Yule Heibel's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
It's obvious that without efforts at TOD (transit-oriented development) there is a danger of HSR (high speed rail) making sprawl more attractive. But if we get the development angle down right, there's no reason things couldn't turn out as they have in Europe, where HSR does *not* equal sprawl. Why should it do so in North America? Are we that stupid - or greedy? (Don't answer that...)
QUOTE
In theory (and hopefully in practice) the priorities of HSR in the U.S. are a wide mix of economic, environmental, and urban planning, goals. But some urban planners are arguing that an unintended consequence of actually building HSR lines could be a major step backwards in the notion of sustainable living.
(...SNIP...)
Granted, as Yonah Freemark points out, this foretelling of sprawl takeovers could be all speculation — there’s been no link established between existing HSR stations in France and Spain and an epidemic of suburban growth. Also there’s no evidence that the “commute from afar” attitude has been embraced en masse in the parts of the U.S. serviced by fast trains — how many people live in Philadelphia and take the Acela to New York City every day?
UNQUOTE
Bingo. Do TOD, plan better, and make living in cities attractive through amenities (including community).
Something to think about "out west," where existing public transit might be spotty, or where the only public transit is buses. Rail definitely makes sense for many people here. "Some cities with long-established public transit systems, like New York and Boston, have seen increases in ridership of 5 percent or more so far this year. But the biggest surges — of 10 to 15 percent or more over last year — are occurring in many metropolitan areas in the South and West where the driving culture is strongest and bus and rail lines are more limited."
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo
