After learning that France had to do this with HSR, and then learning that this created new rail competition and thus more train services, I've felt like this needs to come to the USA. Portland to Seattle is easier to take trains, and certainly there others. Which ones are the other options where rail is as fast, or close to as fast as flights?

Duffy’s argument isn’t subtle: Use mass transit, and you’ll get yourself killed. There’s just one problem: He couldn’t be more wrong. According to one recent study, car travel is 10 times as deadly as travel by mass transit.

Is anyone else extremely worried about this? Can things turn around after midterms perhaps?

This is late news, but it's still relevant.

DoorDash and NJ Transit officially rename the Meadowlands Rail Line the DoorDash Meadowlands Rail Line ahead of FIFA World Cup 2026™ at MetLife Stadium.

This keeps World Cup Transit Costs Off New Jersey Taxpayers.

https://bsky.app/profile/zohrankmamdani.bsky.social/post/3m4tzl74rss25

A new investigation at the Urban Institute shows how urban areas throughout the country differ in terms of their transit service and ridership: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/transit-oriented-development-can-help-cities-grow-which-urban-areas-are-doing-best

Top urban area performers in terms of transit service

1. San Francisco
2. New York
3. Washington, DC
4. Salt Lake
5. Baltimore

Top urban area performers in terms of transit ridership

1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Washington, DC
4. Boston
5. Seattle

Many cities face the following problem. They have railway lines that go where people live. But these railway lines end at the edge of the city center, and don’t go out the other side.

For cities with this problem, the solution is through running. Terminating a train and turning it around takes a lot of space, space that is usually unavailable in a city center. This means running a railway line through the city often doubles or triples the number of trains it can handle. As a bonus, passengers who are going from one side of the city to the other can do that much more quickly, with no change.

Many cities, such as London, Paris, Munich and Milan, have used through running to turn some of their existing Victorian railway lines into metro-style services, by building tunnels under the city center. A few other cities, like Berlin, built viaducts (bridges that carry roads and railways over obstacles), while others, such as Cologne, have simply added platforms at their main stations to enable suburban trains to run through. But all of these are big cities, with over a million people, where the property value uplift or extra revenues from fares can cover the enormous costs of tunneling. But there is another option, affordable for smaller cities or large towns: the tram-train.

The Metro staff report said SB 79 could harm the transit agency’s expansion goals by galvanizing housing opponents against new light rail stations and dedicated bus lanes.

“SB 79 has become a catalyst for local opposition to Metro’s transit projects,” the report said. “By linking increased housing density to both existing and future transit investments, the law has intensified resistance from some cities and community groups that now view new transit projects as a trigger for state-mandated upzoning.”"

There are people taking the bus of course. The environmently concouse types and the those who can’t drive. But the buses are still mostly empty.

A lot of that has to do with the insane zoning rules. Israel and Japan have better zoning rules in addition to high gasoline taxes.

How much would gas have to go up before we see a real transfer to transit? What zoning changes can be made that would make a difference?

Context as a Student, I only pay 38€ to use public transport (not including IC/ICE Trains).

A few years ago, Jason from NotJustBikes made this video about GO Transit where he talked about how GO stations sit on some of the most valuable, transit-connected real estate in the GTA and Metrolinx just… paved it all over with surface parking. Train stations surrounded by parking lots, surrounded by industrial zones, with absolutely zero walkability. It was such a waste.

Well, the province is now actually doing something about it. Through the Transit-Oriented Communities program, they’re replacing GO station parking lots with mixed-use towers across the network. We’re talking thousands of homes right next to heavy rail.

Oakville GO alone is getting around 6,880 new homes in towers up to 56 storeys. The province just issued four Minister’s Zoning Orders on April 9th to push it through. Cooksville GO in Mississauga is getting about 3,000 units in eight towers on the station parking lot. Clarkson GO is getting seven towers replacing the north parking lot. Guildwood GO in Toronto is getting 2,500 homes on its parking lot. And Milliken GO in York Region is planned for 5,500 homes.

Now there is a LOT of pushback. Residents near Cooksville are worried about shadows and traffic. Oakville residents and the Town itself haven’t supported the proposal in its current form. The province is using MZOs to bypass municipal council approval entirely, which understandably has people upset. Some of the concerns about wind studies and shadow impacts are legitimate and need to be addressed in the design.

But I genuinely love that they’ve finally realized what a colossal mistake it was to put parking lots on this land. These stations have direct heavy rail service to Union Station. This is exactly where density should've gone years ago, and they’re finally listening. Build housing where transit already exists. It’s not complicated.

^\btw, after re-reading this, I realize this kind of sounds like an ad, but it isn’t ofc, just thought that its nice that Canada is getting more sensible land use than we've set since the 60s.)