daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 2nd, 2010, 03:38 AM   #1201
aab7772003
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 773
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
A train that is slower than driving even when you account for expected dealys at metropolitan congetion lanes is a failure in US, in Japan, in Europe, in Australia and in Mozambique.
You in fact now know nothing about public transportation in Japan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
After all, public transportaiton is about providing faster services at expense of privacy and comfort.
This is not what public transportation all about. Many people will not call driving for long hours or getting stuck in traffic jams in their own "state-of-the art" cars comfortable.

Last edited by aab7772003; February 2nd, 2010 at 05:22 AM.
aab7772003 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 2nd, 2010, 03:47 AM   #1202
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2771

Quote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_high_s...5leXdvZXNjb3U-

Money woes could threaten high-speed rail's future

By MICHAEL TARM, Associated Press Writer Michael Tarm, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 5 mins ago

CHICAGO – The $8 billion in stimulus cash awarded to 13 high-speed rail corridors across the country may seem like a windfall for advocates, but there's a catch: The money isn't enough to finish any of the major projects.

State coffers are dry and federal spending is being cut back, so it's unclear who, if anyone, will pay the rest of the multi-billion dollar bill.

Many states have been vague about how they would foot their part of the bill. But experts say most are counting on the federal government to cover at least half of their costs over the next few decades — a hope that may clash with President Barack Obama's recent pledge to curb spending.

"As time goes on, as fast trains become a way of life for America, there will be more and more federal help," Ill. Gov. Pat Quinn said Friday after his state learned it would get more than a $1 billion of the stimulus money.

Optimists point to the 2011 federal budget Obama proposed Monday that seeks $1 billion more for high-speed trains on top of the $8 billion he announced in stimulus money last week. There's another $2.5 billion tucked away in the 2010 federal appropriations bill that has been approved but not yet allocated.

A proposed $500 billion, six-year federal transportation reauthorization bill includes $50 billion for high-speed rail. But that generous sum was included before Obama began talking about belt tightening, and it seems unlikely to win approval in its current form.

"This is all pork barrel stuff from House transportation committee leaders who threw everything and the kitchen sink in there," said Randal O'Toole, a researcher at the free-market Cato Institute and a critic of the rail plans. "This bill is dead in the water."

Even if it came through, that money hardly covers the proposed price tag of the 13 high-speed rail corridors, which are estimated to cost at least $60 billion and possibly more than $100 billion over the next decade or two. Those cost estimates also don't include the hundreds of million of dollars it could cost each year to operate the networks — costs that states typically pick up.

"States have to be very, very careful, and realize that it might be hard for the feds to kick in the money for high-speed rail," said Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers.

It also might be hard for states that are grappling with huge budget shortfalls to justify spending more on high-speed rail while education and health care are on the chopping blocks, Pattison said.

Illinois, Florida, California have by far the most to win if the money does keep flowing — and the most to lose if it doesn't. Those three states were given the bulk of the federal stimulus money.

Chicago would become the hub of an eight-state network, which, in all, won a third of the $8 billion in stimulus money. Officials say completing the Midwest system will cost nearly $10 billion, though skeptics say it could be twice that.

Florida is getting $1.25 billion for a new high-speed track that would run from Tampa to Orlando, then later from Orlando to Miami. Officials have said building the entire network should cost around $12 billion, though others put it closer to $20 billion.

A planned California network is by far the most ambitious. It received the second largest slice of the stimulus pie, $2.3 billion, to begin work on an 800-mile-long, high-speed rail line tying Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego.

The California network is also the priciest, at more than $40 billion. Critics say the actual price tag could eventually be double that.

The problem is that both California and Illinois face yawning budget deficits of more than $11 billion and $20 billion, respectively, and Florida's stands at $3 billion. So anything short of a sustained federal commitment over decades could stick them with construction and then operating bills they can't pay.

Even without a solid plan to fund the rail projects, high-speed train advocates haven't stopped from thinking big. Some envision creating a true high-speed rail system like the ones in Asia and Europe that could cost $1 trillion.

"The idea is to get a pipeline of projects set up, then get more and more projects later," Andy Kunz, president of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association, said about the injection of federal stimulus funds. "This is just seed money — a down payment."

Critics of high-speed rail projects fear advocates will do just that.

"They're trying to create momentum so it can't be stopped," said John Tillman, head of the conservative Illinois Policy Institute. "They come back one day and say, 'We already spent the $50 billion, we can't waste it by not spending $100 billion more."

..
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2010, 05:06 AM   #1203
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
A train that is slower than driving even when you account for expected dealys at metropolitan congetion lanes is a failure in US, in Japan, in Europe, in Australia and in Mozambique.
Only when it's supposed to be faster. On light rail and rapid transit speed efficiency is traded for people-moving efficiencies, and the irony that city roadways tend to limit traffic to 15 mph or less means that, when well-engineered, these trains still go faster than cars on heavily congested roads.
Quote:
If a medium or long-distance train cannot beat average reasonable driving speeds, it is not worth keeping.
Ridership is actually more important. There is a transit hierarchy ranging from "local bus" up to "express commuter". If ridership is below a certain threshold, express buses are probably going to be the most efficient and economical means of mass transit.
Quote:
After all, public transportation is about providing faster services at expense of privacy and comfort. That's why most people will take a flight from Miami to - say - Denver and not drive for 2 days in their state-of-the-art SUV, hybrid or whatever vehicle!
1) No, it's not. Rapid transit is about providing optimal services at the expense of comfort, yes, but comfort is part of the allure of light rail and commuter rail services. For example, I take the train an hour each way every day to go to school, and every day, when I take the train, I expect certain amenities, like cushioned seats and a decent nap
2) Wrong wrong wrongity wrong! You're looking at a trip where airplanes will always win out, simply due to the distance being covered being far too great for convenient service on any other mode! (At least until fuel prices make affordable plane tickets untenable.) And remember, the best carriers do afford their customers a comfortable experience as well.
Quote:
That's why people, except for the poorest ones, ride subways in places like New York or Chicago instead of driving Downtown.

A slower-than-driving service will never get a serious market share of travel (and at least on freeway planning and managing politicians don't buy the "lower the speed to make that creepy XYZ system competitive". Same reasoning applies to Europe, Japan etc. That is, for instance, one of the reason of decadence of a lot of older spur lines in Italy, for instance. Even with the limited road infrastructure, trains that don't beat the car speed in mountainous and rugged terrain usually don't have sufficient ridership to justify running them. They will have a small market share, but will never make a significant dent like Eurostar, TGV, TAV, AVE or other services did on air and road travel in their regions, which eventually shut down or drastically reduced a lot of air shuttle services competing with them.
I have already pointed out that in the European climate, otherwise money-losing services are kept open for political reasons.
Quote:
For engineering rationality sake, if a system cannot yield 60mph/96kph commercial speeds (to offset travel time from house/office trips to departure station and from arrival station), it is better to be shut down for good and left for freight trains only.
Um, did you miss the sign at the door where if the system's under 110 mph it's not considered "high-speed rail" in the U.S.? Why are you even posting this here? Do you like stating the obvious?

Your thread corresponds to the weak argument that fast rail transit "is only good between 100 and 500 miles". In fact, the best rail systems exceed that length, by being point-to-point-to-point Paul Revere systems (or axes), thereby arranging service in such a way that multiple "corridors" are served by the same equipment: this represents a clear operational efficiency unobtainable in cars or planes, and is the key reason why I believe that the American HSR system must ultimately be national in scope, and why we must regulate the buildout of the system with interoperability in mind, so that we can have a single train that services the Twin Cities-Chicago, Chicago-Louisville, Louisville-Nashville, Nashville-Atlanta, and Atlanta-Savannah "corridors" simultaneously. Sharing operating equipment reduces operating costs across the board, on everything from maintenance to crews to interchanges...indeed, this ability, which among all modes of transportation is utterly unique to railroads, is one of the key reasons why rail transport is so danged profitable.
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2010, 10:51 AM   #1204
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
For engineering rationality sake, if a system cannot yield 60mph/96kph comercial speeds (to offset travel time from house/office trips to departure station and from arrival station), it is better to be shut down for good and left for freight trains only.
!

What planet are you one dude? Most railway engineers throughout the world can get 60mph averages out of their networks just by standing on the back of the train and farting in unison.

The USA is astounding in its ability to provide a passenger service that is as fast as the rest of the world would expect of a tram.

If a system cannot yeild 60mph commercial speeds, the infrastructure management should shoot themselves in the face.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2010, 11:07 AM   #1205
Oponopono
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,504
Likes (Received): 1612

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
The USA is astounding in its ability to provide a passenger service that is as fast as the rest of the world would expect of a tram.

If a system cannot yeild 60mph commercial speeds, the infrastructure management should shoot themselves in the face.

makita, for the philosophy of American railroading, it wouldn't make sense to have trains running at more than that. The lower the speed the lower the infrastructure costs, both of building it and maintaining it. And it serves the purpose of freight transport perfectly. Now, those speeds for pax traffic are a whole different thing.

Please remember that in the US, unlike in Europe, the traffic pays not only for the operation but also for the infrastructure it runs on.
Oponopono no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2010, 02:13 PM   #1206
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2771

via the Christian Science Monitor Op/Ed

Quote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/275730

US high-speed rail to the rescue

By Steve Yetiv and Lowell Feld Steve Yetiv And Lowell Feld – Mon Feb 1, 9:57 am ET
Norfolk, Va.; and Washington – What if you could travel the 347 miles from Los Angeles to San Francisco in a fraction of the time it takes to drive this distance and without the security checks, the clogged terminals, and flight cancellations that seem to plague air travel these days? What if you could also save money, substantially decrease pollution and the need to build expensive highways, and create American jobs while you were at it? Seem like a pipe dream? It's not.

The technology is already here but it's underrated, underutilized, and often overlooked. High-speed rail is an important part of the answer to much of America's travel and environmental woes, not to mention potentially easing American oil dependence. The United States, as Obama pointed out recently just needs to take it seriously.

Around the world, high-speed trains have roundly beaten planes on price, overall travel time, and convenience at ranges of up to 600 miles.

Consider what happened in Europe: Commercial flights all but disappeared after high-speed trains were established between Paris and Lyon. And in the first year of operation, a Madrid-to-Barcelona high-speed link cut the air travel market about 50 percent. Traveling by train from London to Paris generates just 1/10th the amount of carbon dioxide as traveling by plane, according to one study.

Consider Asia: While America fumbles, China has seen the light. It plans to build 42 high-speed rail lines across 13,000 kilometers (some 8,000 miles) in the next three years. The Chinese Railway Ministry says that rail can transport 160 million people per year compared with 80 million for a four-lane highway.

In addition to the central goal of decreasing oil use and pollution, China seeks to bolster its economy with investment in rail and also to satisfy the demands for mobility of its growing middle class.

For America, as fewer people opt for gas-guzzling air or car travel, a high-speed rail system would hit US oil dependence right where it counts: in the gas tank.

High-speed rail is most economical in areas of high population density. In August 2009, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman found that America has a "bigger potential market for fast rail than any European country."

Meanwhile, the US Department of Transportation has identified 11 high-speed corridors, including Los Angeles to San Francisco. And Congress has wisely dedicated $8 billion to pay for high-speed rail projects across the country as part of last year's stimulus package.

A few states such as Florida are actively considering the viability of high-speed rail. Yet California is one of the few states that have made noticeable strides toward rail. Indeed, in November 2008, California voters OK'd $10 billion in funding for a rail system linking L.A. and San Francisco. This system will include trains capable of traveling 220 miles per hour, cutting travel time from about six hours via Route I-5 to just 2-1/2 hours.

According to a study by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, building the rail system there will create 150,000 construction jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs. It will also "bring economic benefits worth twice the cost of construction," including the development of business centers, and create less environmental impact than a two-lane highway.

The system would "save up to 5 million barrels of oil per year and reduce pollutant emissions," while even managing to "avoid 10,000 auto accidents yearly with their attendant deaths, injuries, and property damage compared to expanding only highways."

We spend a lot of time bemoaning US oil dependence, the job market, and horrible air travel, but high-speed rail is the answer right in front of us.

What should be done to make it a reality nation-wide?

First, state leaders should encourage citizens to really consider the long-term benefits. High-speed rail would not only create jobs for Americans, it would actually increase our national security over time by helping us get off our oil addiction – an addiction that strengthens our adversaries and leaves us vulnerable to foreign crises and oil disruptions. Investment in rail is well worth it.

Second, the price of gasoline is still very low in the US compared with other industrialized nations with developed rail systems. This perpetuates the American culture of sprawl and big vehicles. States could restructure taxes to raise the gas tax while decreasing taxes on payroll, so that taxpayers don't pay a higher tax overall. Higher gas taxes will give citizens incentive to switch to rail.

When citizens start taking rail seriously, states can start taking it seriously and develop careful plans to move forward and take advantage of federal rail money. Of course, rail won't solve every energy problem, but it should be an important part of a national energy policy.

Steve Yetiv is a professor of political science at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. His latest book is called "The Absence of Grand Strategy." Lowell Feld worked for 17 years in the US Department of Energy as a senior energy analyst.
---
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2010, 08:55 AM   #1207
Smooth Indian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 241

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
A train that is slower than driving even when you account for expected dealys at metropolitan congetion lanes is a failure in US, in Japan, in Europe, in Australia and in Mozambique.

If a medium or long-distance train cannot beat average reasonable driving speeds, it is not worth keeping. After all, public transportaiton is about providing faster services at expense of privacy and comfort. That's why most people will take a flight from Miami to - say - Denver and not drive for 2 days in their state-of-the-art SUV, hybrid or whatever vehicle! That's what people, except for the poorest ones, ride subways in places like New York or Chicago instead of driving Dowtown.

A slower-than-driving service will never get a seriour market share of travel (and at least on freeway planning and managing politicians don't buy the "lower the speed to make that creepy XYZ system competitive". Same reasoning applies to Europe, Japan etc. That is, for instance, one of the reason of decadence of a lot of older spur lines in Italy, for instance. Even with the limited road insfrastructure, trains that don't beat the car speed in mountainous and rugged terrain usually don't have sufficient ridership to justify running them. They will have a small market share, but will never make a significant dent like Eurostar, TGV, TAV, AVE or other services did on air and road travel in their regions, which evetually shut down or drastically reduced a lot of air shuttle services competing with them.

For engineering rationality sake, if a system cannot yield 60mph/96kph comercial speeds (to offset travel time from house/office trips to departure station and from arrival station), it is better to be shut down for good and left for freight trains only.
Actually medium and long distance trains can also provide plenty of comfort when compared to driving a luxury SUV. You must remember that driving a car even a luxury can get tiring over long distances. And for overnight travelling, long distance trains can provide reasonable comfort for an affordable price. So even if it may take additional time many people might actually prefer medium to long distance travel because it can be less tiring and hassle-free.

As for commercial speeds of 60 mph/96 kmph even third world countries can easily achieve those with their own home-built technology
Smooth Indian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2010, 12:01 PM   #1208
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17034

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
A train that is slower than driving even when you account for expected dealys at metropolitan congetion lanes is a failure in US, in Japan, in Europe, in Australia and in Mozambique.

If a medium or long-distance train cannot beat average reasonable driving speeds, it is not worth keeping. After all, public transportaiton is about providing faster services at expense of privacy and comfort. That's why most people will take a flight from Miami to - say - Denver and not drive for 2 days in their state-of-the-art SUV, hybrid or whatever vehicle! That's what people, except for the poorest ones, ride subways in places like New York or Chicago instead of driving Dowtown.

A slower-than-driving service will never get a seriour market share of travel (and at least on freeway planning and managing politicians don't buy the "lower the speed to make that creepy XYZ system competitive". Same reasoning applies to Europe, Japan etc. That is, for instance, one of the reason of decadence of a lot of older spur lines in Italy, for instance. Even with the limited road insfrastructure, trains that don't beat the car speed in mountainous and rugged terrain usually don't have sufficient ridership to justify running them. They will have a small market share, but will never make a significant dent like Eurostar, TGV, TAV, AVE or other services did on air and road travel in their regions, which evetually shut down or drastically reduced a lot of air shuttle services competing with them.

For engineering rationality sake, if a system cannot yield 60mph/96kph comercial speeds (to offset travel time from house/office trips to departure station and from arrival station), it is better to be shut down for good and left for freight trains only.
Oh be quiet , you don't live here , so don't tell US Americans how too build things , i have reviewed all the Light Rail & Metro plans for the cities that submitted them and only 4 cities have made a bad plan. Are you saying only poor ppl ride mass transit and Rails? Your severely wrong here in the Northeast Everybody , rides Public Trans , just to say that extra dollar or 2 , and many ppl here are turning to PT instead of buying a car or bike. I know rich ppl , poor ppl , black , white , Latino all ride PT. ppl use PT becuz its more relaxing then driving , and some PT services come with wifi and the New Double-Decker trains can with toilets and some might in future have snack bars. The average speeds here in the Northeast for Trains is 60-100mph and Express Trains 80-130mph. Much of Northeast will rebuild its Rail over the next 10 years , about 40% would be Electrified and 2 more High Speed Lines, The 3 New Projects here in the NYC metro would speed up and double Capacity. All 3 Projects would have a daily usage of 500,000 ppl. Across the Northeast once all the planned and under construction projects are completed by 2025 you will be aloud to be Car-free ,in most cities and travel to most cities via Rail and to more Airports (some Airports have destinations others don't , espically to Europe.) All these Projects would have a daily usage estimated at 25 million + more then the estimated 10 million now. Once the NEC upgrade is completed in 2020? Trains will roar at 180mph, the entire NEC except NYC , where it would 130mph. So how bout you do some research before you spew wrong and stupid facts or ideas.

~Corey
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2010, 03:12 PM   #1209
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,529
Likes (Received): 21231

This is an international forum, and I have lived in US before. I've paid my fair share of sales taxes, federal income tax and so on. I'm giving an opinion, just that. Unfortunately I don't have the political clout I'd love to have to shut down most of unprofitable train systems, worldwide, tomorrow

The most I've so far achieved in my "pro-car crusade" was promoting a restless campaing that resulted in a university expanding parking lots over a green, other university cutting extensivelly bus and van shuttles instead of rising room&board fees for everyone by $70 and a (private, not published yet) controlled experiment in which extensive negative publicity about "the dangers of buses" affected attitudes of university students about bringing or not their cars to the campus - even some bad news publicity about a rape in a bus stand 10 years ago dramatically affected the attitude of new female students about bringing their cars to campus.

This being said, people's opinion about choice of transportation are different. They value different things with different wheighs. A minority of people car less about privacy than about not driving. Many people don't mind driving on a daily basis if they have enough income and highway capacity available to them. Another minority, which I'm part to, hates the idea of being in close quarters with strangers for long periods of time, especially urban-types, and therefore preffer to drive even if it is more expensive or if it takes longer.

In a nutshell, not every commuter is the same!

However, the bottom line is that a transportation system should be planned for the "average" guy. Extensive cultural marketing reserach has shown different attitutes toward transit and transportation choice in Europe and North America + Australia. Ignoring those facts would be silly and resource-wasteful.

I'm not against train systems and I think high-speed has a valid case under certain circumstances. Technically, I understand shortcomings of a not-so-high-speed network and its detrimental effects over ridership and competition with other modes of transportation. Politically, I do not support using railway expansion (of any kind) if it were to be used as a platform to argue against bigger and less dense housing developments - which is more of a problem in Europe than in other parts of the developed World.

Finally, whatever transit projects are, they must consider attitudes of their potential users. I don't like totalitarian approaches like "ok, we have a brand new high-speed line so we will not expand that parallel freeway".
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2010, 09:26 PM   #1210
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,157
Likes (Received): 3240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Unfortunately I don't have the political clout I'd love to have to shut down most of unprofitable train systems, worldwide, tomorrow.
Would you do the same for all the unprofitable roadways, too?
Quote:
...and a (private, not published yet) controlled experiment in which extensive negative publicity about "the dangers of buses" affected attitudes of university students about bringing or not their cars to the campus - even some bad news publicity about a rape in a bus stand 10 years ago dramatically affected the attitude of new female students about bringing their cars to campus.
How delightfully political: Using tangential reasoning and negative advertising to infer that a method of transportation is responsible for victimhood or direct personal crime! Was this view balanced with data about incidents of crime in parking lots at odd hours? More importantly, did it illustrate that methods of transportation aren't the cause of crime? That architecture and site design can be used to limit criminal behavior? Seriously, any allusion to equating mass transit with the criminal element is blatant fear-mongering.
Quote:
Another minority, which I'm part to, hates the idea of being in close quarters with strangers for long periods of time, especially urban-types, and therefore preffer to drive even if it is more expensive or if it takes longer.
There's a difference between defending your view and assailing that of someone else, and what you seem to miss in your current discussion is that rail advocates are fighting for more balance in a system overwhelmingly tilted towards the personal automobile. If you want to champion auto-commuting then have at it, but try to do so by suggesting the positives from that option as opposed to hurling insulting innuendo towards those wishing another option. Especially when your preferred option is the existing default model.

Quote:
However, the bottom line is that a transportation system should be planned for the "average" guy. Extensive cultural marketing reserach has shown different attitutes toward transit and transportation choice in Europe and North America + Australia. Ignoring those facts would be silly and resource-wasteful.
Agreed, but the parameters of those studies often are less than comprehensive. Similar studies indicate the "average guy" would use whatever options prove convenient, cost effective, safe, and so on, and that all things being equal there exists only a minimal bias towards mass transit, in part due to the malefactors discussed above.

What's also at play here is the idea that these decisions are made in a vacuum, which they are most certainly not. Transportation methodology is obviously intertwined with land use patterns, and any form of land development is both costly and difficult to amend. Thus, planning for and investing in such infrastructure must be thoughtful of many factors besides the simplistic view of personal convenience. Even where rail does not yield a shorter travel time nor significant savings there can be benefits in terms land reserved for other uses, lower fuel consumption, and fostering urban levels of economic efficiency.
Quote:
Politically, I do not support using railway expansion (of any kind) if it were to be used as a platform to argue against bigger and less dense housing developments - which is more of a problem in Europe than in other parts of the developed World.
Is this a mistype? Typically rail service fosters HIGHER densities of housing and office use. Regardless, it is the current level of low-density housing in the US that is making efficient rail development so difficult, and seeing us lose land by the hundreds of square miles even during a recession.
Quote:
Finally, whatever transit projects are, they must consider attitudes of their potential users. I don't like totalitarian approaches like "ok, we have a brand new high-speed line so we will not expand that parallel freeway".
I'm not either, which is why I would like to see an end to the totalitarian approach that has for decades force fed the US consumer that the only way to travel is via the car. We're not even investing in sidewalks for crying out loud!
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."

Last edited by GunnerJacket; February 3rd, 2010 at 09:31 PM.
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2010, 11:02 PM   #1211
aab7772003
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 773
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
This is an international forum, and I have lived in US before. I've paid my fair share of sales taxes, federal income tax and so on. I'm giving an opinion, just that. Unfortunately I don't have the political clout I'd love to have to shut down most of unprofitable train systems, worldwide, tomorrow

The most I've so far achieved in my "pro-car crusade" was promoting a restless campaing that resulted in a university expanding parking lots over a green, other university cutting extensivelly bus and van shuttles instead of rising room&board fees for everyone by $70 and a (private, not published yet) controlled experiment in which extensive negative publicity about "the dangers of buses" affected attitudes of university students about bringing or not their cars to the campus - even some bad news publicity about a rape in a bus stand 10 years ago dramatically affected the attitude of new female students about bringing their cars to campus.

This being said, people's opinion about choice of transportation are different. They value different things with different wheighs. A minority of people car less about privacy than about not driving. Many people don't mind driving on a daily basis if they have enough income and highway capacity available to them. Another minority, which I'm part to, hates the idea of being in close quarters with strangers for long periods of time, especially urban-types, and therefore preffer to drive even if it is more expensive or if it takes longer.

In a nutshell, not every commuter is the same!

However, the bottom line is that a transportation system should be planned for the "average" guy. Extensive cultural marketing reserach has shown different attitutes toward transit and transportation choice in Europe and North America + Australia. Ignoring those facts would be silly and resource-wasteful.

I'm not against train systems and I think high-speed has a valid case under certain circumstances. Technically, I understand shortcomings of a not-so-high-speed network and its detrimental effects over ridership and competition with other modes of transportation. Politically, I do not support using railway expansion (of any kind) if it were to be used as a platform to argue against bigger and less dense housing developments - which is more of a problem in Europe than in other parts of the developed World.

Finally, whatever transit projects are, they must consider attitudes of their potential users. I don't like totalitarian approaches like "ok, we have a brand new high-speed line so we will not expand that parallel freeway".
Pure rubbish.

How about automobile-related crimes? Ah, yes, women being attacked in empty parking lots on their way to their own comfortable cars furnished with all the protective feminine comforts imaginable

Actually, governments around the world design and build their public transport networks with the local conditions in mind. When situations like "... we have a brand new high-speed line so we will not expand that parallel freeway" happen because probably voters want it that way, sometimes they even make their consent loud and clear in a referendum.

Most "average" people do not want ultra low-density housing developments; they want mixed-used urban developments with creative architecture with rail transport as the core of them in North America, Europe, Oceania, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
aab7772003 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2010, 11:33 PM   #1212
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,529
Likes (Received): 21231

Quote:
Originally Posted by aab7772003 View Post
Most "average" people do not want ultra low-density housing developments; they want mixed-used urban developments with creative architecture with rail transport as the core of them in North America, Europe, Oceania, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
Besides clear buyer behavior indications (like the fact 58,4% of American population lives in single-detached homes) and faith in new-urbanism, what indicates or could indicate that people want mixed-urban developments? What about most recent trends in mass suburban housing in Italy, France, Australia or Spain?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2010, 02:02 AM   #1213
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Besides clear buyer behavior indications...
Hold on--what kinds of buyer behavior indications are you talking about? Because, you know, if you use the argument that 95.3% people drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix and therefore that corridor could not support a HSR corridor because 93.5% of people drive, isn't that a circular argument? Because isn't it the case that if there is no other option then you're forcing people to only utilize one system of transportation?

When you have situations where you're trying to compare product that is produced in unequal amounts (like the difference between urban and suburban dwellings), then, using a statistic like "54.whatever% people buy suburban dwellings" is fallacious, utter nonsense, and worse--misleading--because 75% of the supply is in suburban conditions due to housing policies put in place during the Great Depression. Thus, a far more accurate comparison would be that of cost per square foot of house (because an elevation in that cost in urban dwellings as compared to suburban dwellings would reflect the existence of some other sort of amenity which the buyer felt justified the higher per-square-foot cost, i.e., buying a Victorian rowhome for the same price as a sprawling North Dallas Special, in urban areas compared to suburban areas). When we do this, I believe (somebody can check the actual math) that, all other factors being equal (comparable neighborhood economic/demographic composition, etc.) urban houses cost on the order of twice to thrice more per square foot than do their suburban counterparts. Ergo, urban units are more in demand, and part of the reason why they don't come on-line at the same rate as do suburban units is because it is far more difficult, from a regulatory standpoint, to do so.
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2010, 02:11 AM   #1214
aab7772003
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 773
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Besides clear buyer behavior indications (like the fact 58,4% of American population lives in single-detached homes) and faith in new-urbanism, what indicates or could indicate that people want mixed-urban developments? What about most recent trends in mass suburban housing in Italy, France, Australia or Spain?
What about it? You bringing up random statistics out of context?

Did you read the part "ultra low-density"? The sizes of single detached homes and the lots these homes sits on vary greatly across the US.

Do not abuse the abjective "recent" to confuse.

Keep it up with your fact-twisting. Sooner or later your fact-twisting will be exposed once again.

Last edited by aab7772003; February 4th, 2010 at 02:46 AM.
aab7772003 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2010, 02:28 AM   #1215
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17034

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Besides clear buyer behavior indications (like the fact 58,4% of American population lives in single-detached homes) and faith in new-urbanism, what indicates or could indicate that people want mixed-urban developments? What about most recent trends in mass suburban housing in Italy, France, Australia or Spain?
I asked alot ppl why they don't use Transit more , its becuz it doesn't reach them yet, all the ppl i asked. But all the ppl i asked live in areas that will get Rail extensions. Your idea of Rail expansions the US is wrong , we are expanding alot , and doing it smartly. I don't beleave you lived here , or if you did , probably in an area without rail and good BUS. I ask you nicely stop spewing your false and immature views, Do some research! What are you getting a PH.D in , How to annoying & Spew false crap, I give you an "A" in that.

~Corey
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2010, 04:16 AM   #1216
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,157
Likes (Received): 3240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Besides clear buyer behavior indications (like the fact 58,4% of American population lives in single-detached homes) and faith in new-urbanism, what indicates or could indicate that people want mixed-urban developments? What about most recent trends in mass suburban housing in Italy, France, Australia or Spain?
a) The US population, like the worlds, is shifting to one with more urban residents than rural, and trends indicate that the share of multi-family units or single-family attached units will grow. More importantly, lot sizes in urban and suburban metro areas are shrinking as the nation tries to preserve its rural areas by increasing density in urban areas.

b) That US residents live in predominantly sfa units is also the default of state policies favoring home ownership and, most importantly, the lack of credible alternatives. Young, burgeoning metro areas didn't learn about true options in housing like duplexes and townhomes until land costs made those models attractive to developers. This is also the fault of archaic Euclidian zoning policies that (unknowingly) outlawed mixed-use and forced larger lot sizes and parking requirements than were truly necessary. I've lost track of all the cities with great turn-of-the-century town squares, that people love, but their own development codes wouldn't recreate that because the code was born at a time when people only saw suburban forms of new development.

Take it from a practicing urban and regional planner in the US, the car will always have a dominant role in built environments for generations to come but much of what's been done hasn't come this way as a result of pure infatuation or will, rather it is from the confluence of many factors that shaped US development form at a time when our cities grew exponentially. Thus, regrettably we grew by eating up a lot of greenspace per person and now we're even pricing the beloved car out of reach for many households because of our congestion, oil prices, etc.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2010, 04:24 AM   #1217
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,529
Likes (Received): 21231

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
Hold on--what kinds of buyer behavior indications are you talking about? Because, you know, if you use the argument that 95.3% people drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix and therefore that corridor could not support a HSR corridor because 93.5% of people drive, isn't that a circular argument? Because isn't it the case that if there is no other option then you're forcing people to only utilize one system of transportation?

When you have situations where you're trying to compare product that is produced in unequal amounts (like the difference between urban and suburban dwellings), then, using a statistic like "54.whatever% people buy suburban dwellings" is fallacious, utter nonsense, and worse--misleading--because 75% of the supply is in suburban conditions due to housing policies put in place during the Great Depression. Thus, a far more accurate comparison would be that of cost per square foot of house (because an elevation in that cost in urban dwellings as compared to suburban dwellings would reflect the existence of some other sort of amenity which the buyer felt justified the higher per-square-foot cost, i.e., buying a Victorian rowhome for the same price as a sprawling North Dallas Special, in urban areas compared to suburban areas). When we do this, I believe (somebody can check the actual math) that, all other factors being equal (comparable neighborhood economic/demographic composition, etc.) urban houses cost on the order of twice to thrice more per square foot than do their suburban counterparts. Ergo, urban units are more in demand, and part of the reason why they don't come on-line at the same rate as do suburban units is because it is far more difficult, from a regulatory standpoint, to do so.
You have a point on regulatory constrained urban housing supply. However, in other places where pro-suburban development never got the same traction and extent they've got in US, suburban housing, far from central locations, are usually less expensive per area unit.

Under a statistical or econometric approach, the biggest difficult modeling what you proposed ("everything else being equal") is that there might be a strong correlation between clustered defined sociodemographic groups, their housing choices and following price patterns. Then, you'd have to establish whether external factors (like "independent youth declared preference to live within walking distance of nighlife") are driving prices naturally up because of their specific demands or higher "gentrified" neighborhood prices (always considering price/area ratio) reflects just overall higher demand for housing that is in short supply.

Analyzing the question the other way around, it might be that there is a general implicit "convenience" value expressed in terms of living within walking distance of many facilities, commerce and leisure location, for which people would be willing not only to pay higher prices per a given area but also to live in smaller residential units. Then, you'd have to model (statistically speaking) this "walking convenience-space" elasticity, and consider that for some people walking convenience might be completely irrelevant and for other people perks like lawns, gazebos and so one might be completely irrelevant - all introducing noise in your model you'd have to account for.

The planning of transport systems faces similar challenges, particularly the continuum of medium distance trips where, under certain circumstances, car, train and plance can be all competitive to a non-majority yet relevant market share. Modelling a urban transportation network is fairly easily compared to the methodological hurdles of measuring to an acceptable confidence interval the interactions between housing, income, time-price sensibility, comfort-time indifference curve etc.

Of course, these issues shouldn't be a hindrance on HSR projects, yet they poses additional uncertainty on financial modelling of "integrated" high-speed projects where rail and train operation are bundled into one single project with unknown or hard to estimate transfer prices etc. etc.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2010, 04:30 AM   #1218
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,529
Likes (Received): 21231

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
I asked alot ppl why they don't use Transit more , its becuz it doesn't reach them yet, all the ppl i asked. But all the ppl i asked live in areas that will get Rail extensions. Your idea of Rail expansions the US is wrong , we are expanding alot , and doing it smartly. I don't beleave you lived here , or if you did , probably in an area without rail and good BUS. I ask you nicely stop spewing your false and immature views, Do some research! What are you getting a PH.D in , How to annoying & Spew false crap, I give you an "A" in that.

~Corey
I lived in Colorado and (mostly) Wyoming FYI. The breakdown of housing unit types I take for granted as official data, hardly disputable (a single house is an architectural concept easy to be narrowed defined). As for transportation choice surveys, you can either develop an apropriate set of questions and design a research plan (sampling, data analysis etc.), which is expensive, or take revealed preferences (like housing choices) as proxies, which carries higher uncertainty and casts validity concerns.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2010, 08:01 AM   #1219
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

I'm not going to doubt that there are people who are sincerely attracted to the suburban lifestyle. There are. My point is that when deriving skewed predictions from skewed data sets, you're going to get skewed results.

Another issue that you may want to concern yourself with is the size of the central cities (that is, traditional downtowns coupled with the gentrified areas now nearly universally floating around their edges) viz. the size of the metro area as a whole. For instance, the Philadelphia metro area, which I am most familiar with, has a central district which, even when you add NoLibs, Fairmount, G-Ho, Bella Vista, Queen Village, Franklin Town, Uni City, Powelton Village, Fishtown, and Brewerytown (the gentrified neighborhoods adjoining either our traditional CBD, Center City, or other gentrified neighborhoods which do) is so small as to be trivial in size compared with the greater Philadelphia metro area. (CC itself is about 2 sq. m., the region between Spring Garden St. and Washington St., which is the effective reach of CC doubles that, Uni City and Powelton Village--on the other side of the Schuylkill--another 2 sq. m., and Fishtown and Brewerytown another sq. m., so that's 4 + 2 + 1 = about 7 square miles of the most intense city-center activities in a metro area that extends about 50 sq. m. from City Hall in all directions). Contrast that with London, whose area of intense urban activity is so large you can see it even when zoomed out to see most of Europe!

European communities, it seems, have tended to build urban developments whereas American developments have been suburban. Trying to make a case that one is better than the other in any really objective sociological sense (quality-of-life, etc.) is thus doomed.

BTW, Suburbanist, you're really swimming against the tide. I believe oil prices are already starting to begin the period of terminal rise--that is, we're not going to be seeing cheap oil anymore--and suburban development is absolutely predicated on the existence of cheap oil. In addition, the history of American urban development suggests that suburban development, by its very nature, is never static, but always transitory. Philadelphia offers an extreme example of this in that the traditional borders of Center City reflect the borders of the original city, and thus anything north of Vine or south of South must have, at one point, been a suburb.
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2010, 12:04 PM   #1220
Koen Acacia
Registered User
 
Koen Acacia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Hague
Posts: 4,837
Likes (Received): 1917

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
You have a point on regulatory constrained urban housing supply. However, in other places where pro-suburban development never got the same traction and extent they've got in US, suburban housing, far from central locations, are usually less expensive per area unit.
Well, if you're such a strong believer in the free market, and the free market decides that, even in places with very little suburban housing, a suburban home far from a central location has less value than a more central home, doesn't that kind of defeat your point?
__________________
Every time I agree to Terms & Conditions without reading them first, I picture Johnny Rotten giving me a big thumbs up.
Koen Acacia no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium