“railroading in the 1890s would see several east-west and north-south main lines in operation including no less than five routes connecting” the west coast with the midwest and the deep south, american rails reports. but by the early 1920s, several issues pressed on rail as a mode of transportation: the monopolies created by railroad owners, heavy regulation and increased travel by air and auto. 

since the ’20s, rail use in the united states has diminished, with the industry suffering bankruptcies, takeovers and, in an attempt to revitalize the rails, eventual deregulation by the staggers rail act of 1980.

in more recent history, there has been a push for high-speed rail in the u.s., including $11 billion spent since 2009 to develop faster trains — an effort that was supposed to be president obama’s signature transportation project, according to the new york times. while we haven’t seen these improvements yet, there are three noteworthy high-speed train projects in the works: one each in texas (which will use the japanese bullet trains), florida and california. these all would connect two major cities and would cut travel times basically in half, all while providing passengers with a comfortable ride and lessening the burden on the environment as well. 

the wall street journal reports that the “sweet spot for revenue is in journeys between 200 and 600 miles,” which is about one to three hours of travel time by bullet train. compared to air, these so-called “short-haul” trips make up the bulk of u.s. air travel, and they also happen to be where airlines are the most wasteful, according to the article. once the infrastructure is built, which requires governmental and consumer support, high-speed rail could be a way ease our impact on the environment, experience less stress and save time, too.

related: from industrial wasteland to community park

many u.s. cities don’t offer equal access to green space. for example, los angeles has 23,000 acres of parks, which puts the city in the top 15 in terms of total green space, but much of this parkland is near the mountains so most of the city’s low-income, inner-city communities don’t have any parks at all. peter harnik, director of the center for city park excellence at the trust for public land, says in reality 3.8 million residents of l.a. are too far from “a park to use one easily, conveniently, or frequently.” similarly, in new york city, high-quality parkland is found in greater abundance in wealthier districts, while low-income communities don’t enjoy the same access. more than half of the city’s 59 community board districts were found to have less than 1.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. a university of chicago study found that communities with lower incomes, higher poverty rates, and higher proportions of racial and ethnic minorities also had the “fewest opportunities for community-level physical activity.” lack of green space is then not just about unfairness, it’s about health. low-income communities may have higher rates of health problems like obesity and asthma in large part because they don’t have parks.
(source: “urban green: innovative parks for resurgent cities,” peter harnik, island press, 2010 and “healthy parks, healthy communities: addressing health disparities and park inequalities through public financing of playgrounds, and other physical activity settings,”
trust for public land, policy brief, november 2005)

new parks can sprout up in the unlikeliest places. low-income, inner-city communities are characterized by hardscapes – asphalt surfaces. when a community organizes and creates a plan for a new park, local governments can respond and purchase asphalt-covered areas like parking lots and transform them into public community parks. the average neighborhood park can run into the millions, but including a park budget in the initial master plan helps ensure local governments will finance it, and even partner with developers, local foundations, or conservancies to get it built. these types of projects can also come about if they are part of broader public-private urban redevelopment schemes aimed at providing housing, improving access to transit, and investing in the local environment. transportation infrastructure like boulevards, rail lines, and trails can be expanded, greened, and designed to become easily-accessible parks. in addition, even landfills, rooftops, reservoirs, and cemeteries can be turned into parks. (source:“urban green: innovative parks for resurgent cities,” peter harnik, island press, 2010)

park design needs to be compelling so people visit and forge community ties there. parks that are designed for local residents and include them in the design process often do the best. new york city’s famed central park, designed by asla founder frederick law olmsted, and bryant park, designed by laurie olin of fasla are two examples of great community parks designed for people. the 843-acre central park has many “functional areas,” including game fields, gardens, skating rinks, a boating lake, and winding paths that offer “dozens and dozens of different kinds and moments of experience “ says sarah goldhagen, architecture critic for the new republic. bryant park’s movable café table and chairs set under a rich tree canopy and spread around a central lawn enable people to easily form groups or stay on their own. the park is now viewed as a model for how public places can facilitate human interaction. human interaction isn’t just needed to make a popular and sustainable park, new research demonstrates that people with strong community ties also live longer healthier lives. parks provide the space for communities to form.
(source: “goldhagen: ‘democracies need physical spaces,” the dirt and “bowling alone,” robert putnam)

according to a report from the sustainable business network of greater philadelphia, one inch of rainwater hitting one acre of asphalt over an hour yields 27,000 gallons of water. in many communities, this water flows into combined stormwater / sewer systems, which channel both sewage and rainwater together through underground pipes to central treatment facilities. storms can quickly overrun these combined systems, leading to flooding with pollutant-laden water and even backed up sewage. in fact, in many older cities like philadelphia, basements can flood with excrement during major storms, creating major public health issues in the process. (source: grey to green: jumpstarting private investment in green stormwater infrastructure)

the term “green infrastructure” is used to describe how networks of natural ecosystems also function as crucial community infrastructure, providing ecosystem services and improving environmental sustainability. in the context of managing stormwater, green infrastructure can be defined as man-made systems that mimic natural approaches. green roofs, bioswales, bioretention ponds, and permeable pavements are a few key examples of local green infrastructure, and all work by turning hard asphalt surfaces into green, absorbent ones. for example, green roofs can retain 40-60 percent of stormwater hitting rooftops. bioswales and retention ponds can absorb water and channel or hold excess runoff, cleansing pollutants in the process. however, even just adding extra trees, which consume lots of water, can help. evergreens and conifers were found to intercept 35 percent of water hitting them. (source: u.s. environmental protection agency)

adding in green infrastructure systems is not only good for managing water, but also good for communities. green infrastructure can lower air temperatures, which is crucial in cities facing the urban heat island effect. green roofs can double-up as roof-top parks, farms, and natural habitats for wildlife, providing a range of benefits. chicago alone has seven million square feet of green roofs, which are often filled with native plants. for communities facing tight budgets, green infrastructure systems are also the most cost-effective way to manage storm water when compared with rebuilding crumbling underground pipes. philadelphia, which charges homeowners and local companies for their runoff, is now considering $1.6 billion plan to use natural systems to alleviate its major stormwater management problems. (source: the vancouver sun, grey to green: jumpstarting private investment in green stormwater infrastructure)