What do you think of the Amerimutt race?
What do you think of the Amerimutt race?
Is the interchange supposed to be bad?
It's space inefficient.
And land, unlike some americans might tell you, is actually very valuable in america and as a result inefficient usage of land has significant economic implications.
Midwestern are nice people.
Their negroes are literally the worst in the world. Not even a competition.
America is a giant country with lots of land they don't care
Not related to all the soi walkable memes, but interchanges in the US make no fucking sense. They have exists ON THE LEFT. Driving there is already a fucking clown show where you have to take over some asshole hogging the left lane all the time, but this is just a cherry on top.
We have more land than we know what to do with. The overwhelming majority of this country is empty
your country is falling apart and you're posting nitpicks about american infrastructure on Anon Babble
American cities are build inefficiently on purpose so the gas companies and tire companies and car companies can profit out of them. To the American corporations, the American people are lower than cattle.
And yet housing costs a fortune despite the houses being cardboard pieces of shit.
Curious.
Billions and billions of USD that could be used on literally anything useful is spent on """housing"""
I genuinely cannot imagine being this retarded
source: my ass
It's space inefficient.
optimizing for space would reduce throughput, increase congestion, and increase driver stress. why in the absolute fuck would we do that?
Go pump some gas to calm you down.
The issue is that the best places to live are near cities and/or the coast. Most of the empty land is far away from cities with less opportunities. In the suburbs, building houses/apparentments need to be approved by the township they're in. In my state, New Jersey, we have a lot of pushback from residents against building new housing/apparentments because we're already a population dense state.
Imo the main problem is that they want to tear down Forests and wooded areas for the housing instead of abandoned buildings.
In a town near me, a mosque wanted to building apartments on their land behind the mosque and the townspeople rioted at the townhall to not approve it, citing that during prayer hours there's already too many cars parked on the road and they cause problems.
nobody lives in cities except for black people. "urban people" is literally a fucking racial slur here lmfao
Nta but the interchange in ops picture has roughly 1.3 trillion dollars in trade going through it every year.
It literally has to be that size and shape
Hundreds of billions in oil/gas ALONE flow through it on trucks and machines to work at refineries
You cannot replace it. Next up you'll pick out the cooling towers if nuclear plant and bitch about us wasting space with them
but its not small, thats more important
walkable petroleum logistics network
Lol. Yeah. I used to think it was ignorance, then trolling, now it's just anger
is roughly the size of this high way interchange in hilversum netherlands
True, but low density neighborhoods near the city center being artificially kept low density by zoning ordinances are worse for our land use than interchanges.
I hate the urban highways, but zoning reform is a better way to improve our land efficiency. Urban highways aren't going to go anywhere because the suburbanites would lobby against their removal, but its not like we're building new ones.
this doesn't look very urbanist or mixed-use or walkable to me
Giant highway interchanges in urban areas?
Ve don't do zat in Berlin, Germ-ACK
Yeah just taking a random interchange and comparing it with Europe is flawed.
But I think the point they were trying to get at is that we have more urban highways than most European cities do (though Asian cities also have lots of urban highways). My city basically has its downtown choked by a very tight highway ring, and the land the highway was build on is very valuable since dense development has formed everywhere outside it.
Berlin isn't really the example that urbanists hype up.
Its dense and has a nice subway system but it certainly has flaws from a pedestrian experience and lots of stroads. Its also a very multi-modal city.
Short answer is that it creates infrastructure that depends on collecting debt to maintain it. Imagine this:
one mile long road that leads to a commie block neighbourhood of 5000 people
The tax income from those 5000 people is enough to pay for all infra that leads out to it. The road, the power grid, the sewage, the bus station, etc. Maintenance is no problem.
one mile long road that leads out to a suburb of 40 households.
You see where i'm going with this. The whole of the US runs on credit. Their sprawling infra is another symptom of this
I mean he posted a random bumfuck Italian commune. How many towns with a population of 30,000 have a highway connection at all? Normally you have to drive 20 minutes down a collector to get to the arterial.
The experience greatly depends on the city, different cities have different needs, different geographical considerations, different histories. I live in a mid-sized city (one of the few that has miraculously avoided rotting out), and we have a single strip of highway that runs north to south. No interchanges, no awkward space interruptions. Plenty of exits. Works great, stays out of the way.
City is small enough you can walk across the whole "sprawl" in about 1.5 hours. I moved halfway across town and a walk to a large supermarket is still about 10 minutes. I have corner stores, bars and restaurants I can walk to in like 3 minutes. The smaller the city, the more walkable it is. Sometimes I drive out to a satellite small town and it's plainly clear that if I lived there I wouldn't even need a car (to survive, getting out of the place obviously requires wheels of somekind.) Meanwhile, I hate every minute whenever I visit Chicago, despite ostensibly being one of the few "walkable" cities in this country. Too dense, too busy, too noisy. It feels worse for both walking and driving.
This is actually why HOA's exist for single family homes.
The municipalities know the infrastructure for new subdivisions cost more than the property taxes they would collect from them, so they require an HOA to establish and pay for a lot of the infrastructure. Obviously not everything, but at least you only have to build the sewage to the subdivision and not to each house, since the HOA owns all the infrastructure/streets within the subdivision.
It'll be interesting to see how it holds up in the future however. I suspect some suburbs will do fine while others will faulter. That being said, financial crisis can also happen in dense cities, as it has in Chicago.
Siena
bumfuck
that place has more history than your entire country combined kek. Americans are so fucking retarded it’s not even funny.
The smaller the city, the more walkable it is
You might be in a walkable town but those are rare.
Much of the small cities in USA have very poor sidewalk connection and have most of the business in strip malls and big box stores on an arterial road rather than in downtown.
it's okay that my cardboard McMansion costs $ 2 000 000 because I make $80 000 sweeping the floors of the local car wash.
throughput
A city is supposed to be a city, not a motorway.
bumfuck Italian commune
How can Americans be so ignorant?
Siena is such a famous and important place in Italy that all over the world there is a pigment used by oil painters called Raw Siena and Burnt Siena, which used to be made from the rocks of the area.
not him but the modern city is just an economic contrivance
you think people live like canned fish by nature?
Thanks for explaining HOA's to me. They make sense to me now. You only ever hear about people complaining about them and make them sound like useless nonsense that isn't actually needed.
Do they recieve subsidies or something at least? Those can be very expensive maintenance procedures. Do they occationally just tell all homeowners that they all have to cough up 10k each to replace the underground power cables?
Those are completely ridiculous complaints by self centered capitalists who don't want their property prices to lower.
Central planning doesn't have this issue.
Look, an intelligent design where everyone has enough space to live and to live efficiently, everything you need from the grocery store to school to the hospital is a 10 minute walk away.
i'm maronite. do not fucking talk to me about history, little monkey, you have no idea what history is. you worship our god and give yourselves our names, and rightfully so. my natufian ancestors literally invented settlement. we have cities that have been continuously populated for longer than the indo-european language family has been in existence.
There it is placed intelligently in the forest/farmland far away from the city.
arap monke trying to be tough
Siena alone contributed more to civilization than the entire Levant
It has to be that big. If it's the one I'm thinking about trillions of dollars flow through it from refining equipment to chemicals to tankers
You just can't make it smaller with the amount of trade happening
There is more trade going through it than most controls on earth. Next you'll be bitching about airport runways being so big
Do some research before you post
Housing isn't expensive because we're running out of land.
Where is op placed?
america bad you stupid mutt *gets raped by muslim*
none of that changes the fact that it's a bumfuck commune. do you even know what "bumfuck" means?
Yes??
Most things natural are also efficient because waste and inefficiency die off while efficiency flourishes even in the desert.
Humans living close to each others in brotherhood and harmony is the most natural way. Loneliness is a modern invention and cruelty.
that's not a city
You only ever hear about people complaining about them and make them sound like useless nonsense that isn't actually needed.
Yeah, they're necessary. Its basically the same concept as the entity that controls a multi-family building with individually owned units but applied to single family home developments. Being taken over by petty tyrants is the fault of the homeowners for voting for them.
Do they recieve subsidies or something at least?
Not to my knowledge but could based on where it is, their finances rely on monthly dues. Some fail however then try to get governments to bail them out at varying degrees of success. My city is paying to 'adopt' roads that failed HOAs abandoned.
Do they occationally just tell all homeowners that they all have to cough up 10k each to replace the underground power cables?
Yes, people will commonly have to cough up money for infrastructure maintenance, including maintaining UG secondary lines. Its just like if you own an apartment and the roof needs replacement.
If the supply is there to meet the demand then why the rising price?
cities didn't even exist 10000 years ago. humans have been around for millions of years.
It is a natural way of living for human beings.
Because hedge funds using government loans buy up houses. Its created an artificial bubble that will pop again they'll be bailed out again.
They have exists ON THE LEFT
Is that the overtaking lane on roads in the USA? I'm assuming it is a mirrored version of roads in Australia, since we drive on the left hand side with the left lane typically being the "slow"/driving lane and the right the "fast"/overtaking lane. Highway turnoffs/exists here tend to be on the left hand side.
Don't worry, the next time you shitflinging monkeys burn your civilization to ashes, we'll lift you up out of the ignorance that follows, and without using the sword. Just as we did 3000 years ago. You are our burden in this life and the next.
And yet housing costs a fortune despite the houses being cardboard pieces of shit.
At least the Americans haven't reached the state of housing we have in Australia. New builds are pretty much what you've described but a quarter of the size and four times the price, kek.
and it's not a city.
ergo, cities are not a natural way to live.
but
It is a natural way of living for human beings.
there is nothing natural about settlement. humans are supposed to wander around aimlessly. you are not a plant.
Human beings are not meant to live on top of each other in pods. It drives our senses insane. We have way more senses than you'd believe not just sight smell hearing etc. so imagine living in a place where your body is being overloaded with data and constantly getting the wrong signals which are left overs from being apes.
Simply put you go insane. Nuerosis build and spread among the populations babies are born picking this shit up etc.
It's not natural or close. It is much more inefficient to live in cities but cities are necessary evil
No its not retard. Hedge funds don't buy that many houses, and the houses they do buy they rent out, so if your theory was accurate then we would be seeing rent declines.
Its because not enough is being built. Zoning and building code reform is necessary.
Yes, basically, they have exits on the fast lane.
snownigga...its Texas
i've seen maybe one of those in my life, and yeah they suck. you have them too.
A 700 square foot apartment is not a 'pod'.
Humans have lived in multi-family buildings throughout history, the modern ones are much nicer. What's unnatural is living somewhere that can only be accessed by automobile.
Its typically exits to another highway. They'll only have exits off the highway on the left if geography left no other option.
fingen
What's unnatural is living somewhere that can only be accessed by automobile.
you can walk anywhere. and people did. in the past it was very uncommon to live in cities.
people walked hours and hours by foot. at some point the rich used horses and carriages, but you were still travelling for hours.
Wtf. Southoids on suicide watch.
Human being didn't naturally have agriculture.
We're naturally meant to spend our lives frantically trying to gather/hunt enough to eat to have enough calories to survive while having severe nutrient deficiencies by modern standards. Havin access all the fruit, vegetables, and meat we want is not natural.
But, we decided to live better.
Just for starters a single company now owns 31% of all housing in Atlanta.
Hedge funds usually using banks buy up houses. They get loans like 1.01 from the fed, then sell the houses off at a 1.37 payback
They don't need to sell the houses to people because they know they will get bail out where the government will buy the "toxic assets"
Meaning they can't go out of business and it's in their best interests to buy up everything and work together with other hedges and banks which they do
Go watch The Big Short. Its happening again right now. Home prices will keep dropping for a little then crash. Right now they just started dipping. Its because no one can buy and regular home owners had to lower cost. Hedge funds and banks don't have to.
Eventually no one will be able to afford the houses or the mortgage and in comes the bail outs. No one including the hedge funds and banks. Because if they didn't get bail outs Everytime by Republicans they would have to fire sale everything then declare them be split up.
There are shortages of cheap houses in places people want to live yes but that's because not everyone can live in Malibu
700 square foot
You don't need that unless you have at least 2 children. It's space inefficient.
If you're single, you shouldn't be allowed to have an apartment larger than 200sqft and even then that's pretty luxurious.
A 10 floor commie block is nothing like humans ever lived in nature. That's retarded. That's enough for me.
Humans are not meant to live in bug hives. Look at the Chinese. 5'5 120 lbs is not a natural human sized man
They are fucking tiny for a reason
in the past it was very uncommon to live in cities.
Because they were working in agriculture, not because they wanted to live in a rural area. Today, less than 2% of the population needs to work in agriculture.
Also, the roads back then where you could walk on foot didn't have cars zooming by a 70 MPH. In much of the USA, you literally can't walk anywhere without going on a 55 MPH limit road that lacks sidewalks. Modern suburbs are very unnatural.
20 m^2
that’s like a prison cell
Northern Chinese are actually pretty tall, average height for men is 176 cm which isn't much less than USA. Southern Chinese are short because of genetics, not because they live in apartments.
But, we decided to live better.
except it's not better and history is one long regression as humans make our living standards more and more hostile. cities suck. being surrounded by concrete and glass fucking sucks. the odors of massed human waste sucks. being surrounded by people you don't know and have no attachment to sucks. for most of human history, it was unthinkable for a man to kill himself. now things are so bad that children are killing themselves. and it's universal to every urbanized so-called "civilization".
great fucking society you have here.
prisons are the most pedestrian-centric high population settlements in the world. they're a great model for a walkable city.
Housing costs a fortune because financial institutions view US property ownership as a speculative asset which is also tied to boomers 401k's. The land outside of the suburbs and city centers is cheap but not populated with a lack of infrastructure. Homesteading is still very much doable if you have some start up capital. Thinking of getting one of those low interest USDA loans just to raise rabbits and sell the meat.
evolutionism is retarded
kek
Hedge funds own less than 2% of single family homes.
If you're actually interested in making home prices cheaper, we need to enact zoning and building code reforms rather than engage in conspiratorial nonsense. Also, there's nothing wrong with investment firms buying single family homes, renting a single family home is an option Americans should have, for instance someone could rent a home in a better school district for a few years that they can't afford to own while their kid is in high school. There's nothing wrong with renting, if you're planning on staying somewhere less than 5 years its the better option.
Just for starters a single company now owns 31% of all housing in Atlanta.
Housing in America is very cheap for a rich country, what are you talking about
Even the most expensive places like SF barely reach something like Paris in prices and the average square meter is so much higher
rural areas have higher suicide rates and opioid abuse rates in the USA.
This is true. Bigger housing should be reserved for those who breed useful citizens.
they're as much a part of this retarded society as everyone else, what's your point?
stupid fat "people"
Apartment landlords aren't rent seekers. They add value because they pay money to developers which incentivizes them to build more. More housing is necessary for lower costs.
Land speculators who own a parking lot and are weight for it to appreciate so they can sell it to a developer are rent seekers, however.
Because pricing is not just about supply and demand. I have no idea where people get this idea from at this point
We actually are running out of land in desirable areas. You can buy a house in rural Nebraska for not very much, but not many people want to do that
Supply isn't meeting demand
It literally is.
Obviously there's a bunch of sub-factors to both supply and demand, the main ones being:
Supply: Influenced by construction costs (materials, building codes), zoning, land availability, other regulations, ability for banks to finance
Demand: Influenced by salaries, population, household size, age which people want to move away from parents, demand subsidies that we give out
why is the solution always murder with you people
we live under revolutionary governments now
how are you enjoying them
I don't like them
It literally is.
No, it is not. I think the main recurring problem is that you don't understand the definition of supply and demand. Supply and demand is not about number of units for sale and number of people who want to buy the units. Supply is the number of units the market is willing to provide (and this part is very important ->) for a given price. I'm sure there are a lot of people in the US who would be willing to buy a large mansion for 100 thousand dollars in Beverly Hills. But that does not mean that there is a 100 million person market for large mansions in Beverly Hills.
A lot of things determinate pricing but zoning is by far the least important
1. I don't think you read my post. 2. Zoning absolutely does have an effect on supply, especially in cities like San Francisco and New York.
Lets say there's on old house in a recently gentrified neighborhood that is absolutely going to be torn down by the developer. If zoning allows for it, the developer could put 4 townhomes on this lot and sell them for 600k each. But, if zoning doesn't allow for it, then they have to build 1 McMansion and sell it for 1.2M. In this case, the zoning cuts the supply by 3 units. Its of course not the only factor, but it is a factor, its less of a factor in sun belt cities that have land availability near the center, but still is a factor. In sun belt cities, financing is a major factor, since these cities can mostly meet the demand through infill development but are having a slowdown now due to financing problems. Parking minimums and building codes probably play a bigger role than simply what density is allowed.
But in cities like SF and NY where the demand is very high since people would migrate there from other parts of the country if they could afford it, zoning is a major factor. A condo building in either one would be very profitable for the developer if the city allowed it, the only reason it isn't being build is due to zoning.
Leftists think that murder is better than building more apartments
(population: 0)
There are probably some homeless encampments under those overpasses
why are americucks so disingenuous?
But in cities like SF and NY where the demand is very high
But the demand is not very high. The population in SF has barely changed in the past 15 years. The population of New York has decreased almost by a million in the past years. Using your argument the prices should have gone down in New York significantly. But that is not how it works.
condo building in either one would be very profitable
It would not be because land prices in densely populated areas are much higher and developers are interested in areas where they expect an increase in rent and condo prices. Real estate developers are trying to beat the market and they want higher returns than what they would get with a safe investment like government bonds.
8 billion people
8 billion people taking up room
Pay for more room... or...
Pay less to remove some members of an oversaturated species from an oversaturated ecosystem
It's simple economics.
Population doesn't necessarily equal demand. Salaries have an effect, and household size has an effect.
A big part of why the population of SF and NYC is stagnant is due to lack of construction, people move to cities where they can afford to live. If they built more, they would likely see higher population. NYC's population has not decreased by a million, its population is higher than it was in 2010.
It would not be because land prices in densely populated areas are much higher and developers are interested in areas where they expect an increase in rent and condo prices.
Higher land values means they get more rent. This is a good thing, since condos/apartments are an efficient use of space, so even though they're paying a lot of money for the land they're receiving it back in rent.
That's why the land values are high, because an apartment there would yield an owner a lot of money. If there was no demand to build there, the land value wouldn't be high.
Developers would absolutely build more in NYC if they could, because the rent is high enough that they would have a return on investment. They can't due to zoning.
you're polish
why are you pushing maoism
To elaborate a bit: think of housing as a financial instrument. That is how real estate developers look at it anyway. What they would look at is capitalization rate. Cap rate is basically the rental income (net, so after expenses) divided by the asset value.
en.wikipedia.org
It is generally a few percentages when it comes to freshly built real estate. So if we calculate with lets say 5% for an apartment that is estimated to worth 1 million dollars then the 5% cap rate means it is estimated to earn 50k a year in net income for the developer. This is not a really good investment so how can developers make good money out of this? Because the capitalization rate is calculated by dividing the value of the asset, what they hope for is an appreciation in value. That is what real estate developers are looking for. They build in an area where they are expecting large changes in asset value (not total value but the change) This idea is that real estate developers want to build things so their asset will depreciate in value is comically wrong and there is not a single real estate developer who thinks like this.
A big part of why the population of SF and NYC is stagnant is due to lack of construction, people move to cities where they can afford to live.
This is a myth. The average person leaving California has a much higher income than the average person moving in.
I also forgot to mention that SF and NYC's housing stock is extremely old.
A new apartment building would have very high rent there, much higher than their current median rent. Apartments are being built in Charlotte where they rent for slightly above 2k in the most desirable areas, the return on investment would be much higher in NYC with the same apartment, a new apartment would likely rent for 4k minimum. That should be a very profitable project for a developer.
There's no reason that developers are able to build high rise apartments in Charlotte but apparently can't in NYC where rents are even higher.
Real estate developers build apartments in sun belt cities that depreciate.
They're interested in immediate rental income so they can pay off their loan and make a profit. All apartments depreciate, both in NYC and in the sun belt cities. there's no reason they are able to build in one and not the other.
holy shit i recognize your flag and posts.
Why is someone in Hungary so interested in giving flawed rebuttals to YIMBY arguments on Anon Babble?
The amount of shit going through that is more than most countries. It's an artery of industry Houston is a port city. It has all these major spurs going directions. Trillions of dollars are directed and routed through it. A couple hundred million would starve if the city shut down. Billions of pounds of grain,corn soy, oil, gasoline, all go out to the world via Houston. It's a shit hole city because it's a giant trade terminal
So lets reserve these highways for freight traffic and make personal vehicles take other paths or pay a big toll.
Maximize efficiency for freight traffic, if they ever sit in congestion we're losing money and efficiency.
You still don't get it. It is about capitalization rate. Charlotte is extremely cheap to build compare to New York.
See my post above.
They're interested in immediate rental income so they can pay off their loan and make a profit.
No, they need to beat the market otherwise there would be no point of doing it. Housing is a financial instrument and they need to make more than what one can get from depositing their money or buying government bonds.
Because it is an annoying internet argument like many other. Have you noticed that people on the internet who talk about things never have any actual experience in it? It is some tiresome to see all this "influencer" grifting these days from people who don't understand the very basics of things they talk about.
Charlotte is extremely cheap to build compare to New York.
Cheaper, but not extremely cheaper (or at least shouldn't be). Materials and financing should be equal between the two. Labor and land will be higher in NYC, but you'd get 2-3 times more rent which would easily make up for it.
You're argument is just completely not based in reality. Developers are trying to build in SF, and they're getting getting rejected, SF and NYC both reject new housing developments regularly
No, they need to beat the market otherwise there would be no point of doing it
They don't need to "beat the market". They just need to make a profit. Most developers sell pretty soon after construction.
When then-Mayor London Breed signed legislation in 2022 to spur construction of small apartment buildings in San Francisco, prominent YIMBY activists warned it would result in very few new homes.
No buildings have been built as a result of the legislation, which allows fourplexes in every neighborhood with up to six units permitted on all corner lots.
The city has received only 11 applications under the law
At current construction costs, rental rates and single-family prices, financial feasibility … to develop triplexes and fourplexes is challenging,” the report said. A project in a middle-income neighborhood would have a $1.3 million gap between construction costs and market value, while one in areas such as Pacific Heights would be short about $5 million, according to the report.
sfchronicle.com
You have real estate developers coming out and saying I don't even going to bother with it, construction and borrowing costs are too high and it is not worth it. Then some online influencer activist on Twitter comes out and starts talking about supply and demand. So tiresome
Literal real estate developer company founder:
“To go into development in general right now is not happening for the most part,” Birmingham said. “It’s very, very expensive, and when you combine that with a lack of lenders and costs going through the roof, it just doesn’t make sense.”
Twitter activist inflooenceeer
DUDE THE SUPPLY DUDE THE SUPPLY AND DEMAAANNNDD DUUUDE
This can't be real when rent is so much lower overseas. Unless we're brought down by all the unsold property in shitty isolated dying small towns.
Developers are trying to build in SF, and they're getting getting rejected
You mean all 11? If developers were trying to build there you would see thousands of permit applications.
Did you read? The YIMBY activists that apparently make you mad literally said this wouldn't work, you even quoted it in the post.
Why would they spend money to apply for permits that they know would be rejected?
The problem is not permits getting rejected but no one submitting permits at all in the first place. You have the real estate developers on paper admitting that it is about the financial costs (not enough willing landers), construction and labour costs. Anyone who has dealt with real estate development knows that the biggest problem is the financial costs. But activists infloenceers grifting without any knowledge in the industry don't care about that at all. It is some magical zoning reform that keeps things from turning perfect overnight. It is like some neoliberal version of the commie utopia, we just need to do this one thing and we will reach it for sure. This whole yimby thing is a shameless grift where inflooenceers are trying to convince people they will be able to buy a beach front property in San Fran for 300k they just need to do this one more thing and the magic happens. Anyway I leave this thread since there is nothing to talk about at this point
So you want to build more roads. Okay. Personal cars can't take high ways so.. you need to build more roads.
SF passes extremely narrow reform that YIMBY activists all said wasn't going to do anything
Nothing happens, as YIMBY activists said
WAAAAAA YIMBYS ARE WRONG WE ALLOWED FOURPLEXES ON CORNER LOTS WITH EXCEPTIONS AND NO REFORM IN PERMITTING PROCESS AND IT DIDN'T DO ANYTHING AS YIMBYS SAID
As far as high speed rails.jusr connect Houston to Dallas would ruin a farmland area the size of Rhode Island and do God knows what else. Keep in mind every 5 years a bunch of tornados, or hurricanes, or ice blizzards will be hitting it. During a good day it will be blasted by 15 kph winds with temperature drops and rises around 10 c. Let's forget about floods, mini quakes, hail and wild fires
That's not going to work.
And knowing the insane weather with temperatures and rain and wind and earth quakes what exactly type of metal would you use. Can't use regular steel like train tracks. They constantly have to rebuild the normal one every section is checked every 36 months and even then they still have breaks and wear downs.
Cold formed steel would be your best bet given the speed of the train, weight and endurance needed. That's couple trillion. But okay let's do that
As far as high speed rails.jusr connect Houston to Dallas would ruin a farmland area the size of Rhode Island and do God knows what else
You're memeing right?
HSR right way is practically irrelevant in terms of how much farm land there is in the USA. Freight tracks, highways, and other roads also "ruin farmland", but we don't have a shortage of farmland in this country. I guess we can't have HSR because we have earthquakes, unlike Japan.
we have earthquakes, unlike Japan
most educated American
how can a people be THIS humorless
I literally gave you the amount of miles lost for just one hsr from Houston to Dallas. It's the size of Rhode Island. Not all land is equal. That's really good farmland. That's why people live in those areas.
Just for one line from two close together cities farmland the size of Rhode Island will be lost and keep in mind infrastructure was build up around the farm land.
That's just retarded. You can move people with planes through the air or use preeixsting roads
Luckily we don't have any shortage of farmland in this country. We can afford to lose a few Rhode Islands of farmland and not have any significant impact on grocery prices.
That's one of our greatest advantages of our country, we have a lot of land.
Why do you care?
I literally gave you the amount of miles lost for just one hsr from Houston to Dallas.
This isn't even remotely correct.
Route is 240 miles long, HSR right way would be ~600 feet wide. That comes out to 27 square miles. That is less than 2% of the area in Rhode Island.
We in the Americas have so much space that we don't know what to do with it. The europeans would send 100,000 people to their deaths for just a few square miles.
Train tracks are exceptionally resilient to pretty much all weather conditions, unlike highways.
Also Houston (and most other cities here) are designed around cars. Even if you invested heavily in rail there no one would take it.
americans really think they have it hard it's cute
Charlotte and Raleigh are both car-dependent metros and trains between them are successful. Obviously, the inter-city train line should be accompanied by dense infill development in the city center, and everyone advocating for inter-city transit also advocates for more infill development.
It doesn't have to capture everyone, but Dallas and Houston are both populous so there should be demand, and some people do go from the center of Dallas to the center of Houston.
Auto-taxis are the future, people will be taking inter-city trains then hopping on waymo at their destination.
Build for the future.
ah it's time for yuros living in cuckbox who have to hear ahmed and muhammed all day apartments to seethe about cars
we
kek blud really just tried this
Most of "your space" is literal rainforest and most of you people just live on the coast
Bazil big, us small
seething thirdie kek
Stop cheating with alaska
Stop cheating with the Amazon Rainforest
noo that doesn't count
cope and seethe thirdie
Amazonas has 5 times the population of Alaska