Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on August 06, 2014, 08:27:21 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html
I doubt that I will see widespread high-speed rail in the US in my lifetime. I have ridden high-speed rail in Europe, and it was a wonder to behold.
The last time my wife and I took the train here, it was for an anniversary trip to Vancouver, Canada last year. The trip up on the train took almost three hours and the trip back, due to delays on the track, took almost four hours. This was for a 115 mile trip that could be driven in around two hours in typical traffic. We both agreed we would not be riding the train again any time soon.
-
The US will be a car culture for the foreseeable future. The countries where high speed rail is big time have the government footing a big part of the bill, I'd prefer not seeing any more of my tax dollars subsidizing what will be a tax rip-off boondogle here.
-
Our cities and country are really not set up to make it worthwhile....one reason why we invented the airplane.
Europe, Japan, both are relatively small, composed of dense cities that basically were created pre-car and are thus small, and usually have subways.
Its not the intercity speed that inhibits HSR, its the "well, how do I get from the train station to where I'm going" that is the problem.
Sure, you can have rental cars, uber, zip car, etc, but then why not just take a plane?
-
Of course CA is building the high speed rail that goes from the middle of nowhere to the other middle of nowhere in the Central Valley.
-
Nowhere fast?
Was looking at the japanese high speed rail system it is all just one straight shot along the south coast with one spur o ver the mountaind to the nkrgh coast. The usa woulg need to cover 10x the distance in a spider web network to geg the same level of service. Likely requires 100x or more infrastructure than japan.
-
If we ever get it, it will be along the NE business and political corridor: New York, Boston, DC, Philadelphia, etc. A rebuild of the Acela on a dedicated corridor.
-
If we ever get it, it will be along the NE business and political corridor: New York, Boston, DC, Philadelphia, etc. A rebuild of the Acela on a dedicated corridor.
Which is still non-viable.
Acela is more expensive than a plane ticket....and slower.
Both train and plane are slower than driving DC to NYC.
Boston to DC, plane. Train is almost as slow as car.
-
Both train and plane are slower than driving DC to NYC.
How's that? Last time I drove to NYC, it took about 4hrs (more than 4, well under 5). I haven't flown into NYC, but I've flown into Boston and Toronto. Both were less than 4 IIRC (both were 14 years ago).
Chris
-
How's that? Last time I drove to NYC, it took about 4hrs (more than 4, well under 5). I haven't flown into NYC, but I've flown into Boston and Toronto. Both were less than 4 IIRC (both were 14 years ago).
Chris
Drive to DCA from my house: 45-60min
Get there 45-60min early to a low for TSA Anal probulation
Gate to gate DCA-LGA time 1:15
LGA to downtown in a taxi: 30-45min
Total 3:15-4:00, all the times I've done it, so let's call it a 3:30-3:45 average.
Every time ive driven it, its been under 4. So its basically the same, but if you have to check baggage, car wins.
Train is slower.
-
Sure, you can have rental cars, uber, zip car, etc, but then why not just take a plane?
Bike rental kiosks! Its the answer to everything.
-
^^^ So pretty much the same distance from my house to downtown Portland, which I can drive in 3.5 hours if I go outside of rush hour. This is faster than flying.
-
Under 500 miles is often in favor of cars for door-to-door time. Over that airlines are usually faster.
-
And driving intrastate (Texas) I don't have to futz around with my carry gun or the size of my shampoo bottle.
The Dallas-Houston-San Antonio/Austin triangle could make use of high speed rail, but it's a political non-starter. Between right of way acquisition, commuter airlines, and the other interests, not gonna happen.
-
I used to have to go between Santa Barbara and Monterey a lot for work. Back in the early 2000s, air was faster because there was a direct flight, both airports were small, SBA was ten minutes from the house, and prior to TSA, I could literally show up fifteen minutes before the flight, park a couple hundred yards from the gate, and walk straight to the plane.
Later, they stopped the direct flights, which meant I had to swap planes at either LAX or SFO (which were either farther South or North of both destination airports) with a 1-2hr layover, then with TSA and having to arrive early into the mix, it more than doubled the three hours it took to drive.
-
There was a big push for high speed rail in the 90's in Texas. I think when Ann Richards was governor. They talked about Austin to Dallas to Houston. The problem was it needs to be pretty much straight so land right of ways and other stuff would be a very big deal. There were limited crossings across the rail so some land owner could potentially to drive 20 miles just to get to the other half of his property. There was also limited allowance for wildlife. Most of Texas outside the city is pretty much free travel for wildlife. The way the train wouldn't constantly hit deer, hogs, and armadillos is if they practically put it underground.
The other argument was that the State of Texas is much larger than say France, but the City of Paris has about the same number of people as our whole state. We are much more spread out.
Last to me, the trains would really only serve the people traveling to and from the major cities. If you are going anywhere else, it is almost useless. However, the construction and land acquisition would affect pretty much only the people that have no use for it. I think all the proponents imagine it going to the places they want to visit, but that is not likely.
Overall, the negatives far outweight the few positives if any. Also, the TSA would probably want to take over security for the trains same as airports.
-
Last to me, the trains would really only serve the people traveling to and from the major cities. If you are going anywhere else, it is almost useless. However, the construction and land acquisition would affect pretty much only the people that have no use for it. I think all the proponents imagine it going to the places they want to visit, but that is not likely.
That's pretty much what's happening in CA. The Boondoggle Express is supposed to eventually connect LA, Sacramento, and San Francisco, but of course 90% of the rail runs through areas where people really have no use for a train, and even if they did, if you stop the train 20 times between endpoints, it's not really high speed.
For the US, it just seems better to concentrate trains to small, dense areas, like the Metro in DC. That works really well. I rarely rented a car when I would go to DC for work because the Metro went everywhere I needed to go, and did so quickly.
-
The Dallas-Houston-San Antonio/Austin triangle could make use of high speed rail, but it's a political non-starter. Between right of way acquisition, commuter airlines, and the other interests, not gonna happen.
Yup. Throw in El Paso and you might see something of a boom for Abilene and Midland/Odessa. The only way it would happen, though, is using interstate medians, and I'm sure that would be a bureaucratic mess.
For a long weekend trip, I could drive to FW in an hour with my bike on the back, throw it on a high speed train to SA or Austin, and have a good couple of days sightseeing. It's a 3.5 hour PITA drive to SA, even if I take the straight shot down 281 to avoid Austin. El Paso is 7.5 hours at best, but true HS rail could take an hour or two off of that, even allowing for stops in Abilene, Odessa and Pecos, (Throw Van Horn and maybe a spur line into Big Bend via Fort Davis in there, and you'd be opening up a real nice set of vacation spots that border on miserable to drive to.) and being able to spend the time napping would beat the heck out of cruising down I20 watching the gas gauge crawl downward. Add some small freight cars, you could get UPS/FedEx/etc. really interested. (Big rigs covering huge distances between distro centers are one thing, but a delivery truck going into Big Bend, or for that matter, most places in the small-nation-sized counties out there to deliver 2-3 packages has to be a money pit.)
ETA; high speed rail with drive-on-drive-off flatbed car carriers might be a good trick too. I know I'd consider a reasonable fee if I could cut El Paso to Dallas out of a cross-state drive and still have my car with me at the other end.
-
Using Interstate highway medians would not allow High Speed rail. They are too curvy. Also, there is very little in the big cities of Texas that I want to see. The stuff I want to see is well outside them which would negate any advantage.
A drive on/off system might be nice, but I doubt it would end up being economical.
-
The other argument was that the State of Texas is much larger than say France, but the City of Paris has about the same number of people as our whole state. We are much more spread out.
It leaves out something important about Texas; everybody in the smaller cities and rural areas is used to going to some (relatively) nearby population center once in a while when they need a specialty item, or just to go to a zoo or museum. Adding the ability to go from there to the other population centers relatively easily and quickly would help distribute certain tourism more; for example, giving me a reasonable choice between NRH2O and the various Schlitterbahn parks when I want a weekend of water slides, or making Houston only slightly less convenient than Dallas for specialty shopping.
Ideally, though, it would need to run a lot of redeye routes. After all, it defeats a lot of the benefit of having a means of getting from El Paso to Houston in your sleep if you can't do it when you would normally be sleeping. That also would save a ton of motel costs for weekend day trippers; sleep on the train both ways instead of driving down after work Friday, getting to town too late to do anything, spending the night, doing your thing Saturday and having to stay another night because you're too tired to drive back right then.
-
Using Interstate highway medians would not allow High Speed rail. They are too curvy.
Depends on the area, and somewhat on routing; there are plenty of sections of interstate out west (where the train would be the biggest benefit) where you could almost set the cruise control, tie off the steering wheel and take a nap.
-
That's pretty much what's happening in CA. The Boondoggle Express is supposed to eventually connect LA, Sacramento, and San Francisco, but of course 90% of the rail runs through areas where people really have no use for a train, and even if they did, if you stop the train 20 times between endpoints, it's not really high speed.
For the US, it just seems better to concentrate trains to small, dense areas, like the Metro in DC. That works really well. I rarely rented a car when I would go to DC for work because the Metro went everywhere I needed to go, and did so quickly.
Even in dense urban areas, the subways and commuter rails are not cost effective and require subsidy. Yes, D.C.'s rail is nice, but I bet it is highly subsidized also. What most fail to admit is that a nice well run/managed bus system is the most economical way to enact public transportation. However, that takes competent management and doesn't provide enough profit to friendly contractors. Even a cross state bus system would be much more cost effective than a high speed rail. It would be cheaper to put a high speed bus lane in between the major Texas cities than build a rail line.
In California, I would think it would be better, cheaper, easier to figure out how to run an underwater rail system between the major cities just off the coast. Then there wouldn't be any reason to stop along the way.
-
Okay, so I will start a new Luxury Bus company to run routes between Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso for those people who might otherwise use a high speed rail. How long do you think it would be before I went out of business? The Bus would provide all the advantages of a high speed rail and be huge orders of magnitude cheaper. Rail would be nice, but the few people who would use them in no way justifies the hugh amounts of land siezed and disruption caused in the rural areas and small towns between the major cities.
Of all the people I know who head out of Houston and drive toward San Antonio or Austin, none of them go to those cities. They are going to New Braunsfels, one of the lakes or rivers, one of the amusement parks or going past those cities out to the Hill Country. What would the chance be of the San Antonio rail hub being anywhere near Fiesta Texas? You would still have to drive across town. High Speed rail would be useless IMO.
-
Depends on the area, and somewhat on routing; there are plenty of sections of interstate out west (where the train would be the biggest benefit) where you could almost set the cruise control, tie off the steering wheel and take a nap.
Yeah, but that is only in certain areas and probably the least used route to El Paso. My understanding is a true high speed rail needs a pretty straight route. Slow turns you don't notice in a car would be huge.
-
Overall, I think there is a lot of Pie in the Sky wishful thinking on this subject. Yeah, it would be nice to be able to jump on a high speed train and end up in another city, but when the city you are going to is 30 miles across, I don't see what advantage is gained.
The only way I can see removing many of the disadvantages is finding a way to go underground, but that would be much more costly.
The other alternative no one mentions is aboloshing the TSA and working to streamline and improve flying so that process takes less time.
-
I guess you can tell, I really don't care about this subject all. =D Sorry if I got carried away.
-
Overall, I think there is a lot of Pie in the Sky wishful thinking on this subject. Yeah, it would be nice to be able to jump on a high speed train and end up in another city, but when the city you are going to is 30 miles across, I don't see what advantage is gained.
The only way I can see removing many of the disadvantages is finding a way to go underground, but that would be much more costly.
The other alternative no one mentions is aboloshing the TSA and working to streamline and improve flying so that process takes less time.
[/b]
That's only because the "pie in the sky" approaches to high speed rail are more feasible than abolishing a .fedgov employment program. =D
-
A drive on/off system might be nice, but I doubt it would end up being economical.
Here's an interesting thought; what if a specific automaker (I'm thinking Elio for obvious reasons) designed a railcar specifically to carry their cars (and loading/unloading equipment as needed) and sponsored something like this? A small commuter vehicle that's just enough to maintain your independence in comfort at both ends of the route, and maximizes use of the railcar to keep costs down. Hop a train in Dallas Friday evening, go to sleep in a capsule-type sleeper car, (again, maximizing space and making the best use of the traveler's time) and wake up Saturday morning in Phoenix ready to drive away in your own car, with your bags still in the back seat. Week long business trip? Head out Sunday night in the company's car and be back home Saturday morning without airport or rental car hassles or overnight drives, and two fewer nights in motels.
Being initially a proprietary system, it would give that automaker a hell of a monopoly on a great vacation or business trip moneymaker. A fair number of people travel by bus, plane or train with bicycles for similar reasons, but having a car along opens up a lot more area at the destination.
Overall, I think there is a lot of Pie in the Sky wishful thinking on this subject. Yeah, it would be nice to be able to jump on a high speed train and end up in another city, but when the city you are going to is 30 miles across, I don't see what advantage is gained.
Hence the huge benefit in being able to take a reasonable motor vehicle along. Zip Cars or similar are a good idea, but still dependent on availability and you never know what condition they'll be in, plus you still have to wait for your bags and move them to the rental. Your own car, with your weekend bag still in it, even if it is a tiny two seater designed to pack into a carrier, makes it a simple arrive-and-drive situation.
Another point; look at all the parking at any major airport; many take up more space with parking than everything else put together. Then try to lug your bags out to your car in the cheap lot...assuming you can even find the car. Now imagine if all those people had just taken their cars with them.
The other alternative no one mentions is aboloshing the TSA and working to streamline and improve flying so that process takes less time.
It's not just time; airlines have so many weight and bulk restrictions it's never going to be as easy to take your golf clubs or scuba gear as on a train, where only bulk matters, and a single extra boxcar would carry literally tons of extra baggage if needed.
-
Just tossing some numbers here; it looks like you could double-deck 12 Elios on a 40ft flatbed car, or 16 on a 60 footer with some room to spare. (Maybe use that space for a load/unload rig so you don't have to have one at every station.) You might even be able to triple deck them within hi-cube height, getting 18 or 24 per carrier. Two seats per car, so assume 1.5 people per car; 18-36 sleeper berths per carrier. Say, two carriers to a 72-bed sleeper, and arrange your train so that pairs or triplets of cars can just be dropped at major stations and spur lines, rather than holding the whole train to unload them. Huge initial investment, but then, so is even a commuter airline. I think it could eventually be made very profitable and affordable for the weekend traveller, especially with some of the improvements in automating switching and coupling for trains that the more rail-heavy countries keep coming up with.
-
I don't know, that's a rather limited vehicle. I think that expanded rental opportunities would generally be better. A car is still a relatively massive amount of cargo to ship for 1-2 people.
-
I don't know, that's a rather limited vehicle. I think that expanded rental opportunities would generally be better. A car is still a relatively massive amount of cargo to ship for 1-2 people.
That's part of the advantage; for one person, it's also their cargo container. With a specifically designed loading system for a particular model, it also becomes a standardized container, making pricing and logistics dead simple. No guessing as to how many bags will fit in a hold or whether the fat guy needs two seats; the person goes in a sleeper capsule, and the rest of the "baggage" is a box of known size and shape. Two standard packages and done.
Plus it leaves one-way trip options available; there are a few places I'd like to go and see various things along the way, but there's not a practical and interesting loop route, so I'd be seeing all the intervening places twice. Much better if I could drive there and ride back or vice versa, but one way car rental can be a pain, not to mention out-of-state travel fees on some cars.
-
As someone who has a great deal of experience rail-loading vehicles. Granted some were tracked but we had quite a few wheeled vehicles. It would a little over a day to load the 900+ vehicles for the brigade onto the train.
I also took the ferry from Goteburg, Sweden to Kiel, Germany with my car. We had to be at the dock and load our cars 2 or 3 hours early so they could get them loaded on the ship and then it took another 2-3hrs to unload the ship at the other end.
The key factor in all these discussions is time. Are you really going to want to wait 2 hours on each end to get your car loaded? That turns a 4 hour trip into 8 hours. And with that any point within an 8 hour drive time becomes more time effective. The Amtrak Autotrain from DC to Sanford, FL is 17 hours for $310 (if all you want is a seat. It's about $500 if you want a bed also). You can drive that in 12 hours and if your car gets about 30mpg on the highway it will cost you about $100 in gas. (815 miles point to point). Save 5 hours and $200 in gas driving yourself. And no TSA Viper teams, you can whatever you want to eat (and not overpriced vending machine food that they have on the train).
If high speed rail is/was so great then how come private companies aren't tripping over each other to build it?
-
^^^ Until this very moment, I had never heard of the Autotrain, but after some Googling, now know about it. Is this primarily for the snowbirds of the East Coast? They go south for the winter, and this is more convenient than driving? I don't think there is a West Coast equivalent.
-
If high speed rail is/was so great then how come private companies aren't tripping over each other to build it?
Partly because government has demonstrated how hideously it can fail, and various regulations will keep it that way until they're changed.
Yes, the same government that couldn't make money off a whorehouse.
-
The US will be a car culture for the foreseeable future. The countries where high speed rail is big time have the government footing a big part of the bill, I'd prefer not seeing any more of my tax dollars subsidizing what will be a tax rip-off boondogle here.
I would prefer to subsidize GOOD rail travel than see more of my tax money spent building more roads that just attract more traffic and result in bigger, longer, worser bottlenecks -- and become functionally obsolete (over design capacity) within a few months after opening.
-
I would prefer to subsidize GOOD rail travel than see more of my tax money spent building more roads that just attract more traffic and result in bigger, longer, worser bottlenecks -- and become functionally obsolete (over design capacity) within a few months after opening.
The problem with that idea is that the roads are much much cheaper when you factor in the actual number of people using them. Trains will always be much more expensive and much less flexible.
As I mentioned above, the only current alternative that is close to economical is a well managed bus system. Since most Metro outfits are obsessed with trains, they generally let the bus systems go to hell.
-
The other thing I would mention is there are many companies intimately familiar with the challenges and problems getting right of ways to run private pipelines. This is small compared to the land acquisition required to set up a private rail line.
Face it, Americans like to spread out. Cars and trucks are what we will have for the foreseeable future. Unless technology, laws, or demographics change significantly.
-
Unless technology, laws, or demographics change significantly.
I looked into how you could change the laws to encourage 'carless' living fairly recently.
First, consider the car. Between the capital cost, insurance, fuel, taxes, and everything you're looking at around $4k/year for the privilege of driving, and that's not considering the time cost if you don't like driving. $4k/year, put into alternative transport methods, adds up quick in a dense city. My personal thought is to adjust things so that, as best as you can arrange it, everything is in walking distance. As people get used to walking, the radius will expand, plus bicycles and such can speed things up even more.
So how do we shorten distances? My first thought is to increase density. One way for our carless area would be to simply get rid of all the parking lots. Massive space savings there, and even getting rid of a lot of the roads because you don't need the capacity allows you to go denser still. However, there's not enough housing in cities, making it too expensive. One thought there is that nearly every building we have today is single-purpose. Commercial buildings are commercial buildings. Malls are all retail. Apartments and condos are just that - Apartments and condos. As I understand it, a lot of the reasons for this amount to tax code issues. It's cheaper/easier to make buildings single type even before you consider zoning.
So let's go 'old school'. Back in the day shopkeepers would often live above their stores. Change zoning laws and tax codes in the cities to encourage mixed-use buildings - IE a mix of retail, commercial, and residential in every skyscraper, with a rough goal of as many people living in the building as work there. Something like the first 3 floors are retail, the next 7 are commercial, and the final 10 residential. Statistically at least some would live in the same building as they work in, reducing commuting times to an elevator ride.
As a city, encourage cheap delivery services so people don't feel the need to haul lots of stuff around.
Other ideas include making it part of the downtown building code to have skyways on the 3rd/4th floor to give you more walking area, perhaps even airport style 'slideways' that increase your effective walking radius, drastically increasing the distance you're willing to go on foot, often even faster than car, which also increases the odds that whatever service you're looking for is offered within that area - doctor, dentist, movie theater, shopping area, grocery, etc...
-
So let's go 'old school'. Back in the day shopkeepers would often live above their stores. Change zoning laws and tax codes in the cities to encourage mixed-use buildings - IE a mix of retail, commercial, and residential in every skyscraper, with a rough goal of as many people living in the building as work there. Something like the first 3 floors are retail, the next 7 are commercial, and the final 10 residential. Statistically at least some would live in the same building as they work in, reducing commuting times to an elevator ride.
Welcome to the Renraku Arcology. Live, work, eat and play for entire months without ever going outside.
I'd predict mental and behavioral disorders at rates 4-5 times the norm, at a minimum.
-
It's called Rochester,MN and the Habitrails in the downtown area. I was there for two weeks and never went outside.
-
It's called Rochester,MN and the Habitrails in the downtown area. I was there for two weeks and never went outside.
I rest my case.
-
Welcome to the Renraku Arcology. Live, work, eat and play for entire months without ever going outside.
I'd predict mental and behavioral disorders at rates 4-5 times the norm, at a minimum.
I always thought living in a city is a mental and behavioral disorder.
-
So how do we shorten distances? My first thought is to increase density. One way for our carless area would be to simply get rid of all the parking lots. Massive space savings there, and even getting rid of a lot of the roads because you don't need the capacity allows you to go denser still. However, there's not enough housing in cities, making it too expensive. One thought there is that nearly every building we have today is single-purpose. Commercial buildings are commercial buildings. Malls are all retail. Apartments and condos are just that - Apartments and condos. As I understand it, a lot of the reasons for this amount to tax code issues. It's cheaper/easier to make buildings single type even before you consider zoning.
Except that this is what a lot of the big-city Left is trying to do to us intentionally. Look up "new urbanism" and Agenda 21.
They've despised the fact for decades now that people will vote with their feet and move out/away from their failed leftist policies, and the dependency and crime left in their wake, and their solution is to try and prevent the creation of roads and suburbs, and trains and rail are a cornerstone in that plan.
I'm all for loosening tax codes and zoning to create multi-use development, but I'm skeptical of almost all rail proposals. And the poor are better served by buses that can come right down their street and then go anywhere. And the total real-world per-mile costs of rail and light rail will buy a LOT of buses.
-
If passenger rail was viable in the US the rail companies would have it. Instead we have Amtrak, and the mediocrity of Amtrak is not exactly a secret.
There is a reason the passenger train was pushed out post WWII...despite the fact that it can be an enjoyable way to travel it is slow and not cheap.
-
I think unions played a role in killing trains
-
I don't think we can blame unions on this one. Something better came along and killed passenger trains in a lot of areas because it simply didn't work as well.
-
General Motors, Standard Oil, and Firestone killed the passenger trains in the US. I saw it on that Roger Rabbit documentary.
The Texas triangle high speed rail will never work because Dallas and Houston hate each other. (Not sure about San Antonio, but if I were then I wouldn't like Dallas or Houston either)
-
From what I have heard in Europe, most of the dense living is due to laws and restrictions. In places where restrictions are relaxed, people spread out.
I don't dislike the idea. I think dense urban living would work well for some. I just think if that idea were pushed, someone would take it too ar and try to force it. Removing roads and parking lots sounds like that. Businesses want to be next to busy roads and parking. It brings in more money.
-
And build a dome over the whole thing to control the weather :cool: It would be Utopia, except you would have to limit life spans to thirty years to share the limited resources :police:
I looked into how you could change the laws to encourage 'carless' living fairly recently.
First, consider the car. Between the capital cost, insurance, fuel, taxes, and everything you're looking at around $4k/year for the privilege of driving, and that's not considering the time cost if you don't like driving. $4k/year, put into alternative transport methods, adds up quick in a dense city. My personal thought is to adjust things so that, as best as you can arrange it, everything is in walking distance. As people get used to walking, the radius will expand, plus bicycles and such can speed things up even more.
So how do we shorten distances? My first thought is to increase density. One way for our carless area would be to simply get rid of all the parking lots. Massive space savings there, and even getting rid of a lot of the roads because you don't need the capacity allows you to go denser still. However, there's not enough housing in cities, making it too expensive. One thought there is that nearly every building we have today is single-purpose. Commercial buildings are commercial buildings. Malls are all retail. Apartments and condos are just that - Apartments and condos. As I understand it, a lot of the reasons for this amount to tax code issues. It's cheaper/easier to make buildings single type even before you consider zoning.
So let's go 'old school'. Back in the day shopkeepers would often live above their stores. Change zoning laws and tax codes in the cities to encourage mixed-use buildings - IE a mix of retail, commercial, and residential in every skyscraper, with a rough goal of as many people living in the building as work there. Something like the first 3 floors are retail, the next 7 are commercial, and the final 10 residential. Statistically at least some would live in the same building as they work in, reducing commuting times to an elevator ride.
As a city, encourage cheap delivery services so people don't feel the need to haul lots of stuff around.
Other ideas include making it part of the downtown building code to have skyways on the 3rd/4th floor to give you more walking area, perhaps even airport style 'slideways' that increase your effective walking radius, drastically increasing the distance you're willing to go on foot, often even faster than car, which also increases the odds that whatever service you're looking for is offered within that area - doctor, dentist, movie theater, shopping area, grocery, etc...
-
From what I have heard in Europe, most of the dense living is due to laws and restrictions. In places where restrictions are relaxed, people spread out.
I don't dislike the idea. I think dense urban living would work well for some. I just think if that idea were pushed, someone would take it too ar and try to force it. Removing roads and parking lots sounds like that. Businesses want to be next to busy roads and parking. It brings in more money.
Genesis had it figgered out over 40 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSl7gENe5xo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSl7gENe5xo) And lyrics from http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/genesis/getemoutbyfriday.html
If you want the Cliff's Notes part, see the bolded below.
"Get 'Em Out By Friday"
[John Pebble of Styx Enterprises]
"Get 'em out by Friday!
You don't get paid till the last one's well on his way.
Get 'em out by Friday!
It's important that we keep to schedule, there must be no delay."
[Mark Hall of Styx Enterprises (otherwise known as "The Winkler")]
"I represent a firm of gentlemen who recently purchased this
house and all the others in the road,
In the interest of humanity we've found a better place for you
to go, go-woh, go-woh"
[Mrs. Barrow (a tenant)]
"Oh no, this I can't believe,
Oh Mary, they're asking us to leave."
[Mr. Pebble]
"Get 'em out by Friday!
I've told you before, 's good many gone if we let them stay.
And if it isn't easy,
You can squeeze a little grease and our troubles will soon run away."
[Mrs. Barrow]
"After all this time, they ask us to leave,
And I told them we could pay double the rent.
I don't know why it seemed so funny,
Seeing as how they'd take more money.
The winkler called again, he came here this morning,
With four hundred pounds and a photograph of the place he has found.
A block of flats with central heating.
I think we're going to find it hard."
[Mr. Pebble]
"Now we've got them!
I've always said that cash cash cash can do anything well.
Work can be rewarding
When a flash of intuition is a gift that helps you
excel-sell-sell-sell."
[Mr. Hall]
"Here we are in Harlow New Town, did you recognise your block
across the square, over there,
Sadly since last time we spoke, we've found we've had to raise
the rent again,
just a bit."
[Mrs. Barrow]
"Oh no, this I can't believe
Oh Mary, and we agreed to leave."
(a passage of time)
18/9/2012 T.V. Flash on all Dial-A-Program Services
This is an announcement from Genetic Control:
"It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on humanoid height."
[Extract from coversation of Joe Ordinary in Local Puborama]
"I hear the directors of Genetic Control have been buying all the
properties that have recently been sold, taking risks oh so bold.
It's said now that people will be shorter in height,
they can fit twice as many in the same building site.
(they say it's alright),
Beginning with the tenants of the town of Harlow,
in the interest of humanity, they've been told they must go,
told they must go-go-go-go."
[Sir John De Pebble of United Blacksprings International]
"I think I've fixed a new deal
A dozen properties - we'll buy at five and sell at thirty four,
Some are still inhabited,
It's time to send the winkler to see them,
he'll have to work some more."
[Memo from Satin Peter of Rock Development Ltd.]
With land in your hand, you'll be happy on earth
Then invest in the Church for your heaven.
-
The Texas triangle high speed rail will never work because Dallas and Houston hate each other. (Not sure about San Antonio, but if I were then I wouldn't like Dallas or Houston either)
You know, there was a time when the way to kill a town was to get the railroad to bypass it...think Houston would chip in for a Texarkana to El Paso line with stops everywhere along I-20 except Dallas?