4 ms·

Is Texas "coming to terms" with it, though? Cars don't scale infinitely but are also way more flexible than rail lines could ever be. If your goal is to have ev

Is Texas "coming to terms" with it, though? Cars don't scale infinitely but are also way more flexible than rail lines could ever be. If your goal is to have everyone work in downtown Dallas then yes, they suck. But you can just build offices and manufacturing facilities all around the state instead, avoiding the creation of single bottlenecks.

nerdbert 2y ago
Then you've instead created sprawl which has huge ongoing costs in terms of resource and energy use, as well as disconnecting people and communities.
- nsokolsky 2y ago
  > has huge ongoing costs in terms of resource and energy use TxDOT (government organization responsible for road maintenance) has a budget of $30B/year or about 10% of the total state's budget. Not that big of a deal for Texas.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    Do they pay for the streets in low density suburbs or do local towns and cities? Also, water infra, electrical infra, etc.
    - nsokolsky 2y ago
      That figure includes every single government-owned street, AFAIK. Total infrastructure costs are higher but don't seem that much higher than in Germany?
      - verall 2y ago
        TxDOT does not maintain local or county roads which are a massive portion of cost in sprawl.
        nsokolsky 2y ago
        OK so what % of the GDP goes towards roads in Texas vs Germany?
        jaccarmac 2y ago
        To add specifics: Dallas does not cover road maintenance with its budget and must sell bonds to cover the $10b in "deferred maintenance". https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2024/04/a-voters-guide-to-the-2024-dallas-bond-package/ https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2024/04/a-voters-guide...
diordiderot 2y ago
The term is called 'growth ponzi scheme'. Regions wax and wane in economic importance, less so when they're dense and urban.
bluGill 2y ago
> Cars don't scale infinitely but are also way more flexible than rail lines could ever be I'm not convinced this is true. Because a train enables more density, it enables more places you can reach once on it. A car enables more geographical area, but there is a lot less things to do in that area, and those things to do are what matters. If you want to go camping miles from anyone else than a car will get you there, but if you want to do a city activity (restaurant, movies, live music, show, work) a train can get you to a much greater variety of those things. Note that with both the real question is the network. A car where there are not roads won't get you anywhere. A car where there is one road doesn't get you far. Same for a train - I live in a city without a train and so obviously I can't get anywhere on it. I've been in cities with trains and I was able to get places on it - enough that I didn't need to have a car.

nerdbert 2y ago

Then you've instead created sprawl which has huge ongoing costs in terms of resource and energy use, as well as disconnecting people and communities.

nsokolsky 2y ago
> has huge ongoing costs in terms of resource and energy use TxDOT (government organization responsible for road maintenance) has a budget of $30B/year or about 10% of the total state's budget. Not that big of a deal for Texas.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  Do they pay for the streets in low density suburbs or do local towns and cities? Also, water infra, electrical infra, etc.
  - nsokolsky 2y ago
    That figure includes every single government-owned street, AFAIK. Total infrastructure costs are higher but don't seem that much higher than in Germany?
    - verall 2y ago
      TxDOT does not maintain local or county roads which are a massive portion of cost in sprawl.
      - nsokolsky 2y ago
        OK so what % of the GDP goes towards roads in Texas vs Germany?
      - jaccarmac 2y ago
        To add specifics: Dallas does not cover road maintenance with its budget and must sell bonds to cover the $10b in "deferred maintenance". https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2024/04/a-voters-guide-to-the-2024-dallas-bond-package/ https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2024/04/a-voters-guide...

diordiderot 2y ago

The term is called 'growth ponzi scheme'. Regions wax and wane in economic importance, less so when they're dense and urban.

bluGill 2y ago

> Cars don't scale infinitely but are also way more flexible than rail lines could ever be I'm not convinced this is true. Because a train enables more density, it enables more places you can reach once on it. A car enables more geographical area, but there is a lot less things to do in that area, and those things to do are what matters. If you want to go camping miles from anyone else than a car will get you there, but if you want to do a city activity (restaurant, movies, live music, show, work) a train can get you to a much greater variety of those things. Note that with both the real question is the network. A car where there are not roads won't get you anywhere. A car where there is one road doesn't get you far. Same for a train - I live in a city without a train and so obviously I can't get anywhere on it. I've been in cities with trains and I was able to get places on it - enough that I didn't need to have a car.