3 ms·

> High-speed rail with hubs in urban (or urban-adjacent) areas can provide reasonable access for folks to commute to where the jobs are. You don't need HSR for

> High-speed rail with hubs in urban (or urban-adjacent) areas can provide reasonable access for folks to commute to where the jobs are. You don't need HSR for this. Actually, high-speed rail and commuting are mutually exclusive, because commuter rail lines stop way too often to reach even rural two-lane highway speeds. The TGV is very nice and will get you from Reims to La Defense, about a hundred miles of commute, in an hour and a half (via Paris l'Est), but only because Reims happens to be on the TGV trunk line and has a stop. If you're coming in from Vaires-sur-Marne, which that same TGV line goes through but doesn't stop at? About an hour to La Defense on the commuter RER despite covering less than a third of the distance.

nobody9999 3y ago
>You don't need HSR for this. Actually, high-speed rail and commuting are mutually exclusive, because commuter rail lines stop way too often to reach even rural two-lane highway speeds. A fair point, high speed rail is really only good for point-to-point travel. That said, using the hub and spoke model could alleviate that issue significantly. Have high-speed rail spokes in a ring, with spoke ends at 75-100 mile intervals around the ring, with the urban area at the center of the ring, along with good roads and feeder rail to the spoke ends could work. Trains from the spoke ends wouldn't make any stops (or perhaps one or two, if you wanted to create concentric rings), and so wouldn't need to continually stop. That assumes (unlike Amtrak's Acela) railroad track on the spokes which allow for 200-300mph (~340-510kph) speeds. And without stops, you can get from say, Fort Sumner, NM (in the 48th most rural county in the US[0]) to Albequerque, NM in less than an hour. While folks would still need to travel to such spoke hubs, such hubs, along with more hybrid/WFH jobs, that could absolutely work. It would be a huge undertaking, but construction of such rail lines while laying fiber along the track rights-of-way could kill two birds with one stone. Is it a perfect (or even a good one) solution? Maybe not. But anything that can both revitalize rural areas and mitigate the housing shortages in urban/suburban areas is a good idea. Perhaps you have a better, more workable solution? [0] https://www.newsweek.com/these-are-50-most-rural-counties-america-1589644 https://www.newsweek.com/these-are-50-most-rural-counties-am...
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >But anything that can both revitalize rural areas and mitigate the housing shortages in urban/suburban areas is a good idea. Perhaps you have a better, more workable solution? Yeah, it's simple: fix the glaring problems in urban areas, and have people move there. If there's a housing shortage, build more housing. Fix the stupid zoning laws that prevents that. That's a lot easier than this ridiculous HSR ring idea.
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >Yeah, it's simple: fix the glaring problems in urban areas, and have people move there. If there's a housing shortage, build more housing. Fix the stupid zoning laws that prevents that. That's a lot easier than this ridiculous HSR ring idea. And leave folks who live in rural areas to rot, without even a hope of revitalizing their communities? That seems both reductive and likely harmful. Because the issue isn't just housing shortages in urban areas, it's also the decline of much of the US by flight from rural areas. Which has been the source of a great deal of the economic dissatisfaction in the US for many folks for a long time. I'd point out that people who live in rural areas are humans too and, at least in the US, for the most part Americans, with just as much right to exist and thrive as anyone else.[0] I'm not saying that you feel this way, but the sense I get from your response is: "I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die." If that's not what you're trying to say, my apologies -- although you might want to try to be more clear about what you're saying if you don't want to be perceived that way. [0] I'd note that I was born, raised and have lived almost all of my life (and still do) in the most urban city in the US.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      If people in rural areas want the services and conveniences of urban areas, they should move there. It's very simple. >"I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die." No, my attitude is that rural people live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by city dwellers. Why should rural dwellers get this if they're not able to afford the extravagance of rural living on their own? If they want money and jobs, they need to move to where the jobs are. Human societies have been working this way for thousands of years now. This isn't something brand-new. If rural dwellers like it so much in rural areas, they need to learn to accept and live with the downsides that go with that, such as lack of medical services, instead of complaining.

nobody9999 3y ago

>You don't need HSR for this. Actually, high-speed rail and commuting are mutually exclusive, because commuter rail lines stop way too often to reach even rural two-lane highway speeds. A fair point, high speed rail is really only good for point-to-point travel. That said, using the hub and spoke model could alleviate that issue significantly. Have high-speed rail spokes in a ring, with spoke ends at 75-100 mile intervals around the ring, with the urban area at the center of the ring, along with good roads and feeder rail to the spoke ends could work. Trains from the spoke ends wouldn't make any stops (or perhaps one or two, if you wanted to create concentric rings), and so wouldn't need to continually stop. That assumes (unlike Amtrak's Acela) railroad track on the spokes which allow for 200-300mph (~340-510kph) speeds. And without stops, you can get from say, Fort Sumner, NM (in the 48th most rural county in the US[0]) to Albequerque, NM in less than an hour. While folks would still need to travel to such spoke hubs, such hubs, along with more hybrid/WFH jobs, that could absolutely work. It would be a huge undertaking, but construction of such rail lines while laying fiber along the track rights-of-way could kill two birds with one stone. Is it a perfect (or even a good one) solution? Maybe not. But anything that can both revitalize rural areas and mitigate the housing shortages in urban/suburban areas is a good idea. Perhaps you have a better, more workable solution? [0] https://www.newsweek.com/these-are-50-most-rural-counties-america-1589644 https://www.newsweek.com/these-are-50-most-rural-counties-am...

midoridensha 3y ago
>But anything that can both revitalize rural areas and mitigate the housing shortages in urban/suburban areas is a good idea. Perhaps you have a better, more workable solution? Yeah, it's simple: fix the glaring problems in urban areas, and have people move there. If there's a housing shortage, build more housing. Fix the stupid zoning laws that prevents that. That's a lot easier than this ridiculous HSR ring idea.
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >Yeah, it's simple: fix the glaring problems in urban areas, and have people move there. If there's a housing shortage, build more housing. Fix the stupid zoning laws that prevents that. That's a lot easier than this ridiculous HSR ring idea. And leave folks who live in rural areas to rot, without even a hope of revitalizing their communities? That seems both reductive and likely harmful. Because the issue isn't just housing shortages in urban areas, it's also the decline of much of the US by flight from rural areas. Which has been the source of a great deal of the economic dissatisfaction in the US for many folks for a long time. I'd point out that people who live in rural areas are humans too and, at least in the US, for the most part Americans, with just as much right to exist and thrive as anyone else.[0] I'm not saying that you feel this way, but the sense I get from your response is: "I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die." If that's not what you're trying to say, my apologies -- although you might want to try to be more clear about what you're saying if you don't want to be perceived that way. [0] I'd note that I was born, raised and have lived almost all of my life (and still do) in the most urban city in the US.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    If people in rural areas want the services and conveniences of urban areas, they should move there. It's very simple. >"I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die." No, my attitude is that rural people live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by city dwellers. Why should rural dwellers get this if they're not able to afford the extravagance of rural living on their own? If they want money and jobs, they need to move to where the jobs are. Human societies have been working this way for thousands of years now. This isn't something brand-new. If rural dwellers like it so much in rural areas, they need to learn to accept and live with the downsides that go with that, such as lack of medical services, instead of complaining.