Why isn't there much support for intercity rail? (natural, cities, system)
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.
I did address that point. Virtually every large metro area has a public transportation system. Some are better than others. Chicago's is certainly by all accounts one of the best. There are very few people living in anything remotely considered a metropolitan area who cannot get to an 8-5 M-F job on pubic transit.
However, I looked up all the cities you mentioned on their City-Data main page. It shows the usual means of transportation used to get to work in the form of a pie chart. The charts did not give percentages, so I had to do a little interpretation. Here is what I found. Keep in mind these are percentages of city residents in these cities, exclucing suburbanites.
Chicago: Drove alone: 50%; carpooled: ~12%, total traveling by auto: 62%
Seattle: 57%; 10%; 67%
Portland: 67%; 8%; 75%
NYC: 25%; 10%; 35%
Boston: 37%; 13%; 50%
San Francisco: 40%; 10%; 50%
Plus, my home, Denver:65%; 15%, 80%
This is not car ownership, this is how many people use their cars to get to work. Except in NYC, at least 50% of the population uses a car to go to work, even in cities with supposedly excellent public transportation systems.
I think everyone can stipulate to the point that the current living arrangement in America, especially in the suburbs, is heavily dependent on the automobile. It would seem, though, that many of these posts are trying to find comfort in those dependency numbers--that, since we are so auto-dependent, that means that lifestyle is sacred and will be sustained at all costs. That's as silly as thinking that if we got 80% of Americans to smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, people wouldn't get lung cancer anymore because "there is just too many people smoking to let that happen." That lack of logic is silly on its face, but that is the same rationale we are using to self-justify our total reliance on the automobile, despite every visible sign that such reliance is going to be unsustainable. We remain in societal denial about that and it is going to cost us plenty. We need to start weaning ourselves off of automobile dependency now, or face the absolute prospect of having to quit the automobile "cold-turkey" at some point in the not-that-distant future--an all-out withdrawal I'm not sure we could survive economically, politically, or socially.
We need to start weaning ourselves off of automobile dependency now, or face the absolute prospect of having to quit the automobile "cold-turkey" at some point in the not-that-distant future--an all-out withdrawal I'm not sure we could survive economically, politically, or socially.
I have already begun the weaning process. It has actually improved the quality of my life. I highly recommend it to everyone. I haven't abandoned my car or anything like that, but I have cut way back on the amount of miles I drive it ( around 80 miles a week ).
Last edited by CosmicWizard; 04-28-2008 at 12:16 PM..
jazzlover: My numbers represent the percentage of city residents in these places who use an auto to get to work. The suburban numbers would be higher, for sure. My point was basically to show that city residents are pretty auto-dependent as well. A sort of response to those who like to blame the suburbanites for all the problems in the world today. (On a thread that is supposed to be about intercity rail!)
I have said before, never underestimate the ability of people to adapt. I don't mean to say, put your heads in the sand and everything will be OK, but something will come along. As an example, I remember when an artificial sweetener was taken off the market as a carcinogen. I asked a chemical engineer friend what was the prospect of a new one being developed and he said "100%". People are adapatable.
That said, I personally don't think it is as bad as some think it is. A lot of suburbanites are traveling similar distances to work as the city people. The data is here on CD for anyone to look at. I drive 4 1/2 miles to work, I eat lunch at the hospital (usually), and I drive back home. If I don't take a trip to Denver at some point in time to see my daughter, I can go two weeks on a 12 gallon tank of gas. DH is driving 6 miles one way, often walks to a fast-food restaurant for lunch. He doesn't fill up real often either.
Now I have to get in my car and go buy a cup of coffee to wake up! LOL! I am going to the grocery store, and it has a Starbuck's inside. It is about 2 miles away.
People voted with their pocketbooks to stop using it.
Here's my point. There does not seem to be a desire to force people to stop flying because in is extremely ungreen. That is a sacred cow that cannot be touched. However, there is a desire to force people into all kinds of other actions - heavy taxes on SUV's, the redesign of cities to eliminate suburbia, etc.
So what is the problem with taxing airline travel to the max so people stop using this inefficient form of transportation? Use the taxes to improve intercity rail travel so we can travel much more eco friendly.
I do agree that train travel is a great option for inter-city trips up tp 400 or so miles. And I'm referring to European trains which run on average faster than the American counterparts. But to expect people to rely solely on those slow U.S. trains, especially for journeys more than a few hundred miles...is asking too much. I would love for America to get high speed links between major cities, I would use them! Not NYC to LA, but maybe LA to San Francisco. Currently the only train in the US I would ride on is the Acela in the Northeast because of the shorter distance and (relative) higher speed. Everything thing else, car or airplane.
I think there's a huge problem with taxing airline travel more than it already is. I think it's wrong for the government to try and change peoples lives for the "green" ideal by imposing taxes but then again thats just me.
This is all very interesting, but there are some practical issues that need to be addressed. First of all, MANY Americans do not live in cities that have any public transportation. None, nada, no buses, no trains, no public transportation. Those people need their cars. Secondly, if you are going to have intercity rail, where are you going to get the rail? The existing tracks in this country are already loaded down with freight. Go to any major rail hub like in Dallas or Kansas City or Chicago, and ask the people who work there about freight delays, while freight cars are moved from one train to another. The trains leave on time, there is just logistical limits to how many freight cars can be moved in the timeframe. And the freight just doesn't get pulled up by train to your door. It gets delivered by truck to distribution centers, that's what the intermodal and dray divisions of large trucking companies do. So you will need to lay new track, which will mean re-establishing right-of-ways and condemnations of landowners and lawsuits in addition to the costs of building new routes. You will need to invest in new passenger trains that are faster, cleaner and more efficient than anything we currently have. It will be a tremendous investment, how are we supposed to fund it? By taxing the people who have to have cars, the people who live in rural areas where your new intercity trains won't even service.
When those life styles are unsustainable and impractical, it would be irresponsible for the government not to do something about the situation.
But why should the government wet nurse everyone? If someone wants to be "unsustainable" and as long as they arent breaking the law, you or the government have no right to interfere. If you have enough money, why can't you choose to be "impractical"? Its a free country right?,....
It should be a personal choice to lower emissions, not something to be forced on others like a religious cult on crack.
If someone wants to be "unsustainable" and as long as they arent breaking the law, you or the government have no right to interfere. If you have enough money, why can't you choose to be "impractical"? Its a free country right?,....
Then perhaps the government might best serve the citizenry by stepping in and making it illegal to practice "unsustainable" actions. Having enough money is a poor excuse for continuing the practice of impractical unsustainability. In fact, it is probably the driving force, which might soon become apparent as more and more people no longer have enough money to afford unsustainable practices.
This is all very interesting, but there are some practical issues that need to be addressed. First of all, MANY Americans do not live in cities that have any public transportation. None, nada, no buses, no trains, no public transportation. Those people need their cars. Secondly, if you are going to have intercity rail, where are you going to get the rail? The existing tracks in this country are already loaded down with freight. Go to any major rail hub like in Dallas or Kansas City or Chicago, and ask the people who work there about freight delays, while freight cars are moved from one train to another. The trains leave on time, there is just logistical limits to how many freight cars can be moved in the timeframe. And the freight just doesn't get pulled up by train to your door. It gets delivered by truck to distribution centers, that's what the intermodal and dray divisions of large trucking companies do. So you will need to lay new track, which will mean re-establishing right-of-ways and condemnations of landowners and lawsuits in addition to the costs of building new routes. You will need to invest in new passenger trains that are faster, cleaner and more efficient than anything we currently have. It will be a tremendous investment, how are we supposed to fund it? By taxing the people who have to have cars, the people who live in rural areas where your new intercity trains won't even service.
Rebuilding our rail network and expanding it to handle intercity passenger service will be a major investment--but still much smaller than trying to sustain our increasingly unsustainable highway network. There will always be a place for some automobiles and trucking--sort of like the "farm-to-market" roads that were common in the US before the Interstate highway building boom began--but that is a much more limited and much more effiicient system than the bloated resource-devouring automobile/highway dinosaur we have now.
You are also quite correct that are areas that will never be practical to have rail service. For people who "have to have their cars" in those places, they will be faced with some stark choices: abandon their automobile-centered lifestyle or pay the horrendous cost of having an auto to sustain it. That is already starting to happen on a very small level right now--the trend will only accelerate as fuel gets more expensive and road maintenance becomes more and more unaffordable.
It's time for people to quit thinking about this in terms of "having a choice." We are going to have to build efficient rail and transit alternatives to automobiles and we are going to have to figure out a way to fund it. Otherwise, our national transportation system is simply going to sieze up from lack of fuel, affordability, and maintenance. It's no longer a question of if, but when.
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.
