User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
- the US is already a very big user of rail for freight. Adding passenger trains to many of those lines would overstretch them (in the UK we have the reverse problem-- 90% of freight moves by road, there is no more room on the rails because the passenger trains are using them)
- the capital cost would be huge - who would bear it?
- even at much higher fuel costs, airlines would still be competitive for most journeys. By the Warsaw Convention, airline fuel cannot be taxed unlike all other transport fuel
- on local transport the problem is very few American cities (if any) are dense enough in population per square mile to warrant mass transportation systems. And the mass transportation services which are economic are bus systems.
A further problem is it is no longer the case in most American cities that everyone works in the centre and commutes inwards. Now the commuting is as much one suburb to another as it is centrewards. (NYC perhaps the major exception, still).Public transport doesn't work without big subsidies. If the US economy is facing the kind of oil prices TOD readers are thinking about, the local and national governments won't have the tax bases to commit to those kinds of subsidies.
Denver is trying to redevelop and enhance commuting by rail. They are changing the zoning at the proposed new stops to increase the density. It will be interesting to see if it works out.
It's all in priorties we subsidize roads and until recently we subsidized cheap oil products now we must change or become extinct in our current economic form?
It seems to me Europe with all it's faults has a pretty good rail system and most folks who own cars have small autos? They have learned to minimize their use of fossil fuels.
Yes, the capital cost would be huge. But consider how much money will go into highways over the next decade, if the current funding policies stay as they are. And consider the Interstate system, that wasn't cheap either. And it was paid for primarily by the federal government, with states kicking in 10% of the money.
As for competition with airlines, cost will be a factor, but so would many other things. If they're smart, they'll make a simple fare structure, thus providing a major benefit. And of course not having to stand in line to get your person and luggage searched is a benefit too. And on short distance trips, getting to the airport and going through the motions tkae a significant fraction of the time.
As for local transport, yes, density is a problem, but not as much as you think. There are plenty of dense enough cities, and I think if they were allowed to densify further, they would. Look at LA. And look closely, because it's been getting more densely built lately, and it's not the suburb that everyone thinks it is. The real problem is that there has been very little investment in public transportation, to the point where the only people who use it are the ones who have no choice. Put in enough money to make a nice system, and people are more than willing to take it. And hey, it just might be cheaper than that proposed freeway expansion.