|
08-01-2011, 08:18 PM
|
|
|
|
2,878 posts, read 3,927,056 times
Reputation: 3083
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson
I have a lot of trouble believing that statement. Rurally, I can drive 30 miles in 45 minutes and stop twice for stop signs. Urbanly, I can drive 15 miles in 45 minutes and spend *most* of that time at traffic lights burning fuel. It seem far more efficient to me to actually be IN MOTION when running my engine and burning petroleum.
The figure that you are quoting is of course, including the people who ride public transit and walk, or bicycle to work. BUT if you take those people OUT of the equation and strictly compare apples to apples, I seriously DOUBT if drivers in the city use less fuel per capital than drivers in rural environments.
20yrsinBranson
|
I think the proper thing to say was that the cities scale better in energy use.
OD |
|
08-02-2011, 12:40 AM
|
|
|
|
48,516 posts, read 85,127,415 times
Reputation: 18083
|
|
|
It depends o what yopu call rural. Ceetainly the older small farms and ranches have gone outside small towns. But mnay small towns have come back to life since the 70's. Mnay of them that were decaying from neglect have been carefully restored to almost original shape with street lined with small businesses. They have also been well palnned to bring and located things like hospitals well away form the historic areas. Bommers are moving tot hese areas and bring their money with them . They can demand and get special treatment and locations of new stores like wal-mart and other so they do not interfer with the downtown areas.The more bommers that retire the more such small towns will grow and not have to develop industry to survive.
|
|
08-02-2011, 07:05 AM
|
|
|
|
2,878 posts, read 3,927,056 times
Reputation: 3083
|
|
|
I once lived in Columbia, MO - small town with University of Missouri being the biggest employer. It was set almost exactly half way between Kansas City and St Louis. It was a two+ hour drive from either. The town itself was nothing special but I always was upset that they didn't have one of them bullet trains connecting it to St Louis and to Kansas City. Then I could have lived in a rural town and commuted to KC or STL for work. It would have been perfect.
OD
|
|
08-02-2011, 12:45 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: 3rd Rock fts
748 posts, read 976,791 times
Reputation: 304
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flyonpa
DSO. I was refering to High Speed Data Access, (BroadBand Internet).s.
|
I didn’t realize that’s what you meant. 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ognend
I once lived in Columbia, MO - small town with University of Missouri being the biggest employer. It was set almost exactly half way between Kansas City and St Louis. It was a two+ hour drive from either. The town itself was nothing special but I always was upset that they didn't have one of them bullet trains connecting it to St Louis and to Kansas City. Then I could have lived in a rural town and commuted to KC or STL for work. It would have been perfect.
|
This is what I was getting @. We need to accommodate future population growth differently—it doesn’t always have to be the OLD way—expanding Interstates/Highways/Cities.
If a small town’s population does start to smartly grow; you can do it with less gas stations, roads, etc... |
|
08-02-2011, 04:23 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: MN
378 posts, read 612,201 times
Reputation: 267
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
I once lived in Columbia, MO - small town with University of Missouri being the biggest employer. It was set almost exactly half way between Kansas City and St Louis. It was a two+ hour drive from either. The town itself was nothing special but I always was upset that they didn't have one of them bullet trains connecting it to St Louis and to Kansas City. Then I could have lived in a rural town and commuted to KC or STL for work. It would have been perfect.
OD
|
Columbia isn't rural. The city has over 100,000 people and the metro has half of that again. It has maintained population growth too, perhaps drawing from true rural areas that are depopulating. |
|
08-02-2011, 06:29 PM
|
|
|
|
2,878 posts, read 3,927,056 times
Reputation: 3083
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2018
Columbia isn't rural. The city has over 100,000 people and the metro has half of that again. It has maintained population growth too, perhaps drawing from true rural areas that are depopulating.
|
I lived south of town and that was rural. Either way, could have used a bullet train to cheaply commute to either KC or STL for a job. As it were, everyone "values their personal freedom" and that's why they insist on owning a car... |
|
08-02-2011, 07:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: MN
378 posts, read 612,201 times
Reputation: 267
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
I lived south of town and that was rural. Either way, could have used a bullet train to cheaply commute to either KC or STL for a job. As it were, everyone "values their personal freedom" and that's why they insist on owning a car...
|
If you live in a rural area outside of Columbia and use a bullet train to commute, you still have to drive to Columbia in order to use it. At that point, wouldn't it make more sense to build a light rail system in KC/STL and let people drive from the rural periphery to suburban rail terminals? |
|
08-02-2011, 08:53 PM
|
|
|
|
2,878 posts, read 3,927,056 times
Reputation: 3083
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2018
If you live in a rural area outside of Columbia and use a bullet train to commute, you still have to drive to Columbia in order to use it. At that point, wouldn't it make more sense to build a light rail system in KC/STL and let people drive from the rural periphery to suburban rail terminals?
|
Good grief, talk about splitting hairs. Columbia proper when I lived there (10 miles south of town) was about 50,000 people or so. There were not that many jobs but there were many more in KC or STL. I would have driven 20 minutes to town to get on a speed train to get to a large city for a job. That's all I was trying to say. |
|
08-02-2011, 09:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: MN
378 posts, read 612,201 times
Reputation: 267
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
Good grief, talk about splitting hairs. Columbia proper when I lived there (10 miles south of town) was about 50,000 people or so. There were not that many jobs but there were many more in KC or STL. I would have driven 20 minutes to town to get on a speed train to get to a large city for a job. That's all I was trying to say.
|
I'm not trying to nitpick. I just don't think high speed rail is going to fix rural depopulation. It doesn't make sense to build expensive bullet trains into areas with very low population density. |
|
08-03-2011, 06:20 AM
|
|
|
|
2,878 posts, read 3,927,056 times
Reputation: 3083
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2018
I'm not trying to nitpick. I just don't think high speed rail is going to fix rural depopulation. It doesn't make sense to build expensive bullet trains into areas with very low population density.
|
I am sure the same could have been said of the interstate highway system. What will attract people to the rural area is their ability to live there and work elsewhere. Reality is that jobs are not abundant in rural areas but people would be if they could commute reasonably fast.
OD |
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
