HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 7:32 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
Yes, HSR in most of the country is a waste.

Which is why this proposal is not HSR. It's an expansion of the current running rights on freight tracks (and a proposal I hope fervently comes to pass.)

(Although running interstates through the likes of Wyoming is the same argument, and the US did it anyway.)
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 7:48 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
Yes, HSR in most of the country is a waste.

Which is why this proposal is not HSR. It's an expansion of the current running rights on freight tracks (and a proposal I hope fervently comes to pass.)

(Although running interstates through the likes of Wyoming is the same argument, and the US did it anyway.)
These interstates also serve trucking and freight commerce. So access to resources are another reason to run large highways throughout the country.

HSR is literally a passenger service that only serves cities. That's fine and all, but again, it would only make sense for dense, large, walkable cities that are already fairly close to eachother.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 7:52 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
HSR is literally a passenger service that only serves cities. That's fine and all, but again, it would only make sense for dense, large, walkable cities that are already fairly close to eachother.
No, it actually doesn't need that at all. There is no reason why a HSR line would require a more densely built environment than a major airport, as I have pointed out several times in this thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 8:02 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
You expect me to spend 10 hours reading this post? Your entire argument is dismissive and based on your perspective of what “a guy like me” thinks instead of reading my earlier posts. Gabble on, but I love transit and trains but have argued why HSR in most of the country is a waste. I still maintain that and have made that point pretty succinctly.
I didn’t realize you lacked the capacity to read more than a few sentences. Perhaps let us know beforehand if you need responses to you legible to idiots. My responses to you have been thorough and based on your comments. Like, I am literally quoting your posts and responding to remarks you’ve made. So it isn’t based on a caricature of “a guy like you”, it is directly related to quotes of your own words. If you simply would rather wallow in ignorance than engage with what I’m saying, then I don’t really get why you’re on this forum, disputing various people’s remarks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 8:03 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
Yes, HSR in most of the country is a waste.

Which is why this proposal is not HSR. It's an expansion of the current running rights on freight tracks (and a proposal I hope fervently comes to pass.)

(Although running interstates through the likes of Wyoming is the same argument, and the US did it anyway.)
If only ‘the urban politician’ could read more than a few sentences and understand this. I don’t think anybody on this thread has argued for a widespread HSR network in the US with multiple transcontinental routes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 8:05 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
These interstates also serve trucking and freight commerce. So access to resources are another reason to run large highways throughout the country.

HSR is literally a passenger service that only serves cities. That's fine and all, but again, it would only make sense for dense, large, walkable cities that are already fairly close to eachother.
Like say, Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis, Portland to Seattle, so on. This proposal beefs up the national "snail rail" network, and provides a nice template for getting higher ridership (and higher awareness) along future HSR corridors.

To take Minneapolis as an example, the enhanced service in the OP is multiple daily trains to Chicago, perhaps using Madison as an intermediate stop. Also, getting the train back to Duluth. That's three high frequency routes from MSP, relieving the air routes. Meanwhile, the Twin Cities have ambitious expansion plans for their light rail, which will enhance connectivity between Random Lake Suburb and the station in downtown St. Paul (as well as to MSP airport), which takes more cars off the expressways into downtown...

I digress somewhat, but this proposal isn't flinging tax dollars at getting a Shinkansen running through Bumbledee, Nebraska. It's about putting Amtrak and thus intercity rail on a firmer footing, and bulking up feeder networks.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 8:07 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
These interstates also serve trucking and freight commerce. So access to resources are another reason to run large highways throughout the country.

HSR is literally a passenger service that only serves cities. That's fine and all, but again, it would only make sense for dense, large, walkable cities that are already fairly close to eachother.
Again, this proposal is NOT HSR. And rail can go to rural areas, towns, national parks, etc. It isn’t just an inter-urban service, or at least, it doesn’t have to be. There’s already a proposal to return passenger service between Calgary and Banff to offload congestion issues in the park. There is already a bus service to many popular sites in the park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 8:35 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
Again, this proposal is NOT HSR. And rail can go to rural areas, towns, national parks, etc. It isn’t just an inter-urban service, or at least, it doesn’t have to be. There’s already a proposal to return passenger service between Calgary and Banff to offload congestion issues in the park. There is already a bus service to many popular sites in the park.
Yeah, I've taken the bus to/from YYC to Lake Louise and it sold out.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 9:29 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
“Most American cities are way too decentralized” except when they weren’t. Cincinnati used to have probably the best stock of urbanism between Chicago and Philadelphia.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 9:31 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
Why does it have to be an either/or? I do agree that improving transit and the built environment in those cities will necessarily reduce rates of car utilization in such cities that are already car-dependent. Arguably more than HSR or even just regular, reliable intercity rail transport. However, investing in rail transport can cause amplification of non-car transportation in those cities as well. If you’re now getting greater rates of people arriving in Charlotte as tourists/visitors by train than by car or plane, that can also swell demand for greater public transportation, bike lanes, and proper pedestrian infra as these arrivals will need ways of getting around and may not necessarily want to rent a car, especially if the rail station is centrally located an they are staying in a downtown or downtown-adjacent neighbourhood.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 9:34 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
Yes, HSR in most of the country is a waste.

Which is why this proposal is not HSR. It's an expansion of the current running rights on freight tracks (and a proposal I hope fervently comes to pass.)

(Although running interstates through the likes of Wyoming is the same argument, and the US did it anyway.)
This is the other side of the coin:

Simply making a train go from an average of 55 mph to 70 mph simply isn't worth the money spent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 9:42 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
This is also important to consider as well. I’m not denying that there was a massive adoption of automobiles which people (particularly middle and upper class white people, for whom the suburban ideal was marketed) generally viewed as positive. I am saying that those positive attitudes were only possible via public and private re-engineering. Obviously, in the first decades of this policy, from the ‘40s to the ‘70s, during the height of the Keynesian era, car culture was a new ideology and people went into it naively. For the earliest years, the issues surrounding it weren’t as apparent, although there were issues with household matriarchs being isolated on the cul-de-sac during the work day. So it continued to be seen as a net good, particularly if you were in the classes that could afford a car and to live in a “nice” suburban home. There was a novelty to this new way of living.

But since the ‘70s, there have been ramifications of these policies which have become only more apparent as time as gone on, such that public opinion has and continues to shift away from being pro-cars wholeheartedly.
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...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 9:45 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
This is the other side of the coin:

Simply making a train go from an average of 55 mph to 70 mph simply isn't worth the money spent.
It might be worth a lot, but that's not the whole story. Most improvements to existing rail have a variety of benefits -- speed, reliability, safety, less disruption to the local areas, and so on. Also, faster trains can also mean more trips for each.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 10:16 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2021, 11:40 PM
subterranean subterranean is offline
Registered Ugly
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 3,628
Rail between Portland and Seattle currently works very well. It's about as fast as driving (sometimes faster) and I don't have to worry about my car for however long I'm there. It's also super stress free. I've taken that route many times.

HSR between Vancouver BC and Portland are being studied, outside of whatever infrastructure plan this conversation is about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2021, 3:21 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean View Post
Rail between Portland and Seattle currently works very well. It's about as fast as driving (sometimes faster) and I don't have to worry about my car for however long I'm there. It's also super stress free. I've taken that route many times.

HSR between Vancouver BC and Portland are being studied, outside of whatever infrastructure plan this conversation is about.
Yeah, I remember the train between Portland and Seattle being quite pleasant (and scenic). I have heard you can still deal with delays on the track, but I never had any while I'd ridden it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:16 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.