4 ms·

You’re gonna have to show the math for $1 trillion in economic development in 5-10 years for a route that’s already served by air and road options in a state wi

You’re gonna have to show the math for $1 trillion in economic development in 5-10 years for a route that’s already served by air and road options in a state with stagnant population and declining usage of existing public transit. We’re 27 years since the California High-Speed Rail Authority was established and not a single passenger has been carried yet.

monero-xmr 4y ago
But… trains! They are better! …because!
simplotek 4y ago
> (...) for a route that’s already served by air and road options in a state with stagnant population (...) Mass transit systems have some peculiarities that private transportation systems don't have, such as creating mass demand and concentrating it on specific spots. Each train stop is a natural generator for demand for housing and services in volumes that urban sprawl does not, and this leads to more affordable housing with shorter commutes and with far better services that lead to a far better quality of living. But this potential to be realized needs urban development that takes advantage of it, which require investment. I'm not sure if the figure is $1T but there are examples in the world where railway operators get their main source of funding and incentive to grow their network by being granted favourable conditions to invest in real estate surrounding new train stops. > (...) and declining usage of existing public transit. I'm sorry, the US is notorious for having self-sabotaging public transportation services, designed to pay lip service for the need to provide mobility alternatives,but actually designed to be impactical and outright hostile to commuters. If the US learns basic lessons from the many case studies from throughout the world, nothing stops the US from benefiting from identical adoption rates seen outside of its borders.
thecopy 4y ago
Stagnant public transit use is caused by bad public transit. Hence investments are needed. The USA’s transit is like a 3rd world country’s.

monero-xmr 4y ago

But… trains! They are better! …because!

simplotek 4y ago

> (...) for a route that’s already served by air and road options in a state with stagnant population (...) Mass transit systems have some peculiarities that private transportation systems don't have, such as creating mass demand and concentrating it on specific spots. Each train stop is a natural generator for demand for housing and services in volumes that urban sprawl does not, and this leads to more affordable housing with shorter commutes and with far better services that lead to a far better quality of living. But this potential to be realized needs urban development that takes advantage of it, which require investment. I'm not sure if the figure is $1T but there are examples in the world where railway operators get their main source of funding and incentive to grow their network by being granted favourable conditions to invest in real estate surrounding new train stops. > (...) and declining usage of existing public transit. I'm sorry, the US is notorious for having self-sabotaging public transportation services, designed to pay lip service for the need to provide mobility alternatives,but actually designed to be impactical and outright hostile to commuters. If the US learns basic lessons from the many case studies from throughout the world, nothing stops the US from benefiting from identical adoption rates seen outside of its borders.

thecopy 4y ago

Stagnant public transit use is caused by bad public transit. Hence investments are needed. The USA’s transit is like a 3rd world country’s.