Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2017, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,259,082 times
Reputation: 35920

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
Most people care about getting somewhere quickly, affordably, and comfortably. A well-built rail system can provide for this for 90% of the populace better than a well-built road system can.
First, you have to have this well-built rail system. Secondly, you have to account for the "last mile" of travel.

Quote:
A 40 MPG Prius (or more accurately, millions of 40 MPH Priuses) does not approach the fuel efficiency of a train. Furthermore, a lot more carbon per user is emitted from the construction of cars and roads than railways and trains.
A Prius, or millions of Priuses, don't use gasoline. At all. They use electricity, which has its own problems. However, partially empty trains waste a lot of fuel.

Quote:
Most people don't want to live in a car-dominated world. They just want to get places quickly, comfortably, and affordably, and a rail system can deliver that for less money than a road system can.
Show, don't tell.

Quote:
That doesn't matter. Two-thirds of America's population lives in just 100 metro areas, so a rail system within and between them is all that is needed. Besides, that's where the population growth is, so new capacity will be needed, and it is more cost-effective for that capacity to be rail rather than road.
Baloney that it's "all that is needed". Do none of you urbanists ever want to go to a park or wildland area outside the city?

Quote:
Most people live in larger cities, and its absolutely feasible to put effective rail service near most residences and jobs.
The research shows that people are willing to walk about 1/4 mile. So we should have rail tracks 1/2 mile apart,criss-crossing cities? That doesn't sound attractive to me, nor very cost-effective.


Quote:
There is little evidence to believe most people want to live in a car-centric suburban neighborhood. That's just what is currently available. As evidenced in many other countries, people prefer living in urban cores provided they're safe with good schools. Even in America, urban cores are the most expensive places to live because of the high demand and limited supply, forcing people who would otherwise not to live in the suburbs and drive.
There is little evidence to believe that most people prefer living in urban cores, just because people do so in "many other countries". That's what's available in those countries.

Quote:
It isn't more practical or desirable for most of the population when presented with the option to use high-quality transit instead.
So why isn't there more clamor for this "high-quality transit", whatever that is?

Quote:
That doesn't mean it is a good idea to burn that oil, and a lot of pollution from cars isn't directly from fuel.
Oh?

Quote:
Instead of transitioning to 19th century transportation models, it is more likely that technology will advance to render much of your rationalization as moot - certainly over the timeframe required to implement your vision. Not everyone wants to live the way you want them to live nor to be transit-dependent. "Suburbs" are not going away and I doubt any city would survive long without them.

Most people want to live in the most comfortable and cost-effective way possible, and well built cities with well-built transit can deliver that better than any suburb.
Basic rationality explains that to move people quickly and efficiently, you need a high capacity vehicle with little interference, and logically, a rail line provides that better than any highway. Techno-utopianism doesn't change geometry and urban patterns.
Not everyone wants to live the way you want them to live. The suburbs continue to grow. You seem to not understand that not all travel is moving people in big packs to some common destination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2017, 10:05 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,194,339 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
A Prius, or millions of Priuses, don't use gasoline. At all. They use electricity, which has its own problems.
I assume you're referring to plug-ins not hybrids?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Baloney that it's "all that is needed". Do none of you urbanists ever want to go to a park or wildland area outside the city?
Hasn't that been clear, yes from my posts? Or were you trying to get two dozen landscape photos spammed?! And if you remember from a previous conversation with AJNOEA, he mentioned spending about 5 weeks/year in a cabin in the Adirondacks.

Quote:
The research shows that people are willing to walk about 1/4 mile. So we should have rail tracks 1/2 mile apart,criss-crossing cities? That doesn't sound attractive to me, nor very cost-effective.
for rail, it's closer to 1/2 mile, or rather any express transit. Big arterial roads aren't attractive either, nor any highways.

Quote:
Not everyone wants to live the way you want them to live. The suburbs continue to grow. You seem to not understand that not all travel is moving people in big packs to some common destination.
The only way cities can grow is up, which is more expensive and often with strong legal restrictions.

Last edited by nei; 04-28-2017 at 11:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 10:09 AM
46H
 
1,647 posts, read 1,381,265 times
Reputation: 3605
The 'rail is the only answer' arguments never account for cost, time, the value of time and all the right of ways needed to fulfill the fantasy of a rail centric US. Rail works when a lot of people are headed in 1 direction at the same time. That requires high density housing that only exists in a few areas of the USA. The way jobs are now spread around metro areas means the rail fantasy will just remain a fantasy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 12:32 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 4,419,241 times
Reputation: 3633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
Most people care about getting somewhere quickly, affordably, and comfortably. A well-built rail system can provide for this for 90% of the populace better than a well-built road system can.
At least you recognize some of the attributes that people are looking for in transportation. But I disagree with your conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
A 40 MPG Prius (or more accurately, millions of 40 MPH Priuses) does not approach the fuel efficiency of a train. Furthermore, a lot more carbon per user is emitted from the construction of cars and roads than railways and trains.
Fuel efficiency is not a consideration when the "solution" is not a solution. Carbon emission is a new diversion. You are a carbon-based life form. Much of what you touch, use, etc., is carbon based. The flora and fauna you want to look at are carbon based. There is nothing wrong with carbon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
Most people don't want to live in a car-dominated world. They just want to get places quickly, comfortably, and affordably, and a rail system can deliver that for less money than a road system can.
Disagree with your unsubstantiated first sentence... and your "solution" for the second is that people must relocate. Not really a solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
That doesn't matter. Two-thirds of America's population lives in just 100 metro areas, so a rail system within and between them is all that is needed. Besides, that's where the population growth is, so new capacity will be needed, and it is more cost-effective for that capacity to be rail rather than road.

Most people live in larger cities, and its absolutely feasible to put effective rail service near most residences and jobs.
So you plan to have rail every few streets to be "near" most residences? Not.
When they are not (as will be the case), how do you propose the residents get to the rail station - by the car you seek to eliminate? All you've done is saddle people (the residents) with higher costs because now they have to also pay for rail.
Your residence/job model is flawed because you expect a centralized core of jobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
There is little evidence to believe most people want to live in a car-centric suburban neighborhood. That's just what is currently available. As evidenced in many other countries, people prefer living in urban cores provided they're safe with good schools. Even in America, urban cores are the most expensive places to live because of the high demand and limited supply, forcing people who would otherwise not to live in the suburbs and drive.
Your cause and effect analysis is inconsistent. Who says that in other countries that the result is anything other than "that's just what's available there"? The expense, lack of good schools, and congested living arrangements are reasons people want to live elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
It isn't more practical or desirable for most of the population when presented with the option to use high-quality transit instead.
An "option" that you want to force on them? Because it's not an option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
That doesn't mean it is a good idea to burn that oil, and a lot of pollution from cars isn't directly from fuel.
...a lot of pollution from people has nothing to do with cars. Cities are black holes of resource consumption and major pollution emitters. If "pollution" justifies eliminating things you could start reducing pollution by getting rid of cities - not forcing more people into them. The powerplant technology for cars has been advancing to use other fuels and other sources of power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
Most people want to live in the most comfortable and cost-effective way possible, and well built cities with well-built transit can deliver that better than any suburb.
You haven't defined what you consider to be a "suburb" for purposes of differentiation. Are you referring to location relative to an arbitrary political boundary? Are you referring to an area where people have detached housing and yards? If the former then you've got an unsupportable irrational excuse. If the latter maybe you have a different concept of comfortable and cost-effective than the people that have no desire to live like hamsters in congested city environments. Shouldn't the choice be theirs rather than yours?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite View Post
Basic rationality explains that to move people quickly and efficiently, you need a high capacity vehicle with little interference, and logically, a rail line provides that better than any highway. Techno-utopianism doesn't change geometry and urban patterns.
You presume that people should all be traveling in one lump group rather than independently - a self-serving premise not a logical one. Your vision analogizes people to cattle that should travel only in herd form. Rail does not offer the granularity of roads nor does it recognize the individual transportation needs of passengers. Instead you are trying to rearrange where people live, where people work, and when they should travel among those locations to justify your "need" for rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,259,082 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I assume you're referring to plug-ins not hybrids?



Hasn't that been clear, yes from my posts? Or were you trying to get two dozen landscape photos spammed?! And if you remember from a previous conversation with AJNOEA, he mentioned spending about 5 weeks/year in a cabin in the Adirondacks.



for rail, it's closer to 1/2 mile, or rather any express transit. Big arterial roads aren't attractive either, nor any highways.



The only way cities can grow is up, which is more expensive and often with strong legal restrictions.
I didn't know Prius made hybrids.

I was not responding to you; I was responding to Western Urbanite. My phrase "you urbanists" was simply an expression.

I don't get why people would be willing to walk twice as far for rail as for a bus. That does not make sense to me. Plus, it would still require track every mile both N/S and E/W. That takes up a lot of land that could be put to some other use, and would cost a huge amount of money.

As far as cities growing, Denver seems to be doing a LOT of infill at the moment. Every time I go down there I'm amazed at all the building going on.https://denverinfill.com/blog/ Of course, we all know that Denver is "different" from any other city in the entire US and nothing that is going on there could be generalized to any other city in the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 02:02 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 4,419,241 times
Reputation: 3633
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
A. Rail is the most efficient form of land transport.
B. Government meddling is the culprit preventing its renaissance.
C. Abolish all government meddling (taxes, subsidies) and American rail transport would dominate land transportation.
....
I've taken an excerpt from your previous post for purposes of further rebuttal with recent articles on this very topic. It appears that rail is not as efficient method of land transport as you allege (at least with respect to the metrics that count) and that "government meddling" is necessary given that rail can't seem to operate without huge direct subsidies.

Reason #1 to End Transit Subsidies: It

You might also be interested in the following:
Driving Alone Hits High, Transit Hits Low in "Post-Car" City of Los Angeles | Newgeography.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 02:13 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,194,339 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I didn't know Prius made hybrids.
Most Priuses sold are gas-hybrids, not plug-in vehicles.

Quote:
I was not responding to you; I was responding to Western Urbanite. My phrase "you urbanists" was simply an expression.
it was plural, thought it sounded like I was included.

Quote:
I don't get why people would be willing to walk twice as far for rail as for a bus. That does not make sense to me.
Why not? Not worth it walk as far to slower transit.

However, people walk further to faster services. (Rail advocates are more likely to phrase this as “people walk further to rail”.) This doesn’t have to be a sociological or humanistic debate, though urbanists often frame it that way. If you are a rational and informed actor seeking to minimize travel time, it often makes sense to walk more than 400m to a rapid transit station rather than wait for a bus to cover such a short distance.

basics: walking distance to transit — Human Transit

Quote:
Plus, it would still require track every mile both N/S and E/W. That takes up a lot of land that could be put to some other use, and would cost a huge amount of money.
I agree that wouldn't be worth be worth except in high-density environments (when the amount of people in walking distance is very high). But as I said, big roads are often built every mile.

Quote:
As far as cities growing, Denver seems to be doing a LOT of infill at the moment. Every time I go down there I'm amazed at all the building going on.https://denverinfill.com/blog/ Of course, we all know that Denver is "different" from any other city in the entire US and nothing that is going on there could be generalized to any other city in the country.
I think the same is true of Portland and Seattle. Still, it's harder to built up than out and infill is harder when there's less available land. It is common for cities to have density limits on most of the area. I do think Denver is "different" in being far from other major cities; it's a particularly bad place for rail. At the opposite extreme, there are lots of intercity trips in the Northeast rail can cover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,259,082 times
Reputation: 35920
^^Your link was not exactly research based. They even say that.

The major roadways of Denver are in general > 1 mi. apart. 16 blocks/mi east to west; 8 blocks/mi n to south. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_system_of_Denver

Minneapolis is fairly isolated as well. Closest large city (I'm not counting Madison, WI) is Omaha, 291 miles away. That is the only city to the west that is < 861 miles. List of Cities near Minneapolis in Minnesota, United States of America

The closest large city to Denver (not counting Colorado Springs, though maybe I should) is Albuquerque, 335 mi, not much different from Mpls.
List of Cities near Denver in Colorado, United States of America

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 04-28-2017 at 02:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 03:14 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,194,339 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
^^Your link was not exactly research based. They even say that.
It's from someone who works in the field, I couldn't find anything else. Still, it doesn't sense to me that people wouldn't be more willing to walk further to faster transit, though lots of other factors are relevant of course.

Quote:
Minneapolis is fairly isolated as well. Closest large city (I'm not counting Madison, WI) is Omaha, 291 miles away. That is the only city to the west that is < 861 miles. List of Cities near Minneapolis in Minnesota, United States of America

The closest large city to Denver (not counting Colorado Springs, though maybe I should) is Albuquerque, 335 mi, not much different from Mpls.
List of Cities near Denver in Colorado, United States of America
All are much more isolated than what I'm used to. Still Minneapolis to Chicago (much larger than Albuquerque) is 410 miles; Denver doesn't have any city as big at that distance. Marseille to Paris, a rather successful high-speed rail route, which is 470 miles apart for a train trip time of 3 hours.

The only intercity rail that might make sense for Colorado would be a Colorado Springs - Denver - Fort Collins ? "Front Range" rail route. Dunno if worth the cost; and existing tracks unlike here are used heavily for freight. Utah has an 88 mile passenger line connecting cities to the north & south of Salt Lake City; New Mexico has a 97 mile route for south of Albuquerque to Santa Fe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2017, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,259,082 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
It's from someone who works in the field, I couldn't find anything else. Still, it doesn't sense to me that people wouldn't be more willing to walk further to faster transit, though lots of other factors are relevant of course.



All are much more isolated than what I'm used to. Still Minneapolis to Chicago (much larger than Albuquerque) is 410 miles; Denver doesn't have any city as big at that distance. Marseille to Paris, a rather successful high-speed rail route, which is 470 miles apart for a train trip time of 3 hours.

The only intercity rail that might make sense for Colorado would be a Colorado Springs - Denver - Fort Collins ? "Front Range" rail route. Dunno if worth the cost; and existing tracks unlike here are used heavily for freight. Utah has an 88 mile passenger line connecting cities to the north & south of Salt Lake City; New Mexico has a 97 mile route for south of Albuquerque to Santa Fe.
Considering Chicago is the 3rd biggest city in the country, no. Phoenix #6, is 586 mi., a long day's drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top