5 ms·

Given the huge spike in interest in outdoor recreation [1,2] we've seen in the US, I have a hard time believing that the future of tourism is urban. Even as som

by notJim 7y ago

Given the huge spike in interest in outdoor recreation [1,2] we've seen in the US, I have a hard time believing that the future of tourism is urban. Even as someone who thinks decarbonizing should focus more on public transit than electric cars, outdoor recreation is one area where I think electric cars make sense. I also think it's not a crazy idea to build public transit to popular outdoor areas. Ski areas in Colorado and popular national parks have huge high-season traffic jams that would be helped immensely by having public transit. Rail is nice if the traffic warrants it, but busses are great too. [1]: https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/visitation-numbers.htm https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/visitation-numbers.htm . [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191240/participants-in-hiking-in-the-us-since-2006/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/191240/participants-in-h...

tlb 7y ago
Passenger rail is barely economical for routes that are used year-round. Like it barely works in the NY-DC corridor, and not at all for SF-LA. It seems unlikely that it'd make sense for something as seasonal as a ski area.
- randomsearch 7y ago
  Does public transportation have to make a profit?
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Do the interstates make a profit? Municipal roads in New York? The economic reason to improve transportation is that reduced travel time leads to greater communication and commerce which increases growth. This applies as well to subsidizing rail as to subsidizing automobile use and rail is vastly safer per passenger mile.
  - tlb 7y ago
    Neither interstates nor rail make profits. But they are funded for with some consideration of ROI. The government shouldn't (and mostly doesn't) build interstates that are used only a few weeks a year. If the government has money to spend on rail, it should put it where it'll serve the most passenger-miles/year.
- notJim 7y ago
  I think it just depends. A lot of ski areas are right along interstates, like I-90 in Washington, so if you were going to run a rail line along I-90 between Seattle and Yakima/Spokane, it might be economical to build a stop at Snoqualmie Pass. There are also often small towns and communities that might benefit from being connected to the bigger city by rail year round, like the Colorado mountain towns.

by notJim 7y ago

tlb 7y ago

Passenger rail is barely economical for routes that are used year-round. Like it barely works in the NY-DC corridor, and not at all for SF-LA. It seems unlikely that it'd make sense for something as seasonal as a ski area.

randomsearch 7y ago
Does public transportation have to make a profit?
barry-cotter 7y ago
Do the interstates make a profit? Municipal roads in New York? The economic reason to improve transportation is that reduced travel time leads to greater communication and commerce which increases growth. This applies as well to subsidizing rail as to subsidizing automobile use and rail is vastly safer per passenger mile.
- tlb 7y ago
  Neither interstates nor rail make profits. But they are funded for with some consideration of ROI. The government shouldn't (and mostly doesn't) build interstates that are used only a few weeks a year. If the government has money to spend on rail, it should put it where it'll serve the most passenger-miles/year.
notJim 7y ago
I think it just depends. A lot of ski areas are right along interstates, like I-90 in Washington, so if you were going to run a rail line along I-90 between Seattle and Yakima/Spokane, it might be economical to build a stop at Snoqualmie Pass. There are also often small towns and communities that might benefit from being connected to the bigger city by rail year round, like the Colorado mountain towns.