tandempower

How well have they done making personal car ownership a viable system of transportation? It has only resulted in sprawl and perpetual economic struggle for people with lower incomes.

Transit and transportation biking are not even considered a choice by most people after all the cities were redeveloped around the automobile. How is taking away choice and driving up the cost of living 'viable' except for those who profit from it?

Mobile 155

Passenger rail died because people didn't use it. People didn't use it because there were faster are better choices. Rail is still here and so are the other choices. It is not the fault of the other choices that make things hard for HSR. It is the cost benefit to the most people. Always has been always will be. The people have been complaining about the cost and are not willing to give the HSR a low cost ROW. That is not the fault of cars, or airplanes. I don't think there is any clear evidence that can be shared proving otherwise.

Jim from Boston

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobile 155

Passenger rail died because people didn't use it. People didn't use it because there were faster are better choices. Rail is still here and so are the other choices. It is not the fault of the other choices that make things hard for HSR. It is the cost benefit to the most people. Always has been always will be.

The people have been complaining about the cost and are not willing to give the HSR a low cost ROW. That is not the fault of cars, or airplanes. I don't think there is any clear evidence that can be shared proving otherwise.

I’m a native of Detroit, and have lived in Boston for decades. These two cities have diametrically different accomodations of cars and rail transportation.

I have posted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon c.

People walk a lot more in places where there is somewhere to walk....

Some cities are seeing revitalization of urban neighborhoods that allow people to walk to shops and restaurants. But these will never accommodate more than a small percentage of the population. The best way to encourage people to do things without a car is to put those things closer to their homes.

But the US has developed in such a way that it's now much harder to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston

Some cities never lost those neighborhoods, like Boston.

It seems to me that in order to be an attractive place to support a variety of restaurants and shops to which to walk (and not drive to visit that neighborhood…the basic premise of this thread) a neighborhood must be a large area with a substantial, dense population living there, likely that evolved in the pre-automotive era.

I think a lot of urban revitalization projects tend to create enclaves as driving destinations to walk around in such large cities like in my native Detroit.

One of my greatest complaints about the automotive industry/culture is that by by intent, or just popular acceptance, previously vitalized neighborhoods just whithered away, and deprived the citizens of the choice to Live Car Free.

So too has interurban rail transportation declined. Of course the "New Green Deal" will correct that.

Mobile 155

That could get the thread moved fast enough!
But you forgot that you can only build people closer together that want to live close together. If half of the people prefer the Suburbs or rural living and even Exurbin growth. So sure it is easy to see the old model of the several generation neighborhood fading as the population changes. Sure rail that once was designed to connect point A to point B urban centers falls off when the urban centers change and their industry moves to the south or out of the country. Sure Detroit lost half of their population because of corruption and loss of industry. Still HSR will not fix that. HSR will only work if people want it and are willing to pay for it. With populations as divided over where to live and who to live next to as they are trying to find a point A to point B you have to know that those two points may become unimportant as Detroit and west side Chicago has become.

Just saying that if a HSR works best at 150 to 200 miles it has to do so at a better price than a flight that can change point A to point B by changing direction rather than having to aquire new ROW and building a new line to a new point. People vote with their wallet first and their heart last in my experience.

tandempower

The idea with HSR is that people prefer flying because it's faster than surface travel, so if trains went really fast, more people would be willing to take a little extra time to take the train instead of flying.

For HSR to work, however, people have to choose energy efficiency over energy waste. Currently business and much of the public seems agnostic about the need to reduce energy use. There are still those promoting the idea that nuclear is a solution to CO2 emissions and that renewables will let us fix the climate without reducing overall energy use.

Take a step back, though, and you can see that technological efficiency must ultimately evolve toward minimal energy use and thus maximum efficiency. Trains are just so good at reducing rolling resistance, wind resistance, and don't need to ascend to cruising altitude the way planes do. The only efficiency problem is starting and stopping, and then there are all the problems of needing a coordinated system where anyone can insert themselves into the system as a monkey wrench and cause disruption until their demands are met. That is a political problem, but it is probably the most difficult to solve, especially in an economy where market analysts ascertain where growing industries pose a threat to their portfolios and then attack them in various ways.

FiftySix

It's sure to be mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but that 90 minute train trip from Dallas to Houston has to have some time involved at the front of the trip and the end of the trip that isn't being accounted for. Such as time getting from your home to the train station and then getting from the train station to your destination.

I know for that 30 minute flight from Dallas to Houston, you still have to get a ride to the airport from your home, possibly ticketing, and definitely the TSA. Then on the opposite end you have to get some sort of transportation, which is typically a rent car. Checked baggage? Add time on both ends. Is this a Monday morning or Friday afternoon? Add time for that.

I know that I can drive from my house in the burbs of Houston and be to my final destination in the Metroplex in about 4 hours. Overall time spent going from house-to-house (also known as door-to-door) is about equal to flying. The bonus being I didn't have to be packed in like cattle and any luggage I have never left my care.

Which brings me back to the train.

I love the idea of the high speed rail train. But you still have to get to the first train station then away from the second train station, and that time should be added to your travel time.

For people in the burbs, especially burbs on the north side of Houston or the south side of Dallas, you have to go backwards to a city center to begin your trip forwards. So, it would seem the people that would be find the train most suited to them are the people that live near light rail that will take them downtown to a train station. That leaves out a huge part of the population that would rather just hop in the car they already own and drive.

Just the perspective of someone that lives 20 miles from downtown Houston and why high speed rail would only be a novelty mode of travel for me.

cooker

For most people, a centrally located rail station will be closer than an airport, at both ends, and over the course of 20 or more years, density would buildup in both cities around the stations, but of course it can't around an airport. So the train will create, and meet, demand for people to go downtown to downtown. But ultimately you need rail, air and roads, because any of them on their own will reach saturation before too long

tandempower

I think that the people who are against high speed rail are also against the density that would build up around the stations. They are in favor of suburban sprawl for various reasons, including economic, and they would preferably undermine and obstruct any developments that foster it.

They will say something like, "if dense, rail-connected areas emerge on their own, fine, but don't subsidize it with public money. Then, however, they will expect public money to subsidize automotive infrastructure that connects sprawl with airports, subsidizes air travel, makes money available for rental cars, etc. In short, these people don't recognize that the expensive automotive economy is dependent on subsidies, but if it begins to falter, they do everything they can to get it back on track. If that includes derailing high-speed rail developments, they'll do that too. The only thing they won't do is see the automotive culture as a subsidy-dependent economic culture, because that would lead to questioning of the expense and inefficiency of the fly-drive-sprawl societal model, and they don't want to question that because it would be biting the hand that feeds the economy in its present form.

Mobile 155

All you have to do is convince the strongest economies in the world that rail is a better way and put it to a vote. China is now the number one auto manufacturer. They are the number two biggest economy. Japan, South Korea and maybe India are the driving the Asian economies. Germany, England and France are driving the European economy. Convince them they are wrong and put it to a vote. Tell them trains are a better investment than building planes and put it to a vote. Just maybe people know what they would rather pay for. I would bet people will go for the sure thing that has driven the top economies so far. Think about it, just maybe people in the real world don’t agree with you assessment on what is best for them.

cooker

Those are all countries with much better public transit than in North America and most of them have high speed trains, so apparently we dont need to convince them, or put it to a vote.
.

Mobile 155

Fine, ask the people and see what they choose. Let the chips fall where they may. The U S once had passenger rail. It slowly failed. It would be interesting to see the price war between air and rail.

For now HSR is all but dead in California so no one can say they didn’t have a shot. They simply lost support.

rossiny

special interest groups and lobbyist dont care about votes. they care about bribing and pushing bills that favor their company who pays them $$$$$

Mobile 155

You are talking reality. I agree with you. That is how it works in a capitalist economy. I was responding to the "If people only realized how much better trains are". People vote with their wallet and their own interests. Build it and they will come only works if they come. If not it is pouring money into a hole. Here they made a promise, submitted a plan and got the vote to start a HSR. They didn't deliver, went way over budget and haven't really started by the time they were supposed to be finished and lost support. The Governor has suspended the project and Feds want their money back. That too is how it works. The question boils down to what group has the ability to get any special interest group involved? The less than 5 percent of the public that has any interest in car light or car free or the more than 90 percent that use all forms of transportation to their benefit? So just let the customer make the decision but don't try and convince us the people don't know what they prefer or are interested in. If HSR was all that popular people would be calling for it like they do for Cadbury Eggs just before Easter. Obviously they are not. At least not that I have seen.

Bandera

Some of us Own the Property that has provided our family's living for generations in the proposed HSR corridor, and there are thousands of us.
Is anyone on BF willing to be "compensated" for the destruction of their heritage, economy and way of life for a dubious project that "benefits" big corporations?
Of course not, the LCF "elite-thinkers " don't own enough combined to right-of-way on the planet for a decent sidewalk, and would be instantly NIMBY about it.

PS: What happened to the Dirigibles and Tarps that were so LCF De-Rigeur awhile ago.
Hindenburg-ed, or just Covered ?
Now LCF is on to Choo-choo trains.
What's next?
Teleportation or Ox Carts?

In the mean time proceed with your idle useless self-congratulatory insider/bubble chit-chat while actual Texans decide what to do with our transportation future.

-Bandera

rossiny

I see your point, unfortunately I just don't think people are going to part with their cars . My sister once thought I was nuts when I said we need good public transit. When she came from the old country (Italy) . She had to wait for buses when she worked at a clothing suit factory. She said at times it was late and cold and in bad parts of town . Why in the hell would you want to take away the convenience of my car she said . I worked hard for it. Hard argument to beat...

Mobile 155

Thanks for interjecting what the proposals of people not dealing with the results don't seem to understand. Some people like living where they do and are simply not interested in giving up their lifestyle for people living hundreds of miles away in either direction. They make the argument like the HSR will improve the life of the common man while in truth it is to cater to the business traveler and they already have a system to get from one big city to the next big city. Because this system has nothing to do with people living in-between those big cities. And it has nothing to do with the average family wanting to get from point A to point B for a vacation.



I have had the same conversation with foreign visitors and immigrants from other countries. We had friends from Israel come stay with us. At the time we had two cars so we said they could use one of ours but they rented a SUV because they said driving one here was less expensive than renting a small car in England. During their month long stay not once did they want to take the Train to San Diego, they drove. The drove to LA. They took a plane to San Francisco and rented a car. When asked why they said what I have come to expect. Public transportation goes when it wants to go and comes back when it wants to come back and you can miss a connection. With a car that doesn't ever happen. I have developed an opinion that it is far easier to be car free when you don't have a choice. When you have a choice people will always pick what works best for them not what is best for others. Notice I said my opinion.

Zedoo

The car age could be past before they finish building the shiny new toy. Conventional rail will be fine when people ride horses and bikes.

cooker

They've been asked - they chose both.
It's an idea that comes and goes, so I suspect it will be back on your table at some point.

cooker

If they replace that proposed rail corridor with new highways or airports you'll lose even more land. Rail is the most efficient use of land. A highway needs a wider right of way for the same volume of traffic. Airports take up a lot of space, and they also impede development and suppress property values for miles around them.

Bandera

The roadway infrastructure in the proposed HSR corridor is already sufficient to local needs now and for the foreseeable future, rural TX is not on a path to population growth.
The airports in the major cities are already in place, if they need to grow to service increased demand so be it, that won't affect our rural communities in the least.
HSR is a corporate boondoggle and the answer to a question that we Texans who would be negatively effected by HSR never asked.

-Bandera

cooker

The airports may not be able to grow to meet demand, since the air corridors might already be near saturation with 100+ flights per day between Dallas and Houston, but even if they can expand, the land around the airports also belongs to people and is probably a lot more expensive than land in your area, and there would be increased pollution and also increased motor traffic to and from the airports which are always located on the fringe of urban development, far from most people's homes. And don't think you won't be affected. It's also a corporate boondoggle when airports and highways are expanded, so you'll be paying for that one way or another, but at least if a rail goes across your land you'll get some direct compensation. And the pollution that airports and roads generate is now regional so it's going to drift your way. I'm sorry to hear you are on the proposed route for the HSR, but if not you, then somebody equally deserving of a fair shake will be affected by whatever alternate plans are put in place to accommodate growth.

Mobile 155

So it comes down to them against us?

Right now the us are winning and with luck will continue to thwart trains to nowhere. (My assessment anyway.) It is a lot faster to build an airport than a rail line. Plus as ridership changes the planes can simply divert to another airport.

Following trends we have time to fight HSR I believe. Here might be an interesting read on a related subject.
https://www.citylab.com/transportati...riders/551960/

cooker

In a way, everything is "us vs them", and it's no different if you are talking about airports, highways or any other mode of transportation or infrastructure - there will always be some people disadvantaged, hopefully offset by both individual compensation, and overall public good. The interstate highway system was the largest land moving/engineering project of all time, in its day, and there was likely passionate opposition by individuals and communities in its path, which is now all forgotten and the history somehow whitewashed. Of course, back then, it could be sold, and rammed through, as a military necessity, thanks to recent memories of WW-II and the the hyped up commie scare of those days, So the interstates steamrolled over the Banderas of that time, while the current HSR doesn't have the full resources of the Military Industrial Complex to sell it to the public. Still, I believe the HSR would ultimately do a lot more good and a lot less harm to more people, than continued growth of highways and airports which is the likely alternative. So a lot more "us" and a lot less "them".

And I don't think we are talking about "nowhere" unless that is how you see places like Houston, LA, etc. People are going there already.

Mobile 155

I am talking about things like the 93 billion over budget California HSR. I didn’t look up the Texas one but that more than likely is the same. Before they pulled the plug at more than 63 billion of Building starting around Merced, a small town hours away by car from San Francisco, the track being planned would go down to Bakersfield. Another low density community in the middle of nowhere. The chances of commuters riding that train between the two cities was pretty slim.

It it was supposed to go from San Francisco to LA. Didn’t happen so it list support. As the economy improves the need for a HSR decreases.

However one one problem the Texas HSR has is while a railroad can apply for eminent domain the Texas HSR is not a railroad. It has no trains and wasn’t a railroad before planning the HSR. So to court it will go.

tandempower

I read some news today about how concerned Millennials are with climate change and how they're not wanting to have kids, how they're willing to sacrifice income, etc.

So I think what will happen if transportation/infrastructure continues down a path where everyone can't agree that the technologies are sustainable and climate-friendly is that people will go on using them to the extent they have to, but they will not be happy about themselves for doing so and they won't want to travel more than necessary.

If HSR or other transportation options were available, on the other hand, people would feel better about themselves for using them and so they would actually want to travel more. That might end up causing more problems in the long run, but it is something to consider.