U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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 08-03-2010, 09:16 AM
 
886 posts, read 2,010,786 times
Reputation: 322

Advertisements

A lot of the problems with building new light rail and heavy rail comes from the cost of expanding roads, building underground, etc...

Check out Chinas recent solution:

3D Express Coach (PICTURES): China Plans Huge Buses That Can DRIVE OVER Cars

What do you think? Should US cities instead start building rail that use existing roads in a way they don't have to expand them?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-03-2010, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 13,730,711 times
Reputation: 4047
I think the country overall needs to do whatever it takes to get dependency on rail more going.

It's not a good image for the most advanced and richest country to be lagging in this department. You see China, Japan, various countries in Europe that are creaming us in this.

Airline travel was a large dependency and with gasoline costs rising it's becoming much of a hassle, something other countries saw and began solving many years ago with various rail methods. LRT, CRT, High Speed Bullet Trains. I think we're going in the right direction now, but we got into the game a bit too late, it's 3rd quarter now. And we need to play catch up to keep up with others in this department.

I'm a very car dependent person, not because I have to be with no other choice, but because I want to be. I can't stand PT of any kind, not my style, but I will admit that my way of doing it is more costly and more of a drag financially.
I'm going to continue doing what I do, despite admitting it's not the best way.

But I would like to see others doing it the other way, it would save them a lot of cash, and it would be more convenient.

Parking, gas (every two days!), constantly having to watch out for cops when my radar goes off, and other things is a bit of a hassle at times. But it's the way I prefer it, I hope others do things the beneficial way though.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 09:26 AM
 
11,288 posts, read 23,596,573 times
Reputation: 11207
Sadly our systems were actually about as large as every other country's system put together around 1950.

A huge thing was GM bought up a majority of the systems, ripped them out, sold the cities buses and walked away.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 10:18 AM
 
8,405 posts, read 15,356,327 times
Reputation: 4190
Our first step is getting back to where we were about 1930: streetcars and commuter rail serving most communities, with some provision for pedestrians, cars and other modes. That is tied in with building neighborhoods in ways that promote transit: mixed use and gridded streets, instead of feeder/cul-de-sac and separated land uses. The giant-bus idea is only practical if you already have a large transit-dependent population living in high density but also want to make room for a growing number of cars.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 10:26 AM
 
35,318 posts, read 45,160,624 times
Reputation: 30822
Americans arent going to be taking trains anywhere while its cheaper and more convenient to take the car,Big cities like Boston and NYC are the exception as their public transit makes commuting much more convenient than trying to battle the rush hours every day, smaller cities where every one lives an hours drive out in the suburbs will not benefit from increased public transit systems until the price of gas gets near $10 a gallon.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 10:35 AM
 
216 posts, read 612,503 times
Reputation: 300
When gas gets near $10 a gallon, people will much sooner switch to small plug-in hybrids than start taking public transportation or "moving back into cities", the ultimate wet dream of many an American socialist.

Intercity rail is a burden on taxpayers EVERYWHERE in the country. Passenger railroads are not - and will never be - feasible. They're simply not flexible enough to compete.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,145 posts, read 20,360,565 times
Reputation: 14041
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrizzle View Post
A lot of the problems with building new light rail and heavy rail comes from the cost of expanding roads, building underground, etc...

Check out Chinas recent solution:

3D Express Coach (PICTURES): China Plans Huge Buses That Can DRIVE OVER Cars

What do you think? Should US cities instead start building rail that use existing roads in a way they don't have to expand them?
Yet another reason the future is in China.

Last year, all the retired old folks rallied together and blocked a proposed streecar system (with single trolley cars, not even a real train) that would have connected my bedroom community directly with downtown.

Their main reasoning? They didn't want "undesirables" from downtown to have easy access to our neighborhood.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 10:54 AM
 
216 posts, read 612,503 times
Reputation: 300
Chango - are you a homeowner or a renter?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 11:23 AM
 
35,318 posts, read 45,160,624 times
Reputation: 30822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woozle View Post
When gas gets near $10 a gallon, people will much sooner switch to small plug-in hybrids than start taking public transportation or "moving back into cities", the ultimate wet dream of many an American socialist.
.
I fail to see the political connection,care to elaborate?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 11:29 AM
 
Location: The City
22,402 posts, read 34,084,848 times
Reputation: 7841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woozle View Post
When gas gets near $10 a gallon, people will much sooner switch to small plug-in hybrids than start taking public transportation or "moving back into cities", the ultimate wet dream of many an American socialist.

Intercity rail is a burden on taxpayers EVERYWHERE in the country. Passenger railroads are not - and will never be - feasible. They're simply not flexible enough to compete.

The NE corrider is actually profitable for rail
Rate this post positively 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.

© 2005-2021, 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