Republicans waste no time in killing passenger rail

[Mint]

Fezzy is of course correct, the modern highway system is an expensive, unsustainable mess that's just subsidizing sprawl. I think a more mixed system of (subsidized) local rail and roads would make a lot more sense.

[Vepres]

The real issue is that we've allowed our obsession with cars to dictate our entire societal structure.  We've spread out and disconnected.  Our entire culture now is isolation.  We drive our cars to and from our garages and stay in our houses that are getting further and further from each other and centers of population.  There is no concept of a downtown anymore or a city center that an area is located around.  It's just a mess of independently placed globs of suburbs connected by a giant road that shuttles people from those mass-produced houses to their mass-produced offices down the street from where they get their mass-produced meals.  Everything is disjointed and it's the fault of the interstate.  Thanks a lot, Eisenhower.  There is now no sense of community or identity in massive amounts of this country.  The suburbs are choking us.

Except for some boom towns in the sun belt, I don't see that as the case.

Besides, suburbs can and often do have community and culture.

I don't see how it's at all possible to arrive at that conclusion.  People get in their cars, drive to a strip mall, shop, and drive back home to their secluded houses.  There is little to no social interaction from day to day.  There are fewer and fewer social gathering places, declining social involvement, more spread out development.  Just being around other people is almost impossible in our suburban culture.  I don't see how that's arguable.

I live in a suburb, I'm around people all the time (though, mine is oldish, and the city council made a huge effort last year to revitalize our small Main st. with success. Plus, Boulder County has controlled growth).

Again, outside of sunbelt cities like LA, Phoenix, Houston, Jacksonville, etc. I don't see that as being true. Of course, I have a Colorado-centric view of these things.

[muon2]

I'll be traveling from IL to MA for the week of Thanksgiving with a party of 3. I priced travel by air, train and car. We usually travel by car and know that it includes an overnight stay each way, so the round trip total was going to be about $600 and would use about 28 hours each way. Air fare was about $350 per person, and a car rental was needed for another $150, so the total would be about $1200 and would use about 7 hours each way counting time door-to-door. The train fare was about $150 per person, so with the car rental the total was $600 and would use about 24 hours each way.

Based on the cost/time comparisons the train clearly beat driving. Since we weren't so pressed for time that we had to fly, there was no reason to pay double to avoid overnight travel. It can be a cost-effective mode of transportation here in the US, so I'll be riding the rails later this month.
 

[Storebought]

Fezzy is of course correct, the modern highway system is an expensive, unsustainable mess that's just subsidizing sprawl. I think a more mixed system of (subsidized) local rail and roads would make a lot more sense.

Or, rather, that interstate highways are often widened at the expense of construction of a greater density of streets and state highways. Interstate highways should (ideally) be used for commuter travel.

[Mint]

Just being around other people is almost impossible in our suburban culture.  I don't see how that's arguable.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/03/the-next-slum/6653/
http://politic365.com/2010/10/11/poverty-in-suburbs-rising-faster-than-in-cities/

That's starting to reverse just because of the economic situation.

[fezzyfestoon]

I live in a suburb, I'm around people all the time (though, mine is oldish, and the city council made a huge effort last year to revitalize our small Main st. with success. Plus, Boulder County has controlled growth).

Again, outside of sunbelt cities like LA, Phoenix, Houston, Jacksonville, etc. I don't see that as being true. Of course, I have a Colorado-centric view of these things.

In a sense you're totally right.  Denver and especially Boulder have handled their growth extremely well compared to the rest of the west.  Unfortunately, most people don't live in a place as conscience as Colorado is about its growth.  It's funny that you list those cities, because I have been touting a very similar list of the country's worst cities.  Mine are Charlotte, Jacksonville, Houston, Phoenix, and San Jose.  I give Atlanta and Los Angeles the benefit of the doubt because they at least have major business centers or a specialized purpose.  The others were and are blank, vapid, and woefully ill-prepared for growth.  They've also been hit exceptionally hard by the recession because they were in the extremely fickle business of growth.  They over-did it and now they're paying for their poor planning.  I don't see them having very bright futures beyond this recession unless big things change.

[fezzyfestoon]

Just being around other people is almost impossible in our suburban culture.  I don't see how that's arguable.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/03/the-next-slum/6653/
http://politic365.com/2010/10/11/poverty-in-suburbs-rising-faster-than-in-cities/

That's starting to reverse just because of the economic situation.

I can't say that I'm entirely surprised or upset by that development, but it's still frustrating to see such preventable issues arising.  I have my fingers crossed that the current small trends towards cities will hold and sprawl will sputter out.  Now is our country's best shot to get a grip and return to a sensible and sustainable system of growth.

[Storebought]

I live in a suburb, I'm around people all the time (though, mine is oldish, and the city council made a huge effort last year to revitalize our small Main st. with success. Plus, Boulder County has controlled growth).

Again, outside of sunbelt cities like LA, Phoenix, Houston, Jacksonville, etc. I don't see that as being true. Of course, I have a Colorado-centric view of these things.

In a sense you're totally right.  Denver and especially Boulder have handled their growth extremely well compared to the rest of the west.  Unfortunately, most people don't live in a place as conscience as Colorado is about its growth.  It's funny that you list those cities, because I have been touting a very similar list of the country's worst cities.  Mine are Charlotte, Jacksonville, Houston, Phoenix, and San Jose.  I give Atlanta and Los Angeles the benefit of the doubt because they at least have major business centers or a specialized purpose.  The others were and are blank, vapid, and woefully ill-prepared for growth.  They've also been hit exceptionally hard by the recession because they were in the extremely fickle business of growth.  They over-did it and now they're paying for their poor planning.  I don't see them having very bright futures beyond this recession unless big things change.

San Jose and Houston have no place in your list.

[fezzyfestoon]

No?

Downtown Houston:


And the suburbs are even worse:


San Jose is just entirely suburban:


That's just the visual evidence, then there are the clear facts that the three poster children for sprawl (Florida, Texas, California) all have major cities (i.e. Jacksonville, Houston, San Jose) that consistently rank near the top in commute times/traffic congestion, growth as a factor in the economy, and now unemployment and drops in income.

[Storebought]

No?

Downtown Houston:


And the suburbs are even worse:


San Jose is just entirely suburban:


That's just the visual evidence, then there are the clear facts that the three poster children for sprawl (Florida, Texas, California) all have major cities (i.e. Jacksonville, Houston, San Jose) that consistently rank near the top in commute times/traffic congestion, growth as a factor in the economy, and now unemployment and drops in income.

My point was to counter your assertion that SJ and Houston serve no purpose other than as centers of growth. I'm not as familiar with San Jose, but I do know it became a center of the computing industry as a result of it once being a center of silicon chip manufacturing. Houston is a port, a refinery and energy center, and a medical research center. Not to mention, income has dropped in most cities, including those outside the Sun Belt. There are better examples of growth-for-growth-sake cities than these two.

[opebo]

Ok some points in response to this thread:

1. now is precisely the time to spend money - its a downturn, and counter-cyclical spending is necessary to avoid destruction

2. Rail is the most pleasant form of travel, and driving is very unpleasant and dangerous.

3. Cities which have grown in the last 30 years in America are just the maggots on the corpse - they're not real signs of health.

4. The only reason Republicans oppose this type of spending is because it supports high-income (aka unionized) workers.

Here in Thailand I ride the VIP buses all the time.  I would prefer to ride the train but you generally have to buy the ticket a few days ahead for the comfortable sleeper berths.  I'm a last minute man.  But the VIP buses have huge seats, meal service, toilet, etc.  Anything beats driving - I really try to avoid driving for more than one hour continuously.

[fezzyfestoon]

My point was to counter your assertion that SJ and Houston serve no purpose other than as centers of growth. I'm not as familiar with San Jose, but I do know it became a center of the computing industry as a result of it once being a center of silicon chip manufacturing. Houston is a port, a refinery and energy center, and a medical research center. Not to mention, income has dropped in most cities, including those outside the Sun Belt. There are better examples of growth-for-growth-sake cities than these two.

Yeah, better cities are Jacksonville, Charlotte, and Phoenix.  There's nothing necessary about San Jose, the entire region held the industry it boasts.  Houston is one of many port cities, it's also not necessary.  That's not the only reason they're on the list either, by the way.  That's just the reason Atlanta and Los Angeles aren't on it.  And income drops and housing drops were heavily concentrated on these types of areas.

[Storebought]

My point was to counter your assertion that SJ and Houston serve no purpose other than as centers of growth. I'm not as familiar with San Jose, but I do know it became a center of the computing industry as a result of it once being a center of silicon chip manufacturing. Houston is a port, a refinery and energy center, and a medical research center. Not to mention, income has dropped in most cities, including those outside the Sun Belt. There are better examples of growth-for-growth-sake cities than these two.

Yeah, better cities are Jacksonville, Charlotte, and Phoenix.  There's nothing necessary about San Jose, the entire region held the industry it boasts.  Houston is one of many port cities, it's also not necessary.  That's not the only reason they're on the list either, by the way.  That's just the reason Atlanta and Los Angeles aren't on it.  And income drops and housing drops were heavily concentrated on these types of areas.

The highest-profit sector of the US economy is based in San Jose and suburbs. The same is true for the suburbs of Washington DC.  Houston is one of the most important ports by tonnage in the US. Dallas and Atlanta are major airports and internal distribution centers. Granted, the growth in all of these cities took place mostly after WWII, so necessarily their layout favors easy access by the automobile. You can call them ugly, and their spatial layout fragmented, but to deny their economic importance on account of their ugliness is just bizarre to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How did we veer off from high speed passenger rail to a discussion of commuter rail?  Despite both being rail, they are different beasts in terms of their economics and purpose.

[opebo]

My point was to counter your assertion that SJ and Houston serve no purpose other than as centers of growth. I'm not as familiar with San Jose, but I do know it became a center of the computing industry as a result of it once being a center of silicon chip manufacturing. Houston is a port, a refinery and energy center, and a medical research center. Not to mention, income has dropped in most cities, including those outside the Sun Belt. There are better examples of growth-for-growth-sake cities than these two.

Yeah, better cities are Jacksonville, Charlotte, and Phoenix.  There's nothing necessary about San Jose, the entire region held the industry it boasts.  Houston is one of many port cities, it's also not necessary.  That's not the only reason they're on the list either, by the way.  That's just the reason Atlanta and Los Angeles aren't on it.  And income drops and housing drops were heavily concentrated on these types of areas.

The highest-profit sector of the US economy is based in San Jose and suburbs. The same is true for the suburbs of Washington DC.  Houston is one of the most important ports by tonnage in the US. Dallas and Atlanta are major airports and internal distribution centers. Granted, the growth in all of these cities took place mostly after WWII, so necessarily their layout favors easy access by the automobile. You can call them ugly, and their spatial layout fragmented, but to deny their economic importance on account of their ugliness is just bizarre to me.

Its all just maggots on the corpse, guys, since about 1980.  Lots of 'growth' and moving around, but not the same thing as a Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, etc.

[Хahar 🤔]

Fezzy, San Jose isn't actually a city.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Unfortunately, the loss of rail in Wisconsin also means nothing can move forward in Minnesota since the point was to connect to Chicago via Madison and Milwaukee.

I guess we could just bypass Wisconsin and work something out with Iowa.  I think even Republicans in Iowa would be on board for a high speed train from MSP via Rochester into Illinois, where there is a real push for rail development.

Oberstar's loss in the 8th will likely can the MSP/Duluth rail corridor... but even I wouldn't call that corridor a 1st phase project.

With the GOP in control of the legislature here for the first time since legislative elections have been partisan.. you can bet they won't fund road and bridge repairs, let alone rail.  They'll continue to come up with "innovative" ways to fund piecemeal maintenance projects by asking contractors to front the money or repairing one lane at a time over several years or simply de-paving roads and returning them to unmaintained gravel/dirt.

And this will all drive business growth somehow.

No.. it will drive profit growth while driving overall business shrinkage and declining quality of life.  But then, Republicans haven't cared about silly concepts like quality of life for at least 15 years now.

[Sbane]

I live in a suburb, I'm around people all the time (though, mine is oldish, and the city council made a huge effort last year to revitalize our small Main st. with success. Plus, Boulder County has controlled growth).

Again, outside of sunbelt cities like LA, Phoenix, Houston, Jacksonville, etc. I don't see that as being true. Of course, I have a Colorado-centric view of these things.

In a sense you're totally right.  Denver and especially Boulder have handled their growth extremely well compared to the rest of the west.  Unfortunately, most people don't live in a place as conscience as Colorado is about its growth.  It's funny that you list those cities, because I have been touting a very similar list of the country's worst cities.  Mine are Charlotte, Jacksonville, Houston, Phoenix, and San Jose.  I give Atlanta and Los Angeles the benefit of the doubt because they at least have major business centers or a specialized purpose.  The others were and are blank, vapid, and woefully ill-prepared for growth.  They've also been hit exceptionally hard by the recession because they were in the extremely fickle business of growth.  They over-did it and now they're paying for their poor planning.  I don't see them having very bright futures beyond this recession unless big things change.

I don't necessarily disagree with you putting San Jose on the list (but why not put LA as well, SJ also has a downtown area with culture like LA does), but most of the things you wrote at the end of your paragraph don't relate to San Jose. San Jose grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s. It is not currently in the business of growth, like places in Nevada or Arizona (and there are similar places in California but no way is San Jose one of those).

And you exclude Atlanta because it is a major center of business, but you still include San Jose? Were you being serious there? San Jose (and surroundings) are much more important for business and contain way more headquarters for various high tech companies than San Francisco. If you are looking for a good job in the bay area, it's much more likely you will end up working near San Jose than in San Francisco.

There are also others on your list, like Houston and Charlotte, that have a good economic base and just aren't in the business of growing.

Edit: Just read the rest of the thread. While it is true that there isn't anything "necessary" about San Jose, it seems like you were putting down the economy of the region, when in reality it's stronger than most places in America. Same could be said of Houston and Dallas. Charlotte is a little down due to the banking crisis, but I have no doubts they will be an important city in the future. I can't say the same for Phoenix (it will be important, but will diminish in stature).

[memphis]

Unfortunately, the loss of rail in Wisconsin also means nothing can move forward in Minnesota since the point was to connect to Chicago via Madison and Milwaukee.

I guess we could just bypass Wisconsin and work something out with Iowa.  I think even Republicans in Iowa would be on board for a high speed train from MSP via Rochester into Illinois, where there is a real push for rail development.

Oberstar's loss in the 8th will likely can the MSP/Duluth rail corridor... but even I wouldn't call that corridor a 1st phase project.

With the GOP in control of the legislature here for the first time since legislative elections have been partisan.. you can bet they won't fund road and bridge repairs, let alone rail.  They'll continue to come up with "innovative" ways to fund piecemeal maintenance projects by asking contractors to front the money or repairing one lane at a time over several years or simply de-paving roads and returning them to unmaintained gravel/dirt.

And this will all drive business growth somehow.

No.. it will drive profit growth while driving overall business shrinkage and declining quality of life.  But then, Republicans haven't cared about silly concepts like quality of life for at least 15 years now.

AWESOME! More of this for Minnesota

[Badger]

FWIW, the public transit subway systems in NYC and Washington are both great. And considering that most people in this country will visit one or likely both--probably multiple times--for business or tourism, they truly benefit the entire country.

Deregulation would allow taxis--the primary alternative--to skyrocket in price.

[memphis]

FWIW, the public transit subway systems in NYC and Washington are both great.

Both great but so different Washington's is new and clean. New York's will get you anywhere you want, whenever you want.

[Torie]

I was a bit confused about Fezzy's comment that Houston is "not necessary." It is precisely where it is for a reason, and its port is essential, and there is no alternative. New Orleans ceased being viable as a mega sized ship port a long time ago, plus it has its issues.

LA isn't really a sprawl city these days. It is very densely packed, hemmed in by topography and the ocean. It just seems like sprawl because about 17 million people live on the hemmed in LA basin and neighboring valley floors.

[fezzyfestoon]

Oh yeah, for what it's worth in New Jersey, our representatives dropped the ball big time before Christie even cancelled it.  A rail project in Florida is being paid for only 20% by Florida taxpayers while our project was 70% paid for by New Jersey.  New York didn't help either.  So the planning was horrendous and there was no reason New Jersey should have had to pay that much more (as it always does) than anyone else would have.  I'm not happy it was cancelled, but I wasn't happy it was happening either.  It needs to be done and it needs to be done right.  So maybe that useless zombie Lautenberg will actually do something for the state he doesn't even live in sometime soon.