New Build Corridors and land Development

What are the groups thoughts on a national transportation policy promoting the use of new build rail corridors to jump outside of the multiple interstate ring roads, opening up residential land for development. I am talking about areas 40-60 miles out connected to a ring around the city core that connected hospitals, airports, and employment centers. The resulting stubs would serve as the urban connectors for intercity HSR with a design speed of 125 mph.

The key would for the land to either be held in an option by developers who would finance a portion of the rail project or to have the land taxed based on the improvements. The new development would not pay all the costs but would link the two uses together.

If this promotes more sprawl as we've seen in the past 50 years I am 100% opposed.

VikingNik wrote:If this promotes more sprawl as we've seen in the past 50 years I am 100% opposed.

I assume you live in an apartment building downtown. If not, remember that when you point a finger at someone, you have three fingers pointing at yourself.

I'm 100% in favor of rail-centric development. Call it "sprawl" if you want, but if it gets more people riding trains, I want it.

I do not live in an apartment downtown. However, there is a difference between autocentric sprawl and rail commuter towns. Do you not look around at what has been built up in the past few decades and not for the most part get disgusted? You live in a car, don't interact with anyone, there is no sense of community, you can't walk anywhere, etc. No thanks. Far out suburbs are in big trouble as is with fuel prices going in the direction that they are. Just wait a few years and you won't have to pave over what little open space is left as they'll be happy to sell to anyone.

VikingNik wrote:I do not live in an apartment downtown.

I see. And you want us to take your criticism of sprawl seriously?

Do you not look around at what has been built up in the past few decades and not for the most part get disgusted?

Not really. Trolleys started sprawl, and I like trolleys, so I can't criticize sprawl.

Nice selective use of quotes there. I find it funny that I am quibbling with someone who lives in a small town in the middle of what is surely a lovely nowhere (if your location is truly Potsdam). Move to Atlanta or any city that grew any in the past 50 years and you would actually know what sprawl is. Trolley induced 'sprawl' is a different and benign and welcome beast as it concentrates development along certain corridors. I recommend reading "Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream" to understand what I am against.

I would agree that most voters are not going to vote for another massive expansion of residential areas built according to the current cul-de-sac to arterial to collector to highway to interstate to highway to collector to 3 acre parking lot arrangement that has you making three left turns at 120 second light cycles just to go right 1/2 mile as the crow flies but no road runs.

I am suggesting that there can be a proper funnel for the voter's misgivings over sprawl. To an extent light rail in the suburban mode is partially supported by voters (IMHO) as they are looking for something better on the town planning scale. But might that something better be "commuter railroad" towns along a new build trunk line that would someday form links into the greater urban areas for HSR?

It could fit within the federal transportation subsidy program as it would generate large number of revenue passenger miles per vehicle with nearly the same capital cost as light rail. IMHO some of the light rail lines in Dallas built on former railroad lines should have been kept as FRA <125 mph railroad lines to act as future intercity rail passenger corridors and simple EMU's used for rolling stock.

But since the political flavor of the day will be public private partnerships the act of land development would be able to generate the local match. Most of the rail projects in the last 60 years, since the expansion of federal subsidies to highways, have not had a private residential new development component as is common in Japan.

The resulting stubs would serve as the urban connectors for intercity HSR with a design speed of 125 mph

That's not HSR. That's commuter rail.

VikingNik wrote:or any city that grew any in the past 50 years and you would actually know what sprawl is.

Born and raised on Long Island. I think I know sprawl.

LIE, NSP, SSP, Belt Parkway, Van Wyck…sprawl galore. Can't blame the LIRR.

Long Island is certainly the orignator of sprawl thanks to Moses, but you are limited on all sides by water. A city like Atlanta or DC can push in all directions without any hard boundaries.

you are limited on all sides by water

I wasn't aware that Suffolk County had sunk into the Atlantic Ocean...?