Impact of Proposed high speed rail

[briansd1]

I actually think that Federal money should be spent on high speed rail in the North Eastern Corridor. The ridership is there so the service will make money.

Then when people see the results, places like So. Cal and Florida will want high speed rail too. But to make it viable, you need to change urban planning for density and ridership to be viable.

BTW, changing zoning density would be a boon to existing property owners because land prices will go up, especially closer to the urban core.

A downtown LA to Vegas line would work. People who fly would just take the train. The train could drop off tourists right by the freeway, behind the Strip.

BTW, Living in the city doesn’t necessarily mean living like sardines. Row houses in the city are nice and roomy.

[faterikcartman]

Well Brian, I have to thank you as you certainly go a long way to prove my point: they’ll come up with a way to regulate you and take more of your freedom away. In this case, Brian goes for regulating how and where you live.

Me, I see other people thinking they know better how people should live and coercing people to fit that vision and forcing other people to pay for it as oppression. Clearly there are many people who are willing to get in line to be fitted for their bit and bridle.

On the other hand, if people chose to freely live in high-density urban areas where mass transportation can generate enough business at a rate that pays for itself then I am certainly all for it. That shows the people, in general, really are all for it.

I remember reading once that much of San Diego’s light rail system is so underutilized it would be cheaper to run busses.

[faterikcartman]

Well Brian, I have to thank you as you certainly go a long way to prove my point: they’ll come up with a way to regulate you and take more of your freedom away. In this case, Brian goes for regulating how and where you live.

Me, I see other people thinking they know better how people should live and coercing people to fit that vision and forcing other people to pay for it as oppression. Clearly there are many people who are willing to get in line to be fitted for their bit and bridle.

On the other hand, if people chose to freely live in high-density urban areas where mass transportation can generate enough business at a rate that pays for itself then I am certainly all for it. That shows the people, in general, really are all for it.

I remember reading once that much of San Diego’s light rail system is so underutilized it would be cheaper to run busses.

[faterikcartman]

Well Brian, I have to thank you as you certainly go a long way to prove my point: they’ll come up with a way to regulate you and take more of your freedom away. In this case, Brian goes for regulating how and where you live.

Me, I see other people thinking they know better how people should live and coercing people to fit that vision and forcing other people to pay for it as oppression. Clearly there are many people who are willing to get in line to be fitted for their bit and bridle.

On the other hand, if people chose to freely live in high-density urban areas where mass transportation can generate enough business at a rate that pays for itself then I am certainly all for it. That shows the people, in general, really are all for it.

I remember reading once that much of San Diego’s light rail system is so underutilized it would be cheaper to run busses.

[faterikcartman]

Well Brian, I have to thank you as you certainly go a long way to prove my point: they’ll come up with a way to regulate you and take more of your freedom away. In this case, Brian goes for regulating how and where you live.

Me, I see other people thinking they know better how people should live and coercing people to fit that vision and forcing other people to pay for it as oppression. Clearly there are many people who are willing to get in line to be fitted for their bit and bridle.

On the other hand, if people chose to freely live in high-density urban areas where mass transportation can generate enough business at a rate that pays for itself then I am certainly all for it. That shows the people, in general, really are all for it.

I remember reading once that much of San Diego’s light rail system is so underutilized it would be cheaper to run busses.

[faterikcartman]

Well Brian, I have to thank you as you certainly go a long way to prove my point: they’ll come up with a way to regulate you and take more of your freedom away. In this case, Brian goes for regulating how and where you live.

Me, I see other people thinking they know better how people should live and coercing people to fit that vision and forcing other people to pay for it as oppression. Clearly there are many people who are willing to get in line to be fitted for their bit and bridle.

On the other hand, if people chose to freely live in high-density urban areas where mass transportation can generate enough business at a rate that pays for itself then I am certainly all for it. That shows the people, in general, really are all for it.

I remember reading once that much of San Diego’s light rail system is so underutilized it would be cheaper to run busses.

[briansd1]

faterikcartman, I don’t disagree with you.

Government planning is not all good. It can be the problem as far as urban planning is concerned.

Remember that the freeways (a product of the Federal government) are what makes the suburbs possible.

If we had much less government road building and subsidy for maintenance and repairs, we’d end up with cities like New York, Chicago, Hong Kong, London…

And if people could build up on their land (without government telling them they are height and square footage limited) and make money at it, they would.

If we could mix businesses and residences, landlords would happily do so.

So if we let landlords build dense developments (without telling them no), they would; and we would have the density that’s required for public transport, all organically.

[briansd1]

faterikcartman, I don’t disagree with you.

Government planning is not all good. It can be the problem as far as urban planning is concerned.

Remember that the freeways (a product of the Federal government) are what makes the suburbs possible.

If we had much less government road building and subsidy for maintenance and repairs, we’d end up with cities like New York, Chicago, Hong Kong, London…

And if people could build up on their land (without government telling them they are height and square footage limited) and make money at it, they would.

If we could mix businesses and residences, landlords would happily do so.

So if we let landlords build dense developments (without telling them no), they would; and we would have the density that’s required for public transport, all organically.

[briansd1]

faterikcartman, I don’t disagree with you.

Government planning is not all good. It can be the problem as far as urban planning is concerned.

Remember that the freeways (a product of the Federal government) are what makes the suburbs possible.

If we had much less government road building and subsidy for maintenance and repairs, we’d end up with cities like New York, Chicago, Hong Kong, London…

And if people could build up on their land (without government telling them they are height and square footage limited) and make money at it, they would.

If we could mix businesses and residences, landlords would happily do so.

So if we let landlords build dense developments (without telling them no), they would; and we would have the density that’s required for public transport, all organically.

[briansd1]

faterikcartman, I don’t disagree with you.

Government planning is not all good. It can be the problem as far as urban planning is concerned.

Remember that the freeways (a product of the Federal government) are what makes the suburbs possible.

If we had much less government road building and subsidy for maintenance and repairs, we’d end up with cities like New York, Chicago, Hong Kong, London…

And if people could build up on their land (without government telling them they are height and square footage limited) and make money at it, they would.

If we could mix businesses and residences, landlords would happily do so.

So if we let landlords build dense developments (without telling them no), they would; and we would have the density that’s required for public transport, all organically.

[briansd1]

faterikcartman, I don’t disagree with you.

Government planning is not all good. It can be the problem as far as urban planning is concerned.

Remember that the freeways (a product of the Federal government) are what makes the suburbs possible.

If we had much less government road building and subsidy for maintenance and repairs, we’d end up with cities like New York, Chicago, Hong Kong, London…

And if people could build up on their land (without government telling them they are height and square footage limited) and make money at it, they would.

If we could mix businesses and residences, landlords would happily do so.

So if we let landlords build dense developments (without telling them no), they would; and we would have the density that’s required for public transport, all organically.

[Jazzman]

It’s going to cost more that they think. Railways always do. The financial model won’t work because commuters won’t be prepared to pay the price of a ticket to make it financially viable, so it will need to be subsidized by the tax payer. You will have a free market vs socialized transportation debate, that will ultimately become shaped by necessity, rather that keeping up with the Chinese. A big problem is CA cities are not designed around a public transportation system. You may be better off working with what you’ve got and improving upon it. Would it impact cities, real estate. You bet!

[Jazzman]

It’s going to cost more that they think. Railways always do. The financial model won’t work because commuters won’t be prepared to pay the price of a ticket to make it financially viable, so it will need to be subsidized by the tax payer. You will have a free market vs socialized transportation debate, that will ultimately become shaped by necessity, rather that keeping up with the Chinese. A big problem is CA cities are not designed around a public transportation system. You may be better off working with what you’ve got and improving upon it. Would it impact cities, real estate. You bet!

[Jazzman]

It’s going to cost more that they think. Railways always do. The financial model won’t work because commuters won’t be prepared to pay the price of a ticket to make it financially viable, so it will need to be subsidized by the tax payer. You will have a free market vs socialized transportation debate, that will ultimately become shaped by necessity, rather that keeping up with the Chinese. A big problem is CA cities are not designed around a public transportation system. You may be better off working with what you’ve got and improving upon it. Would it impact cities, real estate. You bet!

[Jazzman]

It’s going to cost more that they think. Railways always do. The financial model won’t work because commuters won’t be prepared to pay the price of a ticket to make it financially viable, so it will need to be subsidized by the tax payer. You will have a free market vs socialized transportation debate, that will ultimately become shaped by necessity, rather that keeping up with the Chinese. A big problem is CA cities are not designed around a public transportation system. You may be better off working with what you’ve got and improving upon it. Would it impact cities, real estate. You bet!

[Author]

Posts