Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Will this area one day fill in and become more urbanized? Perhaps. But look at what's happened to cities like those I already mentioned when it does fill in as well as age: growth stagnates, property values decline. The growth and money instead flow to the outer suburbs.
So the argument is that we should subsidize this process because of the malign effects of this process?

There is nothing absurd about the cost of Philadelphia / NYC Amtrak monthly tickets: these ticket holders are taking up seats that could be sold to people taking individual trips, and an intercity rail service with no operating subsidies are just not going to offer cheap commuter tickets. Why would they? What is the appeal of serving fewer people at lower operating ratios or even operating losses?

You seem to be treating an Express HSR as eqivalent to a local commuter rail system in order to argue that instead of spending less money on providing intercity Express HSR capacity, we should spend more money on providing intercity road capacity. I don't follow the argument.

which part of the historical cases that you are referring to are pre-1920's and which are post-1920's? Just saying 'some kind of trunk transport corridor' when in fact the cross subsidies being drained from these places are for roadworks from the 1930's to the present is begging the question ~ you are assuming there would be no difference what kind of transport that might be, even though all of your evidence is drawn from only the one type, to argue that there is no difference.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not arguing for roadworks. If you go back to my original comment, I said that unless we change the way we regulate land use, then HSR will contribute to sprawl. Hamilton, NJ is a prime example of how this works. The state's desire for growth in that region was likely the sole reason for building this station in the first place. The growth they got was sprawl because there is nothing but local level laws governing development. It's still far too easy for a developer to scoop up farmland, go to the local zoning board and get them to approve a huge subdivision. The appeal is too great to ignore, the local politicians see real benefits (at least short term) with new jobs and increases in tax revenues. Until this formula changes, then this process will continue.

I'm assuming that in terms of development when you have autos as feeders, the mode or type of trunk makes no difference because, as evidenced by Hamilton, it doesn't make a difference. If somehow the state improved the highways to allow a similar door to door travel time improvement, then yes, you'd get the same result. That's typically why these projects are done in the first place.

Obviously the best thing for a railroad is to have every seat filled end to end each and every time. On certain corridors like NY-Washington you have enough demand to get that, but what about NY-Buffalo or pretty much any of the Chicago corridors? If the railroad has the ability to tap significant traffic along the way, it should and it will. In the US, one of the justifications given for HSR is that it expands the catchment area of a city. That is commuter traffic, not bridge or overhead traffic.

As for Amtrak, yes they're trying to maximize yield, but if they were to do this, every seat would be filled every time. From my own experiences on this line, this is definitely not the case. Their prices are causing commuters to drive from the Philadelphia area to Trenton or Hamilton to catch NJT while their own trains are running at less than capacity. That to me is less then optimal.

by Jace on Fri Jun 3rd, 2011 at 07:34:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hamilton NJ is an example of adding a commuter rail system to respond to the subsidized roadworks.

If you go back to my original comment, I said that unless we change the way we regulate land use, then HSR will contribute to sprawl.
Yes, you said it. The discussion is not whether you said it, but on whether its a warranted conclusion.

by contribute to sprawl, in this context, where we are talking about a choice between either express hsr and spending on roadworks and air transport, you are saying that there is more sprawl as a result of hsr than as a result of the alternative road and air infrastructure to provide the same transport capacity.

and your evidence is based on a park and ride station on a commuter rail line, which is to say, like looking at the impact of putting in an urban street to judge the impact of a new Interstate expressway.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jun 3rd, 2011 at 02:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: