One of the lead stories on national public radio news last week was a study for high speed rail between El Paso and Denver. What got our attention was not the study, but that it made the national news.
But in order to replace cars, trains don't have to serve every town. The NY Times reported (July 9, 2009) that two-thirds of the country lives in large metropolitan areas and even more importantly, "The 100 largest metropolitan areas also contribute three-quarters of the nation's economic activity..."
NineShift is suggesting that as soon as the Top 50 cities get connected with trains, game over. What do you predict?
High Speed rail in Oregon would be great - however, it is a bit of a catch 22 as when we run rail into rural areas then development follows - turning our quiet remote lifestyle into a more urban setting.
However, if we had high speed rail up the I-5 corridor the westcoast would be transformed - hopefully less smog...
Posted by: Kassia Dellabough | August 04, 2009 at 10:00 AM
If this theory of only connecting the major metro areas was in force for telephone, internet services, cable, and most everything else, what would the rest of the people do. Just think how many tons of concrete, electric wire, etc we would have saved if all roads and services stopped at the metro city limits. The idea of working passenger trains is great, the cost is prohibitive due to land cost. Additionally unless heavily subsidized tickets will also be more than the average person could regularly afford.
Posted by: Richard | July 28, 2009 at 03:45 PM
I hope the prophecies are wrong. I like in a rural area and probably drive a lot more than most metropolitan drivers because things are so spread out.
I would love to see hi-speed rail lines that connect more isolated areas to metropolitan areas. I currently live 2 hours outside Columbus and 4.5 hours from Cleveland. It would be great to pick up hi-speed rail to one of those places rather than having to drive there.
Connecting to rural areas would benefit everyone. People could live farther away from the city, but still work and play there and we would help the environment by having even fewer cars on the road. I can beleiev there will be 200 mile wide cities with such a scenario.
Posted by: Lisa Dael | July 28, 2009 at 03:28 PM
Only if the trains connect to local trains. Cities are huge; once you've arrived at the central station you might still have a long trip ahead of you if you don't have an efficient metro rail system. Which most U.S. cities don't.
Posted by: Stephen Downes | July 21, 2009 at 06:33 PM