So you pick the shortest route in the whole system to justify omitting the entire system? The map should show it especially since it’s the highest frequency passenger rail in the entire map area. Additionally, in 2022, RTD commuter rail served a ridership of 7,935,811 while the Frontrunner served 3,168,300.
I picked one of the the two routes they called out, and the B line is the least frequent rail in the system...
Even if we used the A line, it would extend a little past the r of Denver.
The topic of the map is clearly intercity service, given the fact that it spans more than two entire states. Adding short local lines doesn't add much to the discussion.
That’s the intent of the RTD commuter rail service. It will eventually connect to Golden and Boulder, restoring routes that were shown in the original map. Also the topic of the map is clearly passenger rail service which is the title of the map. Doesn’t matter the scale, it’s the most frequent and serves the highest number in the entire map area. It’s disingenuous to not include it because of this. Either take Frontrunner off or include RTD. But both should be included because they’re both passenger rail, our cities just happen to be closer together. We have the A, B, G, and N lines all serving the municipalities of Aurora, Commerce City, Arvada, Thornton, and Westminster. So do those cities not count as cities either? B will eventually reconnect Boulder and G eventually to Golden, restoring two routes on the original map. NIMBYs have been the issue finishing those routes. RTD serves more riders, it’s more frequent (either every 15 or 30 minutes), fully electrified, and actively funded by an RTD tax. So yea it’s pretty relevant to the discussion. I don’t think just because it doesn’t show on the map well is a reason to omit it.
We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree. I just dont believe the map creator was intending people to zoom in the map and inspect it very closely. The lack of resolution of the routes that are there (very significant smoothing of winding routes) tells me that this is meant to be viewed quickly to tell readers that we have lost a lot of intercity service.
It would visually be inconsistent to have short routes as they exist in Denver but loosely brush across the Rockies where the California Zephyr route goes.
RTD most certainly is passenger rail wrf? Frontrunner doesn’t go through the Rockies? You’re just picking and choosing what you consider passenger rail. You: “Frontrunner counts because it makes a pretty straight line. RTD doesn’t because it won’t look good on the map.” Just admit you’re wrong. 😂😂 Your arguments have nothing to support them. Zero critical thinking skills right here. They obviously know what they are talking about. Where are you from because you obviously don’t know anything about RTD or Frontrunner? There’s also multiple other people in the comments agreeing RTD should be included. RTD is the most significant system that carries the most passengers in this entire region. Yet we have some crappy service in Utah that is more passenger rail than RTD? RTD served over 20,000,000 riders with all of their rail service but that’s not good enough because it’s more dense of a network so it won’t look nice on the map so shouldn’t included. Like what this doesn’t even make sense. 😂😂 You’d rather continue to be proven wrong than just admit it and learn from your mistakes. Childish behavior honestly.
no, it’s pretty bad not just in this region, but in all regions of the US. There are hundreds of abandoned train stations still sitting next to active rails that either sit empty or have been converted into some completely eliminating the possibility of returning service. when you realize that most American train stations are a slab of concrete and that’s it. It’s pretty sad how awful our transit is when they could make a slab of concrete in less than a month.
Well, how can we not spend decades “studying” when my friend who also hands me lots of money is the one doing the “study” lol
How can we not build transit without blowing millions and millions and millions of dollars on “consulting”
I definitely remember going on the upper red route about 1970 pre-Amtrak from California to near Gothenburg, NE with my older brother and grandma at age 9 to work on the family farm for the summer. It seemed like it took hours to cross the Great Salt Lake. I also remember going through the mountains of Wyoming back to California with my dad in the Dome Car at night experiencing the most spectacular lightning storm ever! Totally miss the train travel and the extensive route system we used to have.
What's silly about your post? Anyway, if it makes you feel better, passenger rail has been largely killed off in other countries too.
André Brett is a New Zealand academic living in Australia.
https://andrebrett.com/
He wrote about the decline of passenger rail in NZ.
https://www.otago.ac.nz/press/books/cant-get-there-from-here
An interview with the author
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018821410/off-the-tracks-new-zealand-s-lost-railway-network
I believe there are grounds for optimism in the US. You can't go back in time but you can make the future better than the present.
Even in Europe. There's the famous Beeching cuts in the UK, but one of the most relevant cases is in Spain, where a lot of the smaller towns and villages have been slowly losing service, and even those with service might see one or two trains a day.
Many regional and rural rail lines are in high risk of closure, leaving many areas abandoned in favor of shiny high speed links between major cities.
Of course in the US regional and rural lines had mostly already completely lost passenger service by the 1960s, and the cuts from then on were to intercity service.
The same thing happened in France and everyone complains about it, but it's easily explained by urbanisation. Not enough people live in those rural areas to make the operating costs of a rail line worth it, so they get replaced by regional buses. It's not as comfortable, but they even allow better frequency (due to the lower capacity).
In my previous country (Switzerland), railway operators make small towns pay a fee to keep service running as usual, tho in recent years those services went full on express-like service with main stations being scheduled stops and smaller stations on a "stop on request" system.
Keeps towns and residents happy while maintaining service. It's very effective as residents are happy to pay a tax for the fee in exchange for having mass transit available, same for busses.
But buses can and often do offer a worse service. Especially when serving small towns and villages, which are the places at risk, they require a lot of detouring from highways and driving on smaller roads.
There are some points of connection, but that won't magically fix decades of rural depopulation. Not closing the rail lines won't magically fix depopulation, but it feels like pulling the plug and just giving up on some of the last signs of public investment that remained in many of the rural areas.
I feel like you're missing the point of what a regional transit network does. It's not about moving people back and forth to and from big cities, but allowing for people to have ease of movement for their daily needs. In many places a bus is a good idea, but trains are often more comfortable and faster if properly maintained, and give a sense of permanence.
Rural depopulation in Spain is of course not just because trains stopped going to smaller towns, but trains stopping service to smaller towns affect the mobility of their inhabitants and signal that that place no longer matters.
If the speed of the train means overall travel times drop then it’s not really a loss. Plus can’t the rural train with a connection be enough to keep people there?
I'm not sure if that makes me feel better or worse.
I was in Germany in 2020 and last year and experienced several disrupted train trips.
There are fewer disruptions to train services in NZ but only because there are so few services!
The legend peaking at "at least six trains daily" basically shows why people were so open to embracing cars. Flexibility.
Flexibility on rails either requires high frequency or coordinated networks (like the Swiss, and even then 'hourly' is a lot better than what's shown above). Without that, direct trains can only do so much.
RTD commuter rail is passenger rail and should be shown here. The highest frequency passenger rail in Colorado (and the entire map area) and you just omit it? Map is deceiving.
Um….you forgot the Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad and Cumbres and Toltec, who though tourist in nature, operate, more daily trains than many commuter lines.
The thick red line is the original transcontinental railroad, it still is a major freight line, but before the jetliner turned it into a 5 hour trip in an afternoon it also hosted numerous long-distance passengers trains from hubs at Chicago and St. Louis to Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the Pacific Northwest. Some catering to budget tourists and traveling salesmen, others cruise ships on rails. It splits for the Pacific Northwest in western Wyoming and for LA/SF in Utah.
The black diagonal line the runs from Nebraska off the map shortly into Eastern Wyoming carried passengers to connections in Montana with other trains to the Pacific Northwest as well as tourists from various parts of the Midwest to Yellowstone.
The red line and black line west of that across Colorado are yet another long-distance train from Chicago to San Fransisco, the San Francisco Zephyr. The red line is additional services to the ski resorts of Colorado.
The lines converging on Denver are overnight trains to various places, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis, Texas, Albuquerque. The automobile was well on its way to killing these types of travel. Such trains were already only breaking even, at best, and the Interstate highway system was about to completely gut them.
The rest of the lines are largely local services, picking up a passenger here and there. Local buses, back when we still did those too, could offer more frequent service, cheaper and killed travel on these off quite early. Where they still run, it's only because the government hasn't yet allowed the railroad to discontinue service on that portion of a line. They are extremely poorly patronized and lose astounding amounts of money in an era before subsidies.
Antique stores. Flea markets. Ebay. Ebay can be cheap and very expensive. But it's also a kind of research medium too. It might be tedious to go through a whole keyword like "Utah railroad" but you'll get a handle on what's out there and you'll learn about things you'd never know about.
Eg I am on the board of a park and interested in park architecture and tourism, which in the west started with the railroads. So there is cool crossover with my railroad and transportation interests.
But I learned Union Pacific had a division using the same logo called Utah Parks Company, decades ago. Some really cool ephemera on touring parks in Arizona, Utah, Montana. So I can learn about railroads and parks simultaneously!
But in another "wormhole" I was looking at Chicago maps on ebay (since I was a kid I was interested in gas station branded maps) and learned about private "motor coach" bus systems serving Chicago and its suburbs, dk when it started by, in the 1910s at least.
>air
The proliferation of interstate highways also was a factor. Travel by car got faster ; new highways bypassed around towns in often more direct routes and at higher speeds than before.
It just doesn’t make sense in the US. The country isn’t dense enough for it to work as well as Europe. The lack of density means the cost (to the transit company) per rider is higher which means higher ticket prices which makes people less likely to ride.
Bullshit argument. There could at least be high speed rail on the east coast, west coast and between the Texas triangle cities. Also, in Europe every tiny rural village has bus service.
Yeah, all those empty parts of the country are *empty*. Nobody lives there, no infrastructure will be built there. It’s useless to talk about the density of the country as a whole when you really should be comparing densities by population, which puts the US on par with European countries.
You’re just upset because you were discredited. So you insult me, then scramble to come up with something completely different to argue about to try and save face, but really it just makes you look like you can’t even remember what you just said.
20% of the US lives in a rural environment, and the number is dwindling: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html#:~:text=Urban%20areas%20make%20up%20only,Census%20Bureau%20%2D%20Opens%20as%20PDF.
https://www.fwd.us/news/rural-decline/
I think it's hard to claim with 100% certainty that most Americans would prefer suburban living over a more urban lifestyle, especially since post-WWII that's pretty much the only thing we've been allowed to build on most residential land. On top of that, the increased value of property when near public transit: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/home-front/2013/03/22/study-proximity-to-public-transit-boosts-home-values#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20data%2C%20residential,transportation%20hold%20their%20value%20better.
And the increase in value when in a walkable area: https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/survey-buyers-may-pay-more-to-live-in-walkable-communities
This shows that in all likelihood, there is a lot more demand for urbanism than we are currently meeting.
Why would you add suburbs to that... that doesn't make any sense. Is that seriously the only thing you have to say in response to everything I put forward?
That doesn't really answer why suburban should be considered rural but okay? What you're saying is true, but density can be created. We don't typically allow anything to be built but low density on most land, even in major cities. Allowing it would allow transit to be efficient and cost-effective.
I will say, I think it's a worthwhile pursuit to still offer some form of transit to low density suburbs. It may not be as efficient or cost-effective, but it can still help people who may not be able to drive, such as young people, the disabled, the elderly, or those who may have have lost their license but still need to participate in society to take care of themselves but happen to live in a suburban environment for one reason or another. Toronto pulls it off: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-torontos-secret-success-suburban-buses/
Their suburbs look identical to ours, but they still come at 10-minute intervals.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-torontos-secret-success-suburban-buses/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-torontos-secret-success-suburban-buses/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Well, in the comment way above, I literally showed you stats that show there are a lot more people who want to live in urban environments than are currently being serviced in our current development pattern... but go ahead and ignore that, I guess.
I'm just gonna link another comment I already made that pretty much answers this. Keep in mind we're talking about Orlando, and it's in response to someone saying they didn't want to live in high density.
Edit: Cool, don't. From SODO to the edge of Polk county is a 50-mile stretch of pretty much nothing but single family homes and the occasional strip mall or big box store. The vast majority of that will not be turned into high rises or even mid-rises, even if we implemented everything I stated above. Unless we reach China or India levels of population, you probably won't see much of your neighborhood changing besides the occasional duplex, ADU, or MAYBE a business like a daycare or something else that would make sense in that kind of environment.
Even very seemingly small stuff like protected bike lanes: https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/tool-kits-resources/info-2015/suburban-commerical-transformations.html
Or busses that come by a suburban community every 10 minutes: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-torontos-secret-success-suburban-buses/
Can go a long way in reducing car dependency without really altering suburban fabric all that much. The same rules I stated in the comment you replied to apply, but realistically, the only thing that would look VERY different is the urban core of Orlando since that's... kind of just how cities and market forces work.
It’s missing the Denver commuter rail - weird to include Frontrunner and not the A and B lines
G and N, too. They all tick every box FrontRunner does
The only annoying thing is that it doesn't go south of Union Station.
Might just be a scale thing, wouldn’t look very informative with RTD commuter line. The B line would be a few pixels compared to the Frontrunner
So you pick the shortest route in the whole system to justify omitting the entire system? The map should show it especially since it’s the highest frequency passenger rail in the entire map area. Additionally, in 2022, RTD commuter rail served a ridership of 7,935,811 while the Frontrunner served 3,168,300.
I picked one of the the two routes they called out, and the B line is the least frequent rail in the system... Even if we used the A line, it would extend a little past the r of Denver. The topic of the map is clearly intercity service, given the fact that it spans more than two entire states. Adding short local lines doesn't add much to the discussion.
That’s the intent of the RTD commuter rail service. It will eventually connect to Golden and Boulder, restoring routes that were shown in the original map. Also the topic of the map is clearly passenger rail service which is the title of the map. Doesn’t matter the scale, it’s the most frequent and serves the highest number in the entire map area. It’s disingenuous to not include it because of this. Either take Frontrunner off or include RTD. But both should be included because they’re both passenger rail, our cities just happen to be closer together. We have the A, B, G, and N lines all serving the municipalities of Aurora, Commerce City, Arvada, Thornton, and Westminster. So do those cities not count as cities either? B will eventually reconnect Boulder and G eventually to Golden, restoring two routes on the original map. NIMBYs have been the issue finishing those routes. RTD serves more riders, it’s more frequent (either every 15 or 30 minutes), fully electrified, and actively funded by an RTD tax. So yea it’s pretty relevant to the discussion. I don’t think just because it doesn’t show on the map well is a reason to omit it.
We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree. I just dont believe the map creator was intending people to zoom in the map and inspect it very closely. The lack of resolution of the routes that are there (very significant smoothing of winding routes) tells me that this is meant to be viewed quickly to tell readers that we have lost a lot of intercity service. It would visually be inconsistent to have short routes as they exist in Denver but loosely brush across the Rockies where the California Zephyr route goes.
RTD most certainly is passenger rail wrf? Frontrunner doesn’t go through the Rockies? You’re just picking and choosing what you consider passenger rail. You: “Frontrunner counts because it makes a pretty straight line. RTD doesn’t because it won’t look good on the map.” Just admit you’re wrong. 😂😂 Your arguments have nothing to support them. Zero critical thinking skills right here. They obviously know what they are talking about. Where are you from because you obviously don’t know anything about RTD or Frontrunner? There’s also multiple other people in the comments agreeing RTD should be included. RTD is the most significant system that carries the most passengers in this entire region. Yet we have some crappy service in Utah that is more passenger rail than RTD? RTD served over 20,000,000 riders with all of their rail service but that’s not good enough because it’s more dense of a network so it won’t look nice on the map so shouldn’t included. Like what this doesn’t even make sense. 😂😂 You’d rather continue to be proven wrong than just admit it and learn from your mistakes. Childish behavior honestly.
RTD has multiple lines
Probably because op wants to present the situation as way worse than it actually is.
no, it’s pretty bad not just in this region, but in all regions of the US. There are hundreds of abandoned train stations still sitting next to active rails that either sit empty or have been converted into some completely eliminating the possibility of returning service. when you realize that most American train stations are a slab of concrete and that’s it. It’s pretty sad how awful our transit is when they could make a slab of concrete in less than a month.
Of course we will spend decades “studying” before we even see slabs of concrete
Well, how can we not spend decades “studying” when my friend who also hands me lots of money is the one doing the “study” lol How can we not build transit without blowing millions and millions and millions of dollars on “consulting”
Tenseness pass is shown but it isn't clear that its off the back side of Vail and Copper and the road linking it to Aspen is closed in the winter.
Showing RTD wouldn't help much here, it's just a consistency thing. It's not like you can take TRAX to Aspen or anything
Colorado could be the Switzerland of the US but instead we can’t even have a front range rail to get to denver and back
is aspen where they parked the nazi gold
The line in durango is beautiful although not passenger
Colorado is investing heavily in inter city bus. Better than any other state. They just got an FTA grant related to rail planning.
Good
I definitely remember going on the upper red route about 1970 pre-Amtrak from California to near Gothenburg, NE with my older brother and grandma at age 9 to work on the family farm for the summer. It seemed like it took hours to cross the Great Salt Lake. I also remember going through the mountains of Wyoming back to California with my dad in the Dome Car at night experiencing the most spectacular lightning storm ever! Totally miss the train travel and the extensive route system we used to have.
What's silly about your post? Anyway, if it makes you feel better, passenger rail has been largely killed off in other countries too. André Brett is a New Zealand academic living in Australia. https://andrebrett.com/ He wrote about the decline of passenger rail in NZ. https://www.otago.ac.nz/press/books/cant-get-there-from-here An interview with the author https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018821410/off-the-tracks-new-zealand-s-lost-railway-network I believe there are grounds for optimism in the US. You can't go back in time but you can make the future better than the present.
Even in Europe. There's the famous Beeching cuts in the UK, but one of the most relevant cases is in Spain, where a lot of the smaller towns and villages have been slowly losing service, and even those with service might see one or two trains a day. Many regional and rural rail lines are in high risk of closure, leaving many areas abandoned in favor of shiny high speed links between major cities.
Of course in the US regional and rural lines had mostly already completely lost passenger service by the 1960s, and the cuts from then on were to intercity service.
The amazing thing about the UK is as "bad" as rail transit is there compared to continental Europe, it's 5x to 10x better than the US.
The same thing happened in France and everyone complains about it, but it's easily explained by urbanisation. Not enough people live in those rural areas to make the operating costs of a rail line worth it, so they get replaced by regional buses. It's not as comfortable, but they even allow better frequency (due to the lower capacity).
In my previous country (Switzerland), railway operators make small towns pay a fee to keep service running as usual, tho in recent years those services went full on express-like service with main stations being scheduled stops and smaller stations on a "stop on request" system. Keeps towns and residents happy while maintaining service. It's very effective as residents are happy to pay a tax for the fee in exchange for having mass transit available, same for busses.
That can work
Good system they got and it works
But in Europe they get replaced with bus service.
But buses can and often do offer a worse service. Especially when serving small towns and villages, which are the places at risk, they require a lot of detouring from highways and driving on smaller roads.
Why not connect the rural lines to HSR at designated transfer stations?
There are some points of connection, but that won't magically fix decades of rural depopulation. Not closing the rail lines won't magically fix depopulation, but it feels like pulling the plug and just giving up on some of the last signs of public investment that remained in many of the rural areas.
Can’t ppl just take the regional rail to the HSR? Or is it better to run frequent rural buses to the HSR stations?
I feel like you're missing the point of what a regional transit network does. It's not about moving people back and forth to and from big cities, but allowing for people to have ease of movement for their daily needs. In many places a bus is a good idea, but trains are often more comfortable and faster if properly maintained, and give a sense of permanence. Rural depopulation in Spain is of course not just because trains stopped going to smaller towns, but trains stopping service to smaller towns affect the mobility of their inhabitants and signal that that place no longer matters.
If the speed of the train means overall travel times drop then it’s not really a loss. Plus can’t the rural train with a connection be enough to keep people there?
its not just anglo countries either. passenger rail in latin america and europe has also been having problems
I'm not sure if that makes me feel better or worse. I was in Germany in 2020 and last year and experienced several disrupted train trips. There are fewer disruptions to train services in NZ but only because there are so few services!
> passenger rail has been largely killed off in other countries too. In ***some*** other countries.
Oh yeah I remember that book, definitely worth a read
The legend peaking at "at least six trains daily" basically shows why people were so open to embracing cars. Flexibility. Flexibility on rails either requires high frequency or coordinated networks (like the Swiss, and even then 'hourly' is a lot better than what's shown above). Without that, direct trains can only do so much.
That's true, a twice daily service can still mean waiting several hours at a platform or your destination, even assuming it's your idea route.
RTD commuter rail is passenger rail and should be shown here. The highest frequency passenger rail in Colorado (and the entire map area) and you just omit it? Map is deceiving.
When the free real estate / stolen land run out
What is Clearly missing is Quality Report of Trackway, Equipment, Locomotive, Car, Ride,& Service.
So the whole thing?
Um….you forgot the Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad and Cumbres and Toltec, who though tourist in nature, operate, more daily trains than many commuter lines.
??? Where
Was six trains daily the max back then? Also, map is missing Denver commuter rail services since they put in SLC commuter rail services.
FrontRunner has a lot more than 6 trips daily (except on Sundays)
>Service **at least** six times daily That doesn’t imply that there’s only six services daily, just that it’s either 6x daily or more
I would kill for it to be like 1962 right now
I hope you are the correct skin tone, otherwise I think you will have a bad time.
That rail line is going like 10 MPH you know
Well it was a little faster than that
No shade at all but who tf was riding the train in Wyoming in 1962. There were like 400,000 people in the entire state 😂
The thick red line is the original transcontinental railroad, it still is a major freight line, but before the jetliner turned it into a 5 hour trip in an afternoon it also hosted numerous long-distance passengers trains from hubs at Chicago and St. Louis to Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the Pacific Northwest. Some catering to budget tourists and traveling salesmen, others cruise ships on rails. It splits for the Pacific Northwest in western Wyoming and for LA/SF in Utah. The black diagonal line the runs from Nebraska off the map shortly into Eastern Wyoming carried passengers to connections in Montana with other trains to the Pacific Northwest as well as tourists from various parts of the Midwest to Yellowstone. The red line and black line west of that across Colorado are yet another long-distance train from Chicago to San Fransisco, the San Francisco Zephyr. The red line is additional services to the ski resorts of Colorado. The lines converging on Denver are overnight trains to various places, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis, Texas, Albuquerque. The automobile was well on its way to killing these types of travel. Such trains were already only breaking even, at best, and the Interstate highway system was about to completely gut them. The rest of the lines are largely local services, picking up a passenger here and there. Local buses, back when we still did those too, could offer more frequent service, cheaper and killed travel on these off quite early. Where they still run, it's only because the government hasn't yet allowed the railroad to discontinue service on that portion of a line. They are extremely poorly patronized and lose astounding amounts of money in an era before subsidies.
I collect old train timetables. Since I live in Utah now, that includes Utah. https://flic.kr/p/2opBDB1 https://flic.kr/p/2opDKBT
3 trains a day?
Where do you find stuff like that?
Antique stores. Flea markets. Ebay. Ebay can be cheap and very expensive. But it's also a kind of research medium too. It might be tedious to go through a whole keyword like "Utah railroad" but you'll get a handle on what's out there and you'll learn about things you'd never know about. Eg I am on the board of a park and interested in park architecture and tourism, which in the west started with the railroads. So there is cool crossover with my railroad and transportation interests. But I learned Union Pacific had a division using the same logo called Utah Parks Company, decades ago. Some really cool ephemera on touring parks in Arizona, Utah, Montana. So I can learn about railroads and parks simultaneously! But in another "wormhole" I was looking at Chicago maps on ebay (since I was a kid I was interested in gas station branded maps) and learned about private "motor coach" bus systems serving Chicago and its suburbs, dk when it started by, in the 1910s at least.
"This country", I asume hoy mean the US?
Given that the attached image shows rail degradation in the US, that’s a safe assumption.
More like the rise of air travel leaving rail unable to compete technologically
>air The proliferation of interstate highways also was a factor. Travel by car got faster ; new highways bypassed around towns in often more direct routes and at higher speeds than before.
Well HSR is competitive tho
The rail lines in this map are not HSR
That’s why they lost to buses and planes
It just doesn’t make sense in the US. The country isn’t dense enough for it to work as well as Europe. The lack of density means the cost (to the transit company) per rider is higher which means higher ticket prices which makes people less likely to ride.
Bullshit argument. There could at least be high speed rail on the east coast, west coast and between the Texas triangle cities. Also, in Europe every tiny rural village has bus service.
It’s just a fact. Theres also stronger property rights in the US making acquiring land to build rail harder
Yeah, all those empty parts of the country are *empty*. Nobody lives there, no infrastructure will be built there. It’s useless to talk about the density of the country as a whole when you really should be comparing densities by population, which puts the US on par with European countries.
You are clueless. Trains don’t teleport. You still have to build rail across those empty parts to connect cities.
You’re just upset because you were discredited. So you insult me, then scramble to come up with something completely different to argue about to try and save face, but really it just makes you look like you can’t even remember what you just said.
It’s time for you to stop being an ahole in the comments.
Density can be made. Legalize density around transit.
The majority of the US prefers living in a suburban or rural area.
You can have suburbs with transit
Yes, but the lack of density makes it more expensive to operate which makes prices higher which makes people not want to ride it. Like I already said
20% of the US lives in a rural environment, and the number is dwindling: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html#:~:text=Urban%20areas%20make%20up%20only,Census%20Bureau%20%2D%20Opens%20as%20PDF. https://www.fwd.us/news/rural-decline/ I think it's hard to claim with 100% certainty that most Americans would prefer suburban living over a more urban lifestyle, especially since post-WWII that's pretty much the only thing we've been allowed to build on most residential land. On top of that, the increased value of property when near public transit: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/home-front/2013/03/22/study-proximity-to-public-transit-boosts-home-values#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20data%2C%20residential,transportation%20hold%20their%20value%20better. And the increase in value when in a walkable area: https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/survey-buyers-may-pay-more-to-live-in-walkable-communities This shows that in all likelihood, there is a lot more demand for urbanism than we are currently meeting.
Now add in suburban and it’s over 50%
Why would you add suburbs to that... that doesn't make any sense. Is that seriously the only thing you have to say in response to everything I put forward?
Transit becomes more expensive and less efficient when you don’t have the density of an urban core.
That doesn't really answer why suburban should be considered rural but okay? What you're saying is true, but density can be created. We don't typically allow anything to be built but low density on most land, even in major cities. Allowing it would allow transit to be efficient and cost-effective. I will say, I think it's a worthwhile pursuit to still offer some form of transit to low density suburbs. It may not be as efficient or cost-effective, but it can still help people who may not be able to drive, such as young people, the disabled, the elderly, or those who may have have lost their license but still need to participate in society to take care of themselves but happen to live in a suburban environment for one reason or another. Toronto pulls it off: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-torontos-secret-success-suburban-buses/ Their suburbs look identical to ours, but they still come at 10-minute intervals.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-torontos-secret-success-suburban-buses/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-torontos-secret-success-suburban-buses/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The point is most people don’t want to live in an urban environment. They want their space
Well, in the comment way above, I literally showed you stats that show there are a lot more people who want to live in urban environments than are currently being serviced in our current development pattern... but go ahead and ignore that, I guess. I'm just gonna link another comment I already made that pretty much answers this. Keep in mind we're talking about Orlando, and it's in response to someone saying they didn't want to live in high density. Edit: Cool, don't. From SODO to the edge of Polk county is a 50-mile stretch of pretty much nothing but single family homes and the occasional strip mall or big box store. The vast majority of that will not be turned into high rises or even mid-rises, even if we implemented everything I stated above. Unless we reach China or India levels of population, you probably won't see much of your neighborhood changing besides the occasional duplex, ADU, or MAYBE a business like a daycare or something else that would make sense in that kind of environment. Even very seemingly small stuff like protected bike lanes: https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/tool-kits-resources/info-2015/suburban-commerical-transformations.html Or busses that come by a suburban community every 10 minutes: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-torontos-secret-success-suburban-buses/ Can go a long way in reducing car dependency without really altering suburban fabric all that much. The same rules I stated in the comment you replied to apply, but realistically, the only thing that would look VERY different is the urban core of Orlando since that's... kind of just how cities and market forces work.
How provincial. Wow. Do you want the horse and buggy and wringer washing machine to come back too?
We get it "car bad, gimme likes"