Yeah, that’ll convince a lot of Americans…
BG: You can’t just pluck one piece of the European model and plant it in American soil and expect similar results. For example, the rail system in Europe is tightely bound with the energy policy of European counties. Without importing the radically higher taxes on gas along with the rail system, there is no reason to believe that the rail system would be successful here. So when you tell Americans that they can have this wonderful European style rail system, don’t forget to tell them that in order to make it work you’ll have to raise the price of gas from $2/gal to $5 or $6/ga. I think most Americans will then tell you exactly what you can do with your European style rail system…
Which doesn’t change the fact that the US government has (or, to be accurate, did) horribly mismanaged its passenger rail service. Nor does it change the fact that the US isn’t Europe, not just in a cultural sense, but in a geographic and logistical sense.
Besides, you didn’t address my other point. I’m a veteran of NYC public transit, possibly the most public-transit friendly city in the US. And I got really, really sick of it. Why should I waste one more second of my life standing on a freezing train platform?
Mostly at a loss, though, the generation of profit not being the goal. It’s considered a necessary public service. I suppose it’s not too different from the government bailing out airlines in this country.
I don’t think a national network of HSR lines would make sense, but there are definitely a few pairs of key cities between which an HSR line would make a lot of sense. L.A. and San Francisco would be a prime example of such a pair. Security hassles since 9/11 have seriously diminished the utility of making the trip by air, and at times there are so many commercial planes in the air between the two cities that they have to fly slower…rather like the situation on the ground.
L.A. to Las Vegas would be another good one. Maybe if they instituted a Gamblers’ Special HSR train, with onboard gambling, the casinos would underwrite it.
Because the time will come when getting around by automobile will no longer be an affordable option for most of your travel needs. Regardless of what the government does or does not do.
I’m comfortable letting the market determine my travel options. If gasoline prices rise to the point of unaffordability, there will be businesses providing me cheaper alternatives – and won’t leave me shivering on a train platform wasting valuable time.
And I don’t think that time is coming anytime soon. Gas is still cheap in real-dollar terms, even after recent price increases, and market prices are the best measure of anticipated scarcity.
So again, why should I waste one more second of my life shivering on a train platform today? Why should I sacrifice life’s most valuable commodity – time – in the face of what amounts to tea-leaf reading?
This, I have to disagree with. While I’m quite sure that a certain density is needed in order for carlessness to be cost effective, I’m equally sure that it doesn’t need to be nearly the density of Manhattan. I live in Queens, in a neighborhood of mostly one and two family houses. The houses have backyards. The lots are small by suburban standards, but the population is not nearly as dense as Manhattan. There are a few apartment buildings, and apartments over the stores on the commercial streets. I live within three blocks of four bus lines (including an express to Manhattan) and a train. The next train station is five blocks in either direction from the one I use, and the next train line is less than ten blocks from that one. I’ve known many people who have not owned cars for various reasons (including not knowing how to drive, something that is probably unthinkable in most of the country), and even more who only use them on weekends. They could get to work, to school, visit the doctor, go shopping ,etc- all the normal day-to day activities without a car.
Which brings me to another point- Why does it seem that these discussions always involve “apartment in dirty, smelly, Manhattan neighborhood with winos” versus " clean, quiet ,suburban house" ? There’s a lot in between those two extemes. There are relatively low density parts of cities, there are small towns, there are suburbs that are not particularly clean or quiet. Of course if I had to choose between a vermin infested apartment in Manhattan with winos on the street or a house in the suburbs, I’d choose the house in the suburbs.
I think it’s fair to say that airline bailouts are going to become less and less popular. I know that I’m sick of them. The bailout after 9/11 I can understand, but take US Air for example. They were bailed out, I assume, after 9/11. They then declared bankruptcy in 2002. They were bailed out again and now they’ve just recently declared bankruptcy once again. If their business is that bad, or management that inept, why should we keep wasting tax money bailing out airlines instead of having them liquidate and have some consolidation in the industry?
Sure, but there are also problems with urban and new-urban living. it is arrogant to believe that there is one type of zoning that will meet all of societies needs.
I’m with Dewey. Let the market dictate where people live. If gas prices start to rise as you say then society will adapt.
I’m with doreen. Until recently, I lived in Ottawa, near the centre of town. One of the largest cities in Canada, but not very dense. I lived in a rented room in a house that had a front yard, a back yard, and a broad, tree-lined street that attenuated the noise of the major boulevard nearby. I was about as far as you can be from a bus route in urban Ottawa - I had to walk six minutes to one stop that had six routes, or eight minutes to another stop that had two more, or ten minutes to the Bus Rapid Transit line (I could run there in three and a half). (I also lived in close proximity to spacious parklands and childrens’ playgrounds, and within an eight-minute walk of two supermarkets. What else do I need?)
For the price of a car (Let’s say I got a cheap little compact that takes C$ 20/month in fuel and C$ 180/month in lease payments), I could get the highest class of super express bus pass (C$ 75/month), plus two taxi trips a week (at C$ 15 per ride), and still have five bucks left over.
When I was commuting across town, it was about 4 minutes slower to take transit than when I got a ride with friends. If I didn’t have the longer-than-average walk, it’d probably be about the same. For most commuters it’s about the same, if you’re within the Urban Transit Area. for trips exclusively or mostly in the semi-rural areas outside the city core, car travel is often faster. If the Rapid Transit trunkline was grade-separated in the downtown core, there’d be no competition - transit would win for the vast majority of urban trips.
That’s for Ottawa, a city with a few hundred thousand in the urban area, and particularly low density for a city of its size because of rivers, protected green spaces, and historical laws restricting the height of buildings. I haven’t even mentioned the effectiveness of bicycle travel in this medium density city (because it’s seasonal) (Or the growing number of people who commute by skate or kayak, because it’s a special case and only works along the canal.)
So, in a city with a good transit system, carlessness can definitely be cost-effective. Bicycles and bus passes are cheap. And if you don’t like “shivering on a train platform”, can’t you buy a coat? I mean, you need to wear one to scrape the ice and snow off your car before you go anywhere, anyway, right?
What I just dont understand about this thread is that somehow, concern for the environment has been turned into a reason for urban consolidation rather than urban sprawl. That makes absolutely no sense. What, everyone living in densely packed urban areas with man made park systems and all that is going to lead people to have ~more~ respect for nature??
I live in the suburbs, and I like it; you know why? Because cities suck. I cant fucking stand cities. I lived in SF for a few years and I hated it. As clean as it is, every city is nothing but concrete, asphalt, man made (i.e fake) parks and the smell of piss. Cities are great if your main pastimes are eating or drinking. They are terrible if your main pastimes are in some way interacting with nature. They are nice to visit, much like zoos; but I dont want to live in one ever again.
I live in the suburbs because its close to the city (cities), where I often work, and so its no great drive. I also live in the suburbs because its also close to rural areas, which I love, and which I can visit easier from here than if I lived in the city. Here, I can ride my bike around without having to stop every block for a goddamn light or worry about getting run over by a cab or bus. Its faaaar easier to take my kayak out into the bay or ocean from here than it is from the damn city. When I want to fish in something other than greasy-ass water of the bay around the city, its far easier for me to go to rivers, lakes and streams from here than in the city; and if I catch something fishing in the city, theres no way in hell Id eat it.
Perhaps some people on here need to get over their little pet social bigotries about people who live in -gasp- The Burbs. The people who love the environment and nature most usually dont live in cities; they live in rural areas if they can and if they cant they take the next best thing and live in suburbs. Hey, if I had my way, I wouldnt live in the suburbs, Id be somewhere way the hell out in the boonies where I could drink, smoke, blast music or go hiking in the woods or fishing whenever I wanted. But I have to settle for the suburbs. Its not paradise, but at least it isnt a damn scumy grimy city.
How people are supposed to have more respect for nature and the environment by being withdrawn from it, by viewing it only from a window as it were, is beyond me.
As for that planned community crap, or Yuppie Ant Hills as they are otherwise called, dont even get me started. Thats the biggest scam to part pretentious people from their money since first class sections on airplanes.
I honestly don’t care what people in the city do, as long as they keep it at the local level. As soon as it gets pushed to the state or federal level, I and quite a few other rural Americans will not be too happy paying for all this crap.
Did anyone actually look at that newtrains.org site? Man, it’ is funny. Up top there’s a photo of what I believe to be the monorail at Disneyland. (If it isn’t, it sure as hell looks like it)
Then there’s a map of the proposed routes of the supertrains, which would criss-cross the country. I look at the one that links Washington, DC, to San Francisco and think: who the hell is going to have the patience to spend at LEAST 24 hours on a train to cross the country?
Yes, they are crackpots.
It’s not about how people FEEL about the environment. It’s the impact they have on it. People are going to have an environmental impact no matter where they live, but in some ways the impact is different (some would say better) when a subpopulation of humans live closer together. Less density means people will displace more natural habitat, for example.
:rolleyes:
Like a few minutes of scraping is comparable to the amount of time spent on the platform, or walking to that platform. Oh, and like it needs to be snowing or icing for it to be cold. And like a coat makes you completely comfortable when the mercury starts dropping, especially to the teens or below. Or like, as in the summer, sweating on a train platform is any better. Sheesh, miss the point much?
Besides, the weather complaint is minor compared to the time complaint. The fact is, time spent dicking about on a train platform is time I could be spending doing something enjoyable and/or productive.
Slight hijack but obviously you have never flown first class on a 6 hour flight. Shit, after riding the Acela train first class, a regular train feels like I’m in a Lawrence of Arabia movie with chickens and people riding on the roof and shit.
But the point is that everyone has their own preferences for where they live and are willing to trade different things to live their. I am willing to pay more for less space so I can live in Manhattan with it’s “scene” and proximity to work (except now I’ve locked into constant nagging and trips to Target to save a few bucks by living with my GF in Hoboken). Other people would rather trade their time for a larger house in the suburbs with a yard.
What makes people crackpot is that they get fixated on one idea - in this case “trains and dense zoning is the way to go”. It is a solution looking for a problem. All other considerations are secondary - we’ll destroy the housing market but it’s worth it to save the environment. Lets ban new freeway development so people take 5 hours to commute to work, but it’s worth it to encourage people to live in overpriced shoeboxes downtown. How about telling people where they can and cant live? It’s worth it to take away their freedom so the squirells and racoons have a place to shit.
The real issues are reducing the pollution and oil dependency of cars, maintaining the same level of mobility, and designing the infrastructure to support it. These are issues that can be addressed though designing alternative cars, better planning and investing in new infrastructure IN ADDITION to mass transit.
Why should I be put out? Can’t you environmental types just drive an extra hour to go play with nature? I want comfort and convenience dammit! I’ll take the train so long as it is more convenient than the car, but as I said, that only happens in places like Manhattan where roads are congested and parking expensive and you have excellent 24 hour coverage. When I lived outside of Boston, I had a commuter rail about half a mile from my house. It would take me 10 minutes or so to walk there, wait for the train, and then another half hour or more to get to North Station or Cambridge. After switching to subway (more waiting, more transfer time, more walking) I finally get to my destination after nearly an hour and a half.
OR
Drive 2-3 miles to the T station. Pay for parking. Wait for the stupid Green Line trolly if and when it comes. Then a nice leisurely 45min ride downtown. And STILL pay $30 for a cab if I stay in town past midnight.
OR
Get in my car, drive down the Mass Pike for 15 minutes and go park on State St somewhere.
Now I have no problem using mass transit, but it’s stupid to expect people to use it if it’s a hassle.
But the anti-spawl zealots are willing to require YOU to pay more for less space so you can live where THEY think you should live.
As I said before, these are not nice people.
Personally, I regret as lost all the time I have to spend behind the wheel of a car, when I could be riding a train and catching up on my reading. I guess it’s a matter of taste.
On the other hand, for example sewage, I imagine its easier for the environment to absorb the sewage of 3 million scattered over a wide area than it is for the environment to absorb the sewage of 3 million packed together.