problem in the US is that it is very large, and the majority of the cities are medium/small and public transport simply doesn't work in those sized cities (just not enough demand for continuous service).