Orostan wrote:Holy Tedalonia wrote:It has one minor issue... requires railway. Something that is quite infrequent in the USA, save for some major railways. What’s frequent? The interstate state system.
What was the USA major roadways back to its founding? Roads, even with trains being the major thing in one point for the USA, it simply took to much time to construct. Imagine a massive interconnected system of railways the size of the interstate, and you can’t even decide where you want to go, a guy decides that for you. That’s the thing your proposing.
Uh no. How about the fact the USA is a freaking massive country. Suburbs didnt exist until the 60s, and yet the country barely “densified”.
Clearly you have yet to see most of the Midwest, but take Texas for instance. Texas can barely densify, as it suffers a issue that is similar to Florida. For one, we cant have basements, as the sand can damage the house due to tremors and shifts in the earth. Like wise building tall urban buildings require more money and investment then usual, as we need a deeper stronger foundation.
Take a look at Metropolitan area in Texas. It is literally suburban paradise, a place filled with suburbs, and imo very well planned out. Maryland and other eastern Americans settlements are inter tangling nightmares of infrastructure, but Texas has incredible highways and interstates.
I just cringed. Midwest + Railroads as a major tool of transportation is a nightmare.
Considering that you can just carve out a path and call it a road, no concrete involved, its pretty unnecessary to have massive roadwork, its just a convenience for people. You know what needs massive infrastructure? Railways. Not only that we would have to build more trains, but we also would have to build more stations which are considerable massive infrastructures, and more trains. Not to mention the fallout from making everybody stop driving, is going to be nightmare on railway, for the staff.
Uh how about no. We are not europe. We’ve built our entire nation around roadwork and changing that its infrastructure nightmare.
Are you promoting the idea to get rid of the #1 mode of transportation for the USA? Clearly you underestimate the large expanse of America. First off, we will no matter what have some suburban/rural areas, these if not a commonality will be around to succor the resources of the land that promote industry.
Furthermore, cities rely on the resources of the rural area. While the cities convert the resources into industrial goods, it is not self sufficient. What your proposing will very much make the USA less restrictive on corporate restrictions, simply because they will be not only more desperate at gathering those resources, but also see a no human population promotion to being less restrictive.
And yet you can’t admit its impracticality and sillyness. You acknowledge the difficulty and issues of the Midwest, but you scoff and say, “planning will get things down”. Your only a guy with a fantasy of train networks spanning from sea to shining see, with no real proposal for a solution. You acknowledge we aren’t a Japan or europe, but you don’t provide a alternative idea, or a adjustment to the “train plan” to better fit America’s needs rather then the simply densified city needs.
1) The interstate highway system is a highly inefficient mode of transport and a huge subsidy to the auto industry. Highways being everywhere isn't an argument anyways.
“Inefficient” I could say constructing railroads or bloody anything is inefficient. You just pick the least desirable feature of any bloody thing and point it out. Like applying railways, to apply a multi route railway system is quite inefficient, especially when considering you have to decide before hand where it go’s, which effects it’s determined use.
2) "a guy decides for you" - Do you know what a railway is? You get on a train, that train is going somewhere. You choose which train you get on. It's a transport network not a 'take me to a random place' system.
Whether you read this and just decided to avoid my point or put your head in the sand is beyond me, but you should know damn well what I meant. A train requires tracks to determine the route it go’s, constructing the roads can take years, thus a integrate system of railways stretching across the USA, is never going to work because you not only have to have to have a train station in every bloody city and town, but multiple for cities. Not to mention the lack of staff in said towns effecting the system.
I never once said that I supported Japan or Europe tier railway networks in the US, I said i supported the use of rail as the primary tool of transit planning.
Well, when your argueing for “for getting rid of its (private transportation) place at the center of American transportation.” its sounds like your suggesting something like japan or europe to base it upon. And hearing no alternative suggestions, you either have no idea how trains should be managed or are avoiding it feeling like its not worth consideration.
As I wrote this and read further into your post, I realized that your entire argument boils down to "CARS ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY EXIST NOW". Your entire post is a non-argument, and even blatantly false at some points like where you claim cars have little infrastructure cost
What is a road to you, or to anyone. A flat expanse of painted concrete. Pretty cheap and simple compared to making a thousand fucking stations and railways.
("what the fuck is a paved road").
Cute, putting my words out of context, and reconstructing them
You also claim I don't offer a solution other than 'trains', and then ignore what I said about towns and intercity travel. You ignored most of the substance of my argument.
If I recall, you suggested to construct stations at small tiny towns with a small population. Given that, that some populations are incredibly small, you might as well hire the entire town to run the station, otherwise it suffers from being understaffed and mismanaged. I ignored your point because it was bloody stupid, and was imagining a countrywide railway system, and how much of a nightmare that is.
On another note: I understand you can keep the roads, for those small towns, so that they can get to the city rather then deal with a understaffed train station, but that begs the question. If your goal is to cut back on the exspensive road system and save money, it begs the question “why pay for both a train system and road way?” I understand some incredibly large population cities need both as they are no alternative, but not every city fits that standard. Take Japan for example, who cracks down on private transportation for parking to long in one area at a time.
In summary, your post is not just garbage, it exemplifies what every garbage post strives to be.
I think I found the main point of the post, you don’t want to fucking debate, just critique my post, and focus on that then any of my fucking points really.
Christian Confederation wrote:You know if we deurbanized we would still have the tech and medicine we do today.
In my area you have the main city surrounded by towns and country. You can easily live in the country and get to work In the main city in half an hour via interstate, plus if you're seriously injured and the local hospital doesn't have the people or supply to help you can get a 15 minute helicopter ride to Jacksonville or 2 hrs to Atlanta.
But the interstate is inefficient, costly, and damaging to the environment.
Lmao, but the train network isn’t? While it isn’t as damaging to the as a road network, but I would argue its almost costly and in some fields inefficient. Inefficient because if the railway were to be damaged it would delay travel, costly because maintenance and pay of the train station. ANY mode of transportation, is exspensive regardless, some more then others, however the “But its costly” arguement doesnt work.
Helicopters are expensive and require their own infrastructure, and proposing helicopters and interstates as a de-urbanized society sounds like an idea that would make transit and living worse for everyone involved. Imagine the traffic that could be avoided, the cars that wouldn't have to be produced, and how much easier and more efficient it would be to just densify.
He wasn’t argueing for helicopters being a standard, moreso that he receives the same benefits as does those in the city. However you seem on a tangent of shitposting on every mode of transportation that isn’t trains.
