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.
In the UK, electrification and speeding up train service is making relatively affordable Bath a popular place. And it's not in service yet. West County property: catch a train to Bath in an hour - Telegraph I also noticed the article referred to "season tickets," normally associated with sports in the US. Must be British vernacular.
Of course, rail commuters from Belen to Santa Fe NM, about the same distance, only pay $1200 for an annual pass. But they don't get there anywhere near as fast.
Last edited by pvande55; 01-23-2016 at 04:26 PM..
Reason: Add line
Agreed. In the SF area, halving (no exaggeration) the cost of housing by using HSR from super-exurbs would be enough to justify such prices.
Yea, if it meant going from a 1 million dollar shack in Palo Alto to a significantly larger 500,000 dollar house in Gilroy, many people would consider the house(s) in Gilroy if HSR was there to bring them north.
I know people like to only talk about the LA <-> SF portion of the future CA HSR line, but I actually think its effect on exurbs/far-flung cities will be more interesting. You will likely see these lines start to be used as commuter lines for cities that would normally not be considered part of the region.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 02-09-2016 at 04:18 PM..
What are some solutions to the very real (negative) consequences HSR might have in promoting additional exurban sprawl, as posted earlier? This is a problem I have with the transit plans of the Phoenix, AZ metro area. Its initial LRT line was greatly successful because it connected the two densest regions of the state, after which there is a significant drop in density levels. A recent expansion took the line into downtown Mesa, which has been great for Mesa's downtown visions, but the train runs at-grade with multiple stops during its run through town, making it no more valuable than a streetcar but for a heck of a lot more money. And, now that it has been expanded that far, there's plans to connect to places like the Capitol (which is a minor 9-5 employment center), Cardinals football stadium (used for a handful of games per year), etc.
The only three things I can think of are 1) in exchange for a station, cities agree to zone the land within 1/4 mile for high-intensity use, 2) the transit authority is more aggressive in purchasing properties within 1/4 mile and then preparing them/selling them to developers for dense projects, or 3) the value of land surrounding an HSR station will rise so dramatically that more intensive development will become inevitable.
^ I am just throwing those out as starting points; I am sure claiming more land would be a political nightmare, for example, but transit should be part of a long-term sustainability strategy, and it being used to herd in exurbanites to work each day sounds so very wrong.
What are some solutions to the very real (negative) consequences HSR might have in promoting additional exurban sprawl, as posted earlier?
I'd be careful to differentiate between "bad" (ie, financially and environmentally unsustainable) outward growth and "good" outward growth. Exurban doesn't necessarily mean sprawling (and expensive to build and maintain) autocentricity.
As to your question, unless individual cities put in place and follow zoning and DoT rules that promote compact development and deny sprawling, disconnected tract development, there's little to be done. It gets lost on politicians that much of this development is low value/high cost per acre over the lifetime of it when quick development dollars are so tantalizing.
I would like to see a better passenger rail grid between the two coasts -- high speed would be nice but not if I have to go through Chicago to ride from Albuquerque to Denver. A "front range line" from El Paso northward through Las Cruces, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Denver, would connect three east-west Amtrak passenger lines. A line from Omaha through Kansas City and south to Oklahoma City would be good, too, as long as we are adding new routes. On one trip I met a guy going from Albuquerque to Ft. Worth on Amtrak -- through St. Louis. The little connector line between Kansas City and St. Louis kept hem from having to go all the way to Chicago but a line from Kansas City to Oklahoma City would have been better. A line from ABQ to El Paso would have worked as well.
I would like to see a better passenger rail grid between the two coasts -- high speed would be nice but not if I have to go through Chicago to ride from Albuquerque to Denver. A "front range line" from El Paso northward through Las Cruces, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Denver, would connect three east-west Amtrak passenger lines. A line from Omaha through Kansas City and south to Oklahoma City would be good, too, as long as we are adding new routes. On one trip I met a guy going from Albuquerque to Ft. Worth on Amtrak -- through St. Louis. The little connector line between Kansas City and St. Louis kept hem from having to go all the way to Chicago but a line from Kansas City to Oklahoma City would have been better. A line from ABQ to El Paso would have worked as well.
Connecting major, already intertwined metros makes sense. But it'd be hard to justify national HSR when airlines already work. Air travel is far from perfect, but what would rail offer that would justify the cost?
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.