I used to think this too, now I live here the American system actually works pretty well. Railways are actually very busy with freight, which keeps it off the roads and freight doesn't mind pauses and running overnight. Lots of rural connections are much easier to drive. Even between cities its easier because for train connections you'd have to get to the station (usually central) where if you drive you can go directly where you want. As a result people are much more mobile and can live in a wider area in USA, where in Europe to commute to the office you really have to live near a train station.
This does make the fundamental assumption that train travel and driving are equal from a users perspective.
Train travel has the advantage of not needing to do the driving. You can spend that travel time doing something productive, rather than staring at tarmac. Additionally train travel is potentially more accessible (assuming proper investment in infrastructure). The obvious example being that blind people are never going drive anywhere, regardless of how “mobile” it makes them.
While your point about being close to train stations has some validity. For the vast majority of European urban, and sub-urban areas, a fast train connection is only 20-30mins away via local public transport. So living “close” in terms of time, doesn’t require you to be physically close to the train station.
Finally high-speed rail, is really fast. Up to 200mph fast, well over double what’s realistically safe in a private car. So while the train might not be direct, it’s going that much faster, you can still get to your destination quicker than a car.
To provide some context, many Amtrak lines are limited to 80mph, and only a small number can achieve Amtraks top speeds of 150mph. That’s ignoring the frequent delays due to track congestion and freight priority, which results in even slower average speeds. It’s not a surprise that trains look unappealing to many Americans, when the average US passenger train can only just keep up with a passenger car.
You're right of course, I've been stuck on the M1 on a Sunday night and watch a train doing 100 mph blast past. There are good and bad parts on either side. Yes driving means you dont need to concentrate, but you're stuck on someone else's timetable, you can't play your own music or stop off at interesting points along the way.
But that means the modern USA misses out on the inherent benefits of density. This is a weird counter rational behavior— it is in everyone’s perceived best interest to live in big separate homes, but the collective social economic benefit of living together is evident. Also evident is how sprawl sucks vitality from culture.
> Why anyone lives in apartments by choice is beyond me. The noise is absurd.
I am sorry but you westerners have no clue how to make decent apartments. London is full of 'luxury' highrises with basic design mistakes and complete failures.
In czech republic they would never build drywall separation between apartments, its always brick or concrete with real noise insulation.
The staircase is never attached to the walls of the unit, so you don't hear every step of people walking around
Premium towers here are built with zero green space. Buildings of 100's of units where every unit has their own boiler are a complete waste
Windows get built in such a way that it's impossible to clean them or install shades, etc.
Plenty of condos in the US (and I'm guessing London) use concrete walls between units. This isn't something magic that only the Czech Republic understands.
But concrete is pretty unfriendly to the environment and has a low expected lifespan. Much of the US is covered in trees, so an average apartment is primarily constructed from wood. Condos and apartments are generally constructed to different standards, due to the former being intended as a purchase, and the latter as a rental.
> But concrete is pretty unfriendly to the environment and has a low expected lifespan
reinforced concrete has low expected lifespan in exposed conditions because moisture causes rust causes degradation. The concrete used for division between units, as being discussed here, is unreinforced. As long as there's no sulfate-containing minerals in the aggregate (and it's protected from moisture), an unreinforced concrete block wall will last indefinitely.
Typical dividers in apartment buildings in the west are either concrete as I just described, or they are made with "steel studs" (C-channel with gypsum board). The latter is awful for noise isolation, while the former is okay (and better if some additional considerations are taken).
Apartment buildings in my (north american) experience are built to the same standards as condos. The only time wood would be used in either is in a low rise (<4 storey) construction, which tend to not have any of the density benefits that you want from multi-unit construction, and all of the possible downsides.
I'm more of a 6-8 storey with 90% lot coverage kind of person. 4 storey and less in north american jurisdictions fall under different building code regulations, and typically different municipal zoning regs. They tend to have lower lot coverage (leading to less density), more surface parking (leading to less walkability), lower construction quality (leading to worse complaints from noisy neighbours etc), lower building lifespan.
What noise? I've been living in an apartment for three and a half years and the noise is really not a big deal. The primary issue is being quite close to a busy-ish street, which can be annoying with the windows open. With the windows closed, it's basically a non-issue. And when I do hear my neighbours, it's heavily muffled and just turning on the TV is enough to drown it out.
Yes, older buildings can have terrible sound insulation, but modern apartments are well-built and you won't hear a thing (at least in Germany, and in my experience).
You are assuming you only have 2 choices, single-family home or apartment. That's a very American perspective because most of America only allows those two but in a proper city you have townhomes, duplexes, casitas, bungalows and many more options that aren't just apartments. However, most of American is zoned exclusively for single-family homes and not mixed-use so like the parent comment said, you don't get benefits of proper density which includes many home types.
I was going to say you're wrong because here in the NE there are loads of townhouses, duplexes and bungalows, but you're right - in the US single family homes and apartments dominate. https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html
I love living in a walkable suburban neighborhood with a supermarket and home store within easy (sub-5 minute) driving distance. Quiet, spacious, ultra convenient. More so than living in the city, because I can carry my purchases in my car all the way into my house.
YMMV. Live where you want. There is no objectively better answer, just preference.
I walk <2 minutes to a grocery and home store.. I can carry my purchases from the store to my house, about as far away as a parked car. But this is ultra convenient, not all city living is that easy!
I get that, I live with children in an apartment in a city. However most people dont want that, the trend to WFH means people are moving to smaller, quieter locations away from other people.
Is that driven by preference or cost? In my own case, I moved to a smaller town (mostly) because it's a lot cheaper. Most of the denser areas I would prefer to live would be significantly more expensive than rural Appalachia.
Unless you are talking about dumb mass freight, freight does actually mind just staying around. Its just that all those things have been taken of the railroad.
> As a result people are much more mobile and can live in a wider area in USA
If they have money for a car.
> where in Europe to commute to the office you really have to live near a train station
That's nonsense. There are these things called bicycles and also these things called trams and buses.
