Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man
Cincinnati and other American cities didn't have amazing urbanity because of inter-city travel though, they had great urbanity because of what took place IN the city. A national rail network won't revitalize Cincinnati's west side, investments in smart transportation within the city might.
Also, the destruction of American city core's have little to do with inter-city travel, it was mostly done with the reasoning of bringing in suburban residents into the core.
Basically, a gold standard HSR network will not in any way shape or form revitalize blighted areas in cities like Cincinnati. However, investing heavily on local transport could. And in any case, it helps low-income residents in a variety of ways, HSR does nothing for them.
|
I agree that American cities didn't have great urbanism because of intercity rail transport. I didn't say one previously caused the other. I am saying that investments today
could induce betterment of public transport and urban fabric.
I'd also argue that there is a correlation (if not causation) between divestment of inter-city rail travel and the divestment of central, pre-war cities. If suburbanization is being pushed and incentivized, environments that necessitate owning private automobiles to fully enjoy the experience, then that takes people off of public transit, but it also makes it less likely for them to take rail transport, when day trips and longer road trips are possible. Following the '70s, you also began to see airfares become much cheaper, too, for longer hauls.
There is an interrelation between economies focused on oil and its derivatives. Suburbia, highways, cars, airplanes, gasoline do not live in individual vacuums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man
Because this is America. We have to live in reality folks. There will already be complaints about how much is spent on rail, any rail, because the VAST majority of Americans simply drive or fly. They don't care about rail. So within that reality, we have to spend our money wisely and just in Chicago, NY, and LA, the amount of rail improvements/expansions needed would dwarf this 50 billion dollar grant.
|
Again, there was a time when rail was the dominant method of getting around. It's not like there's something in the water between Maine and California that makes Americans adverse to anything but driving.
And once again, the majority of Americans fly or drive because no reasonable alternative exists, and it is what Americans are brought up to prefer. There is a massive fetishization of cars in American culture.
And yet again, I do agree the earliest benefits would be seen from greater investment in cities and metropolitan areas. Not only in beefing up lacklustre systems in fast growing cities like Austin and Nashville, but even in the oft-cited exemplar of American transit, New York, whose subway is pathetic compared to other global cities. But that doesn't mean there can't ALSO be investment in intercity rail transport. Recalibrating the US federal budget towards rail would be all that's necessary.
I'm beginning to think people aren't actually reading my posts, as I have basically repeated points I already said 4x in this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays
Agreed on all points. And we were naive about the inevitable traffic jams, the isolation of anyone without a license in these suburban places, the need for our foreign policy to emphasize dominance of oil regions...
|
This is another really good aspect of this issue to highlight, which escaped my mind...
The infrastructure that makes car culture viable is dependent upon a massive American military apparatus doing harmful geopolitics in the Middle East, as it is reliant upon cheap oil. And now that may shift to other countries, including South America, where there are allegations of new American intervention in countries with Rare Earths, which EVs depend on. It's the same imperialism recycled towards new raw materials.