Ideas For Better Communities

[Allan]

Why would people trade a 1.5 hour flight they can do today for a 3 hour train ride they can have in ten years, for 40 billion extra dollars?

A 1.5 hour flight is longer than a 3 hour train ride by the time you get out to the airport and go through the lineups (at least 4).

You just walk on to a train.

 

[Groogrux]

Yeah, that's how my wife's grandparents' neighborhood was.

Ever heard of cottage courts? Wish they were more common:

Where do families with more than one car park their additional vehicles?

 

[Metric Mouse]

A 1.5 hour flight is longer than a 3 hour train ride by the time you get out to the airport and go through the lineups (at least 4).

You just walk on to a train.

You walk onto a plane.

Even if it takes over an hour to line up and walk onto the plane, it's still faster.

And if it takes the same amount of time, all things being equal, it costs 40 billion more dollars to do the same thing? Or to maybe save twenty minutes, if the trains aren't late...

What is the point?

 

[BirdinHand]

I think a large part of our problem has been that we do not DESIGN communities.

They mostly just evolve - one housing development and shopping plaza permit at a time.

And we really do need to revisit that and be more purposeful about long term community planning, as a whole.

 

[Questerr]

Why would people trade a 1.5 hour flight they can do today for a 3 hour train ride they can have in ten years, for 40 billion extra dollars?

Less security theater, cheaper, and less damaging to the environment.

 

[BirdinHand]

Why would people trade a 1.5 hour flight they can do today for a 3 hour train ride they can have in ten years, for 40 billion extra dollars?

Cheaper?
More travel time options?
Less restrictive and better amenities - you can move about a train vs. having to stay within a seat on a plane…dining cars, sleeping cars, etc.
Less restrictions on what the can bring with them? You can bring an entire bag of snacks, drinks, etc for your family with kids - and not worry about it compared to air travel.
Ability to work while on a train without having to buy an inflight wifi package, etc?
You can take a train with your car and not have to rent a car at your destination?


Countless reasons why people use trains vs. flying.

 

[BirdinHand]

Even if it takes over an hour to line up and walk onto the plane, it's still faster

Maybe for you

For the family of 4 trying to go to Aunt Sally’s
House for the holidays…getting everyone through an airport and airport security, etc is WAY more cumbersome than boarding a train. And often WAY cheaper to take the train vs. flying.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Small towns can be better places by implementing good urbanism and land use policies too. Not every place needs to be Manhattan to have friendly public spaces, walkable neighborhoods, and inviting shops.

Yes small towns can also benefit from reduced car dependency.

 

[NatMorton]

You walk onto a plane.

Even if it takes over an hour to line up and walk onto the plane, it's still faster.

And if it takes the same amount of time, all things being equal, it costs 40 billion more dollars to do the same thing? Or to maybe save twenty minutes, if the trains aren't late...

What is the point?

FWIW, I have this choice often traveling between Boston and NYC. I can take a < 60 min flight or a 3 hour train ride. Generally speaking, the door-to-door commute with the flight gets me to my NYC destination about 30 mins earlier. If given any kind of choice, however, I always take the Acela. While a slightly longer duration, I am far more productive on the train as the amount of time that I'm standing in line, without internet access, or forbidden from using an internet-connected device is far less on the train.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I can't say I'm a big fan of that link that's pitching destroying capitalism or whatever. But America can learn a lot from the better proposals for good urbanism and land use, especially from Northern Europe and Japan.

Capitalism is on track of destroying itself. With both extreme inequality and environmental destruction.

Inequality has risen from 1970 to Trump − that has 3 hidden costs that undermine democracy

The Republican tax bill is set to worsen inequality, government data shows. It’s part of a 50-year trend that’s affecting the social fabric as well as the economy.

theconversation.com

So we need alternatives or else we risk ending up with dystopian autocracies controlled by the oligarchs. There many good visions and ideas already mention while one more is the doughnut model that focuses on both environmental and social sustainability.

How Amsterdam Uses the Doughnut Economics Model to Create a Balanced Strategy for Both the People and the Environment

Amsterdam announced a city-wide strategy based on the Doughnut Economics model, aiming to balance social needs with the imperative for climate action.

www.archdaily.com

 

[NatMorton]

Capitalism is on track of destroying itself. With both extreme inequality and environmental destruction.

Inequality has risen from 1970 to Trump − that has 3 hidden costs that undermine democracy

The Republican tax bill is set to worsen inequality, government data shows. It’s part of a 50-year trend that’s affecting the social fabric as well as the economy.

theconversation.com

So we need alternatives or else we risk ending up with dystopian autocracies controlled by the oligarchs. There many good visions and ideas already mention while one more is the doughnut model that focuses on both environmental and social sustainability.

How Amsterdam Uses the Doughnut Economics Model to Create a Balanced Strategy for Both the People and the Environment

Amsterdam announced a city-wide strategy based on the Doughnut Economics model, aiming to balance social needs with the imperative for climate action.

www.archdaily.com

Sorry to tell you, but you're being spun. The data those cites are relying on is household income and wealth data, and comparing household financial numbers between 1970 and today creates a very misleading story.

Starting in 1970, the Great Society programs were just getting off the ground, and the welfare safety net was far smaller. By way of an example, an unemployed mother in 1970 almost certainly lived with family or friends as there was simply no way to pay the rent; so she was never counted as a "household." Today, she could easily live on earn own with federal and state financial assistance. What this means is that there are millions of zero income households that exist today that never could have existed in 1970, and that makes both an income and a wealth comparison invalid.

Further exacerbating a wealth comparison his how retirement income is managed. In 1970, traditional pensions were still common, and the value of someone's pension is not treated as a financial asset (i.e., part of an individual's "wealth") in the way a 401k is. So take someone close to retirement age in 1970, and let's suppose they had $100k in savings and a pension that would give them $40k a year, and no other assets or debts. Their net worth would be $100k. Using constant dollars, take the same situation in 2025, a person with $100k in the bank and a 401k that would soon generate $40k a year in retirement. That 401k would need to be worth about $1m, so that individuals net worth is calculated at $1.1m, yet the 1970 person and the 2025 person are roughly equal when in their wealth.

It's important to understand the numbers and how they can be (and often are) misused.

 

[Metric Mouse]

FWIW, I have this choice often traveling between Boston and NYC. I can take a < 60 min flight or a 3 hour train ride. Generally speaking, the door-to-door commute with the flight gets me to my NYC destination about 30 mins earlier. If given any kind of choice, however, I always take the Acela. While a slightly longer duration, I am far more productive on the train as the amount of time that I'm standing in line, without internet access, or forbidden from using an internet-connected device is far less on the train.

You can see why people would not want to spend 40 billion dollars on this, as it's slower and reduces productivity by 30 minutes, per person.

 

[Sidd Finch]

Well, it's hard to take you seriously if you use terms like "your dear leader".

Is "Big Daddy" OK?

 

[Metric Mouse]

Maybe for you

For the family of 4 trying to go to Aunt Sally’s
House for the holidays…getting everyone through an airport and airport security, etc is WAY more cumbersome than boarding a train. And often WAY cheaper to take the train vs. flying.

Much faster and easier to drive as a family, for sure.

But as pointed out, it's not faster to take a train, at best it's break even; but it costs 40 billion dollars more.

 

[NatMorton]

You can see why people would not want to spend 40 billion dollars on this, as it's slower and reduces productivity by 30 minutes, per person.

No, you've got that wrong. Depending on what one does for a living, one is far more productive on a door-to-door train journey of 4 hours than a door-to-door flight journey of 3.5 hours.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Cheaper?

Not cheaper. 40 billion dollars more.

More travel time options?

Are there more trains than there are flights?

Is 40 billon dollars worth it so people have the option of flying or training at the specific 15 minute time frame they wish?
Seems selfish

You can take a train with your car and not have to rent a car at your destination?

You load your car onto a train?

And that takes less time than walking into a plane?

 

[Metric Mouse]

Less security theater, cheaper, and less damaging to the environment.

I'd be all for banning air travel based on the damage to the environment.

I have threads pointing out how awful it is.

But if the planes are going to fly anyway, why add to the environmental damage, plus spend 40 billion dollars, to add a train track?

 

[psikeyhackr]

How Corporate-Friendly Accounting Rules Create a $30 Trillion Transfer from Consumers into Wealthy Pockets - Chevan Nanayakkara

This essay reveals how accounting rules systematically block wealth-building for middle-class families while concentrating profits in wealthy pockets. When businesses depreciate equipment, they get tax benefits, but when your smartphone or car loses value through planned obsolescence, you get no...

chevan.info

 

[BirdinHand]

Not cheaper.

For the consumer - it most definitely can be.

40 billion dollars more.

$40B investment in infrastructure isn’t a bad thing.

Are there more trains than there are flights?

Depends

Is 40 billon dollars worth it so people have the option of flying or training at the specific 15 minute time frame they wish

Infrastructure investment is typically a very good thing

Seems selfish

Seems short sighted to oppose it

You load your car onto a train?

Yes, you can load your cars into certain trains.

And that takes less time than walking into a plane?

Flying isn’t really comparable to taking a plane.

Have you never taken a train?
Have you never flown?

Do you truly lack the ability to understand the value of both means of mass transit?

 

[Questerr]

I'd be all for banning air travel based on the damage to the environment.

I have threads pointing out how awful it is.

But if the planes are going to fly anyway, why add to the environmental damage, plus spend 40 billion dollars, to add a train track?

Who said anything about banning air travel? Why would planes be flying there anyways if more people are taking trains that flying?

 

[Michael Cole]

I think a large part of our problem has been that we do not DESIGN communities.

They mostly just evolve - one housing development and shopping plaza permit at a time.

And we really do need to revisit that and be more purposeful about long term community planning, as a whole.

Most cities have master plans. The Reno master plan was last approved in 2017 and runs for 20 years. The city of Sparks abandoned the 20 year master plan for a 10 year "comprehensive plan" in 2021. Carson City adopted an updated master plan earlier this year. The counties have their own master plans as do the few other incorporated cities and towns in the area.

Carson City is interesting. The population has been stagnant for ten years at about 60,000. Being the state capital, it exists independently of whatever may be around it, but practically, Carson resembles a suburb. No tall buildings, the "downtown" area is a small district containing the Capitol and other government buildings, and the residential neighborhoods are identical to those found in other suburban areas. Carson City is effectively a suburb of Reno as well as the state capital.

With that said, if you look up population density for Carson, you'll get about 400 per square mile. Sounds spread out. Very spread out. The reality is that about 80% of Carson City's land area is undevelopable. The developed area of Carson is the small, about five mile in diameter Eagle Valley. The valley has been built out for over a decade. Speculators have been building into the mountains, but there's not much relatively flat undeveloped land left.

What would planning such as that in the OP suggest for Carson? From the center of town, it's no more than 2 1/2 miles to anywhere else in town. The size of the city itself makes it somewhat walkable.

The City of Sparks is also suburban as are the surrounding unincorporated areas of Washoe County. The Tahoe Basin is uniquely protected, and the outskirt/bedroom communities are mixtures of suburban, exurban and rural areas. These communities have developed plans as their specific needs have arisen. Reno is the only city in Northern Nevada that can be called urban, in my opinion, and it has annexed so much land over the decades, you can find zoning for just about anything, from a downtown high-rise to horse property in the North Valleys.

The city has focused on a "live, work, play" paradigm for a long time. A few developers have taken the initiative, but many developments have been built with seemingly no foresight. The Five Ridges development will build-out to over 1,200 units, and right now, there is only one road going into the subdivision, and it enters/exits from a previously little-traveled two-lane artery that connects two previously little developed areas. How cities deal with growth, as I've seen here, is different than cities that are mature or declining, like Chicago when I left. Chicago has lost about 1,000,000 people since I left in 1978 and this area has tripled in size since then. Two different situations that require different strategies.

As well, and this is the biggest impediment to growth in Northern Nevada, the topography is rugged. Very rugged. These aren't the rolling Berkeley Hills. Over one million cubic yards of dirt had to be moved in preparing the Five Ridges development. 1,200 units of housing can be built on flat farmland without moving much dirt at all. This is expensive, and without demand, no developer will risk investment. As it's turning out, the homes can't be built fast enough. Demand is very high for housing in this area.

We could do better here with public transportation. I'm sure some officials would welcome building up, especially downtown, but I think the local governments have been proactive in planning. Things change, which makes 20 year plans amendable from the start, and it's when these changes occur without community input that troubles me. Currently, across all jurisdictions, public input is encouraged. The people are listened to. I'm not sure what can be done that would improve things. As long as we have a free economy and society, development will occur according to costs, demand and whatever incentives a government can provide.

 

[Metric Mouse]

For the consumer - it most definitely can be.o

For sure. Subsidies that hide the cost of carbon emissions will make consumers happy.

$40B investment in infrastructure isn’t a bad thing.

Trump and his coal investments agree with you.

Elon Musk and his Boring Company projects love your posts.

Infrastructure investment is typically a very good thing

Tesla thinks so. California and their high speed rail project thinks so...

How are either of those working out?

Yes, you can load your cars into certain trains.

For sure. You can load your cars onto certain planes...

Do you truly lack the ability to understand the value of both means of mass transit?

Both emit carbon levels that add to climate change, and one costs 40 billion more than the other... while only serving very few people. Could we just spend that 40 billion repaying student loans or feeding starving kids...

Instead it's just for rich, white Americans who want to take their kids far from their home.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Who said anything about banning air travel? Why would planes be flying there anyways if more people are taking trains that flying?

Ummm...

Planes still be flying. Trains exist, and planes still be in the air.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Can we have enduring communities while economists ignore Depreciation.

EIGHTY years since World War Two!
Fifty-Six yrs since Apollo 11!
We have come to THIS!



Turning the planet's natural resources into garbage for money while Economists ignore the Depreciation!
What is the NET Domestic Product?

 

[Questerr]

Ummm...

Planes still be flying. Trains exist, and planes still be in the air.

And in countries where high speed rail is available, those planes fly a lot less often.