The older cities are easy to figure out bit I am more curious about newer cities like Dallas, Houston, LA, Phoenix, and Denver, or any other city that matured when cars were dominate. The suburban sprawl would be totally different in Houston especially. Would cities be more like their older counterparts or would they develop a more unique decision with the improvement of rail technologies?
What would American cities look like if trains remained the main form transportaion?
- Thread starter VaultJumper
- Start date
I think there may be an attempt to promote greater disability inclusion, as many chair users or people with vision troubles, if not total blindness, cannot drive.
Well, it depends what kind of rail.
Places like Texas Triangle, LA and Phoenix are perfect for rapid S-Bahn like systems, so you would probably still see quite a bit of car reliance but also well-connected and distinctive walkable neighborhoods around main stations and less parking lots in the center city. Dallas in particular, with its light rail spine in downtown, could instead have an S-Bahn tunnel that makes the center city a thriving 24/7 community right on the Trinity. LA for it’s part with its climate and flat basin could well integrate bicycle infrastructure into its rail network and make those sprawling neighborhoods even denser
(Before the usual suspects start showing up....)
Look to the cities of the East Coast and Upper Midwest for the answer to this question, as they are the cities that were most developed during that era. Population densities would remain higher throughout urban areas. Suburbs would be "streetcar suburbs." As KingSweden said, there would be a mix of autos and denser suburbs and neighborhoods around systems similar to the S-Bahn. Retail and office spaces would remain concentrated in downtown areas and along main streets in outlying neighborhoods, with cores around transit stops. Inner-city neighborhoods would remain as blue-chip addresses, with less-desirable housing pushed to the outskirts: after the auto, inner cities tended to become run-down and suburban addresses became more expensive, but before the auto it was very much the other way around. Chains would exist but would be focused on being as close as they could to railroad and transit stations - which would effectively mean that they would be concentrated in the downtown areas, since that's where the main railroad station usually was.
(You'll notice I answered the question - what would American cities look like - not whether or not this is feasible.)
Look to the cities of the East Coast and Upper Midwest for the answer to this question, as they are the cities that were most developed during that era. Population densities would remain higher throughout urban areas. Suburbs would be "streetcar suburbs." As KingSweden said, there would be a mix of autos and denser suburbs and neighborhoods around systems similar to the S-Bahn. Retail and office spaces would remain concentrated in downtown areas and along main streets in outlying neighborhoods, with cores around transit stops. Inner-city neighborhoods would remain as blue-chip addresses, with less-desirable housing pushed to the outskirts: after the auto, inner cities tended to become run-down and suburban addresses became more expensive, but before the auto it was very much the other way around. Chains would exist but would be focused on being as close as they could to railroad and transit stations - which would effectively mean that they would be concentrated in the downtown areas, since that's where the main railroad station usually was.
(You'll notice I answered the question - what would American cities look like - not whether or not this is feasible.)
Disability inclusion is an area where the United States is far, far ahead of many European countries.
Generally, when you have cities built around rail transport, you get clusters of intensive development around stations, and very light development further out. Suburban sprawl isn't impossible with rail transport - look up Metro-land for instance - but will take very different forms. You'll likely have denser suburbs than OTL, some of them further out because commuter rail can manage higher speeds than a congested road. But you'll also have comparatively undeveloped areas closer into city centres, because they didn't get a rail service.
What you won't get to the same extent as OTL is 'ribbon' development, where homes and businesses are built along the length of rail lines. That's an artifact primarily of buses, and to a lesser extent of private cars. Rail-oriented development will be more akin to a 'string of pearls' along the rail lines, although local service buses radiating out from rail stations will bring in some ribbon development which may link up in areas.
With this development pattern, intercity rail is likely to be more successful, but only to a moderate extent. The geography of the US just doesn't allow for a country-spanning network to be economically viable, but regional ones are possible, and east of the Mississippi these may join up. Air travel will still be a big deal, but rail service between the main city centre interchange station the airport will be seen as essential - both for business and leisure travel.
You'll also find that circumferential travel is very difficult, because rail lines are built to connect suburbs to city centres. To get from one suburb to another nearby one, you'll either need to travel into the city centre and back out again, or else own a car. Which, because it isn't as essential, fewer people will. But, between the desire to make such journeys and the desire to travel outside the city, car ownership and usage will probably still be high. It is in most of Europe, after all, despite robust rail service. The difference is the extent to which they're used within cities.
If you are lucky
The Texas Triangle is slightly larger than England. With Far fewer people 20m vs 50 m so far less dense. So while you can get around by train and public transport quite easily., now try carrying a fridge home. London Underground has about half its funding from fares, 1500km2 area served roughly and just under 300m annual ridership and a population of 9.5m - and a lot more travelling in on a daily basis.
You are looking at superdense cities to make the transportation viable in any economic sense huddled in high rise premises around stations in walking distance or smaller communities out on the cheap land surrounding with very Nimby development plans and within a 20 minute walk ( thats 20 minutes for a moderately healthy person not carrying shopping. in practice it ends up as much less). of the station.
Its viable but also needs less dense employment space - so big population heavy factories or offices not a thing without very dense population centres close by and there all manner of issues then with pollution from the factories, collection and delivery of the products of the factories and disposal of waste prom processes.
If the start point is no cars to begin with or no affordable cars you jusy wont get Dallas Houston or LA in any recognisable form.
There are in Europe any number of models with smaller towns connected by rail but the first thing you have to build for the station is the parking space or both of journey time and cost go up as you have to be able to get to the station in the first place and walking more than about 20 minutes starts to get inconventient for too many people.
Thereis also a practical minimum density in order to make schools healthcare and so on viable.
The Texas Triangle is slightly larger than England. With Far fewer people 20m vs 50 m so far less dense. So while you can get around by train and public transport quite easily., now try carrying a fridge home. London Underground has about half its funding from fares, 1500km2 area served roughly and just under 300m annual ridership and a population of 9.5m - and a lot more travelling in on a daily basis.
You are looking at superdense cities to make the transportation viable in any economic sense huddled in high rise premises around stations in walking distance or smaller communities out on the cheap land surrounding with very Nimby development plans and within a 20 minute walk ( thats 20 minutes for a moderately healthy person not carrying shopping. in practice it ends up as much less). of the station.
Its viable but also needs less dense employment space - so big population heavy factories or offices not a thing without very dense population centres close by and there all manner of issues then with pollution from the factories, collection and delivery of the products of the factories and disposal of waste prom processes.
If the start point is no cars to begin with or no affordable cars you jusy wont get Dallas Houston or LA in any recognisable form.
There are in Europe any number of models with smaller towns connected by rail but the first thing you have to build for the station is the parking space or both of journey time and cost go up as you have to be able to get to the station in the first place and walking more than about 20 minutes starts to get inconventient for too many people.
Thereis also a practical minimum density in order to make schools healthcare and so on viable.
I could definitely see it going the same way as the American car culture has, oversized, expansive and isolating. The American solution to everything has often been to make more of it, which can work but often ends up looking like Katy Freeway. as the populations of these cities expand the rail lines would need to expand to make room for more trains which obviously means more tracks (overground of course, why dig a tunnel when you can just bulldoze a few houses). The lines would definitely be privately run, with corporations probably competing with each other on the same tracks for customers, think of some airports where individual companies have sections for themselves, here the companies have individual platforms. The rail companies would use any means to get people to buy tickets such as blocking construction of bridges across the tracks, even going as far as having two separate entrances to platforms for different sides.
As Joe Bonkers and KingSweden have said, cities would be dense around the stations yet isolated as tracks completely divide communities. The city planners would use these physical dividers to push racist agendas similar to how suburbs were disgustingly used to keep people physically segregated. The abundance of ready tracks and the facade of distance by the tracks, industry would be built much closer to residences and people would travel much further for work. There wouldn't be as much a city centre as areas built around central transit hubs .There would definitely be a conglomerate loyalty culture as people have connections to certain companies like Amtrak similar to loyalty to Ford or Cadillac.
Apologies for the negative take on it, i'm from Britain and we're not too keen on American city planning.
marathag
Banned
When my Grandma was still alive, she would come visit via the Chicago Great Western Train to Chicago's Union Station when I was living in Illinois.
She liked CGW better than Milwaukee Road or Rock Island, despite them having the smallest, most utilitarian trainset and slowest time.
POD would be no 1956 National Highway Act. With that said, it would be like 1930s-40s type of cities. Something seen in neo-noir films.
Thank you, friend, as a chair user, I recognise the Good status of the usa, but long for greater access improvements. Ironically my research has shown, aparthied south africa, went even further in the areas.
marathag
Banned
Would have to be WWI for the change, as that when the US had peak railroad track age. Even during the 1920s, Passenger was not making much money. Subsidized USPost contracts for moving mail around, that's where the profit was, and those contracts went away in the '50s, to the airlines.
so
so what would have to be done to make it at least partially feasible like what would the pod's be?
I think you’d see more “streetcar suburbs” and even commuter rail suburbs but I don’t know how much would change other than more commuter rails. Intercity rail isn’t going to really work in the big space from Chicago to Vegas. Commuter rail will be bigger in some places like the Colorado front range but honestly in the big interior I see rail primarily used for freight. Maybe you have a few lines to go coast to coast but that’s it.