You’d need huge investment in high speed rail. Tokyo to Osaka is about the same distance as Chicago to Des Moines Iowa. 3hr train vs 5 hr car ride. We could do it… But the density of travel between those locations would make a project like that a very poor investment, so the government would have to pay the bill knowing it would be at a loss.
Then you build this rail.
That’s the easy part.
Now I have to convince Des Moines to invest in better bus systems or trolleys to get people around in the city and the outlying residential areas. This is where these projects fall flat. Getting local municipalities to invest in public transit. Hundred people get off in Des Moines and unless someone is there waiting for them or they have their bike or left their car there. They’re stranded.
Its not sexy. It won’t get you re elected. It won’t be done in your term.
I don’t think high speed rail is the issue here. We have a good network of airports, so I can get between major cities pretty easily. High speed rail is a good idea since it’ll cut down on emissions and costs longer term, but it’s not going to end car dependency.
What the US needs is a ground up commitment to improving transit. There are a lot of low cost ways to drive people toward transit, which means more political will to improve what we have. For example:
restrict roads that go through city centers - cars should be forced to go around on highways
switch intersections to be pedestrian-first - e.g. Dutch raised intersections
make dedicated bus lanes, and use techniques to encourage cars to use other routes
There are a ton of projects I’d love my region to do, but they’re of little value if people don’t use them. We need city planners to make an active effort to push cars out of the city.
ok maybe I don’t exactly understand but how would a car independent America be like since it’s so huge?
You’d need huge investment in high speed rail. Tokyo to Osaka is about the same distance as Chicago to Des Moines Iowa. 3hr train vs 5 hr car ride. We could do it… But the density of travel between those locations would make a project like that a very poor investment, so the government would have to pay the bill knowing it would be at a loss.
Then you build this rail.
That’s the easy part.
Now I have to convince Des Moines to invest in better bus systems or trolleys to get people around in the city and the outlying residential areas. This is where these projects fall flat. Getting local municipalities to invest in public transit. Hundred people get off in Des Moines and unless someone is there waiting for them or they have their bike or left their car there. They’re stranded.
Its not sexy. It won’t get you re elected. It won’t be done in your term.
I don’t think high speed rail is the issue here. We have a good network of airports, so I can get between major cities pretty easily. High speed rail is a good idea since it’ll cut down on emissions and costs longer term, but it’s not going to end car dependency.
What the US needs is a ground up commitment to improving transit. There are a lot of low cost ways to drive people toward transit, which means more political will to improve what we have. For example:
There are a ton of projects I’d love my region to do, but they’re of little value if people don’t use them. We need city planners to make an active effort to push cars out of the city.
Japan’s entire system is privatized no?
Moving walkways from sea to shining sea