[bogedy]

always seemed obvious to me that the reason for the disparity is that european buses are a way to get around dense cities and US buses are a welfare program for residents of sparser cities who can't afford cars. the bus lines don't actually go anywhere people care about, they're their just to provide the bare minimum ability to go somewhere.

the top comment is right and this article is a good exmaple of what transit people do. they get so excited about transit and how awesome it is that they forget about some of the more fundamental issues.

[hirsin]

Which of the cities used as examples in the articles are "sparse"? LA? Pittsburgh is one of the smaller ones listed and while the bus network there is very hub and spoke, it's also still semi usable.

But to call NYC, LA, Philly, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, etc sparse doesn't seem very accurate. Yes, LA is vast, but I wouldn't call it sparse.

[andy81]

LA is sparse by European standards, or rural by Asian standards.

http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf CTRL+F for "BUILT-UP URBAN AREAS BY URBAN POPULATION DENSITY: 2025"

America is the exception for population density in general.

[crottypeter]

Single family homes are sparse. Ground level (not multi-storey) car parks are sparse.

[fn-mote]

This argument doesn’t mesh with what I experience in my daily life.

Busses go places I care about: two blocks from my work, and to the airport.

My US city is dense. Not like Europe, but unless the argument is that major metropolitan areas in the US are not dense enough (LA?), I don’t buy it.

Bus transit has problems, but I don’t think it’s as simple as the parent is asserting.

[xxs]

Virtually US cities are not dense compared to Europe. The large cities in Asia are on its own level, though. US is at the bottom when it comes to population density. For instance LA has half the density of Romania's capital Bucharest.