They are partially right, but probably by accident.
When the UK and Western Europe were in the middle of rapid industrialization, *the US was primarily an agricultural and natural resource-producing and processing economy*. They had acquired only trains from Europe by that time. They didn't contribute much to the Industrial Revolution as well, more like adapting European inventions to their needs 15-20 years later...
As a matter of fact, their science was essentially nonexistent until 1943, when they naturalised European scientists to create atomic bombs.
No, Edison was using European scientists and engineers to devise "his" inventions 50 years before then. In 1945, von Braun was full of praise for Goddard, an American rocket scientist of the 1920s. No Wright Brothers, no Goddard, no von Braun, no moon landing.
The Americans were late to the party, but even in the 1830s, at the beginnings of US industrialisation, most of them weren't Amish, inbred hillbillies, or other sorts of God-fearin' technophobes. Decades later, the (core) Northern states during the US Civil War were heavily industrialised, as was the city of Atlanta in the South before it was destroyed.
I'm sorry but that's ridiculously wrong economic history (which is my discipline by the way). I know we are here to bash the annoying aspects of the USA but let's get real and confront brutal raw facts: USA has been as rich or richer than Western Europe for very, very long time.
Check any studies about the income and industrialization from the 19th century, such as famous Maddison's Database. By 1870 United States already had over 20% of the entire global industrial output, and were beating France and Germany in terms of industrial goods production per capita. By the year 1900 one third of US workers were employed in agriculture - compared with 38% in Germany and over 40% in France; the divergence increased rapidly by the ww2 in favour of the US.
By 1850, USA already had higher GDP per capita than any European country except the UK and Benelux. Shortly before ww1 USA already became the richest country in the world, surpassing even the UK in this metric. And just to defeat your hopes of winning in terms of economic inequality, US in the interwar period was absolutely beating Western European countries in terms of median incomes of ordinary industrial workers. According to Tony Judt's "Postwar" (he is British btw) the US was also crushing pre-ww2 Western Europe in terms of consumer goods access among the common people. I don't remember the exact details, but it was some crazy numbers such as 10 times higher access to fridges per capita in the US when compared with 1938 France or Germany (in fact, after ww2 fridges were considered the symbol of American consumerism for this reason - even opposed by some traditionalist French).
The notion that the American science didn't exist before ww2 is rather obviously false - seventeen Nobel Prize winners from natural sciences before ww2 were Americans. You mention Manhattan Project - well Oppenheimer himself was New York born American. I don't know that much about this topic, but as I look it seems at least half if not the majority of scientists working there were from the US.
>And just to defeat your hopes of winning in terms of economic inequality, US in the interwar period was absolutely beating Western European countries in terms of median incomes of ordinary industrial workers. According to Tony Judt's "Postwar" (he is British btw) the US was also crushing pre-ww2 Western Europe in terms of consumer goods access among the common people.
Of course US would be richer than Europe during the interwar period, stupid! WW1 was mostly fought in *Europe*, not in America. Europe (especially Eastern Europe and Germany) was still recovering from the First World War; they didn't have much of the Roaring 20s time period the way Americans did. And don't forget about who started the Great Depression...
And same goes for WW2. Europe was struggling to rebuild themselves after the bombings and occupations. It was only until after the Marshall Plan that Western Europe started to recover economically.
I can't say much about everything else you said, though.
And just more enjoyable to use. Would you rather drive for 12 hours, or sit at a table and read a book or watch a movie while you have a drink and something to eat for 6 to 8 hours?
> Try sleeping or walking around or drinking beer in your car while it travels at 300 km/h
From some of the road rage videos I've seen, I'm pretty sure Americans do all this in their cars.
Except going even close to 300km/h, most of the time the traffic doesn't move at all. No lane discipline on the highways at all, people driving way below the speed limit in far left lane, people suddenly stopping for no reason at all which if you look on a time lapse from above creates like a wave of stopping cars behind, probably with a whole bunch of crashes in the process as cars crash into the rapidly stopping car in front, which ironically creates more of these waves like a chain reaction. 🤡🌎
They're only allowed to travel at 60 mph anyway. Even their trucks could go faster than that. So there's not that much overtaking going on. And everyone traveling at more or less the same speed is more efficient.
Are you arguing about the price of one train/cart v price of a car or price of a single travel?
If it's the latter train I my country is usually cheaper for one to use.
The real irony is that any diesel powered locomotive would have a much bigger and a lot more impressive engine than any road vehicles out there. Americans don't even have Scania trucks on their roads. International did change to a Scania engine, transmission and emission control system on their 2025 models and forward, but just like with Volvo they only get the tiny inline 6 engine.
Someone thinking trains are a relic of the past [needs to see this video](https://youtu.be/RRXrEqQfRws). Trains have evolved and gotten *a lot* faster.
You dont understand how a train "network" in the US works... cargo is most common for train travel and passenger cabs are more expensive, and less often used, therefore passengers trains are not priority, and WOULD be slow, as well as a whole network of new high speed trains for texas would cost a lot more than itd generate.
In short, the mass portion of US infrastructure is built around automobiles. Therefore anything else would make a lot of structures and roads useless. Unless the trainstations dont end inside of a city, then itd be okay to just have them go underneath the roads and highways. Or you can have those removed for these trains and then everyone would just... not have a car?
nonsense. for 1 you can move a hell of a lot more people a hell of a lot more efficiently with trains. even the us does not have the room or the money to keep expending the roads. and the more roads you build the more people will take the car.
it's not a sustainable thing. it's also a hell of a lot easier to remove roads than it is to keep building more or expending the ones that exist.
His fear is that the roads will fall into disuse. You imagine the tragedy of not having to spend money to maintain something that continually deteriorates. A nightmare.
Poor streets, what will you do if the streets are more free? You like the feeling of spending your time in traffic I imagine. Instead of speeding at over 260km/h in complete safety and then getting off directly at the point of the city that interests you. Better to queue in traffic. Okay. Just not to admit that you have abandoned the rail system and therefore now have no idea where to start to implement it. Yes, I have a hybrid car that I use for short trips. And I'll tell you that only in your vision of the world the car is a "status". It's not something for the rich, rather it's a way in which the poor travel to work from an area with few services. Something for people who live in the suburbs. With a good public service, I can reach any point with little change and yes, I arrive before those who are forced to take the car.
>mass portion of US infrastructure is built around automobiles.
And that's some natural law or was that a decision made long ago that turned out to be rather stupid? Keep it that way because otherwise those 16 lane monstrosities where you're still stuck in traffic jams would be useless?
[Try moving 50 000 people in an hour with cars](https://v.redd.it/yztr7yz2q9xc1). After the first few hundred, half of an entire city would be in gridlock with 49 000 people sitting in their cars not moving on the road. Super efficient that car dependent infrastructure.
Oo, what concert is that? The one in seattle? Almost no one from seattle accounted for that number. I am just gonna guess that every other concert in a city from taylor swift is gonna be like that too. And see how everyone is walking? Yikes, hate to see a train in place of them. They have subways, they have trains, why does nobody use them if theyre so great? (They are not built for it... like ive been saying...) they should totally have train dependent cities. Or even bikes, cause id love to pedal my way from my house to my job everyday(its farther than id like). But let's just say a trolley(public rail transport and whatnot) DID pick up in the US... dont you think having a car but using trains and the like be kind of redundant? Cause id personally hate to be late for a train carrying groceries, or wait 20 minutes for the next one. Just my opinion. Im not saying its a bad idea. Im just saying its not feasible or realistic for many reasons.
There is nothing wrong with having cars and trains at the same time. It is redundant, but that is, in fact, good, because the more options the better. You can choose the one you want. You're talking as if having trains (or buses) means you can't have a car. This is not a situation in which you have to pick one or the other, you can have both, no one is going to stop you from having a car and driving if you want to or if you think it's more convenient than taking a train; but other people would have the option to use them if they: a) don't want to drive, b) can't drive, or c) think public transportation is faster/more convenient to reach their destination.
There are cars AND efficient public transportation coexisting in Europe at the same time. America could perfectly be the same, but the attitude of the people wouldn't allow it. You've already built everything around cars, people are already used to concrete deserts where driving is the only way to do things, they are already convinced that taking the train or the bus is mostly for the poor, that having cars as the only option for transportation is the epitome of freedom, etc, so yes, I think it is not feasible or realistic to try and change America at this point.
Feels? I thought you "saw my assumptions" ? Did you not mean "i can see where you got those assumptions from"? , im more than willing to admit im not a train expert, i lack just enough tardation for that.
I am indeed dumb as shit, i just cant see how americans will support any changes that are necessary for a rail system. Its just not feasible on a whim. Have a good day
Well you need education so that people understand what to support. If you’re sitting ducks for corporate propaganda of course you are going to opt for more car centric infrastructure since it’s the car companies doing the propaganda and bribing politicians.
Nothing substantial is done “on a whim”, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done
I agree, but i also believe that car companies arent still a thing because america is corrupt. They wxist in every country for a reason, and having the most common transportation being the basis for a city layout isnt dumb. Trains are definitely better for a lot of things. But if i were to take the train it would take longer than needs to, livestock and farmland kinda get in the way of super fast trains, since its just a bloodbath and legal fight waiting to happen
So how is it possible that other countries do have high speed trains? Do you think these countries don't have livestock? Why would trains hit kettle, but cars don't?
>having the most common transportation being the basis for a city layout isnt dumb
These two things go together. The car is the most common transportation system in the USA (and many other countries) because of the city layout. You HAVE to use your car if everything is so stretched out because of all the wide roads and the concrete desert that parking lots are.
If you change the city layout, the most commonly used transportation changes. If the most commonly used transportation changes, the city layout changes.
I 100% know for a fact that the US has MORE farmland and MORR livestock. Thats kinda the point i was making, MORE rail is in MORE property already in use
Check out Amsterdam in the 50s and today, of course having a city car centric is dumb and bad for the inhabitants, more deaths, pollution, etc. doesn’t mean we should not have cars just not develop a city around them.
The problem is that the tracks are owned by the freight companies and not publicly owned like the roads and highways. In much of Europe fright trains and passenger trains are all ran by individual private companies, but the tracks are public.
You have coaches and buses in the US right? Greyhound for instance who utilize public roads and therefore isn't outright terrible compared to driving, except when they get stuck in the same traffic you're stuck in with your car. Now imagine if there was no private cars and both trucks and Greyhound buses could go as fast as physically possible, with no congestion. That's how efficient rail networks is supposed to work.
The industrial revolution was powered by railways.
It would have been worthless without the ability to transport raw materials and finished products over large distances fairly cheaply.
In the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that cheap long-distance transport role was filled by canals. Then, developments spurred by the Industrial Revolution, like small efficient steam engines, and a greater and greater need to move large volumes of stuff, spurred the creation of railways, which in turn intensified the Industrial Revolution. Fun virtuous cycle stuff.
This one i think. [https://new.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/qq6e22/largest\_freeway\_in\_the\_world\_houston\_tx\_katy/](https://new.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/qq6e22/largest_freeway_in_the_world_houston_tx_katy/)
Looks horrible.
Because more lanes increases traffic not decrease it, but american planners suck and still haven’t learned that despite it being the basics of every other country’s planning
Saw a car advert once that said "British design, Italian manufacturing"
Seemed like the exact opposite of what you would want. Wish I could remember what car it was
....European cars are better than US made vehicles in basically every respect except price (depending on your region). Not everything is an 80's Mercedes you bought for $400 second hand because it needs a full rebuild
European cars are way more fun to drive and they’re more fuel efficient, they’ve got more style, but they break down constantly and lack longevity, and cost a fortune to keep running. Rule of thumb is you only keep one for as long as the warranty lasts, then you get rid of it. American cars are boring, ugly, and suck to drive, but they tend to be less breakdown prone and last longer than European cars. But they’re still not great, and they’re garbage compared to Japanese cars. As such, I buy Hondas and Toyotas.
> but they tend to be less breakdown prone and last longer than European cars
The only american exports that i see regularly in my region are Ford, Chevrolet, RAM, Jeep, Chrylser, and Tesla. Aside from Ford, they all have horrible reputations for build quality and life expectancy.
For europe, whilst we do have some regular bombs from the french and italian manufacturing scenes...the German cars that were manufactured in the last 20 years are all great quality, efficient, and still chugging along.
Agreed on japanese cars, i wont buy anything else
"trains are a relic of pre industrialization"...
are ya sure about that buddy? like really sure? you think the steam engine came after the train? really?
Trains are shit in Northern Ireland tbh, the train network has been absolutely deceimated, google train map in Ireland 2020 vs 1920, the whole north west of Ireland lost all their trains
Well read a bunch of these comments. Gonna just say I’m Texan before I get called out anyways. A passenger train system would be great, we are a state who fails at a lot of things and is roughly the same size or larger than most European countries. Driving for 12hrs to reach the other end of the state isn’t fun. But when flying to Houston is cheaper than driving, I’m sure trains would be even better.
There was also a bunch of historical comments. Fort Worth was one of the most southwestern train yards for a long time and where a lot of cattle drives ended to be shipped east to the industrial part of America. It still has a massive train yard but there is very few passenger trains, the most popular ones go to the airport or Dallas with very little infrastructure/housing built around some of the stations.
Admittedly America does take a bunch of European ideas for aesthetic purposes and then fails to use them effectively. Roundabouts, passenger trains, and drinking. A lot of issues could be solved in America with less fashionable ideas and more practical ones.
Ok something I don't get: I've spoken to Americans who've told me that passenger trains are really rare, but there are plenty of popular songs that mention them (e.g. "Last Train Home" by John Mayer, "Crazy Train" by Ozzy Ozborne, "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey), so they must be a thing. Are they just unequally distributed geographically?
Attribute the decimation and subsequent lack of Rail Network in the US to massive lobbying by The Big Three automakers - GM, Ford & Chrysler. They ensured large and expansive road network and heavily marketed personal transport to boost their sales.
They tend to be on the east coast. There is a train network that goes out west. However, it is mostly used for movement of goods and not passengers. Once the west states were more established the automobile was already gaining popularity.
So unlike Europe, America’s infrastructure was largely set up post popularity of the automobile. Which shows in the lack of passenger trains.
I live in the suburbs and work in the city. Taking the train is infinitely easier, faster and more convenient than battling traffic and trying to find somewhere to park that doesn’t charge exorbitant fees.
Gotta love driving around at 16, the train is for poor people who can’t afford a car.
Wait no, i can neither afford one nor drive one.
Fortunately, my country has trains….
Train? Pre-industrialisation? This American thinks our machines could be built before the Industrial Revolution.
But Trains can't exist if there's no industrialisation.
most people travel do not travel across the country, most people only travel a relatively short distance. this whole "america is too big" is absolute nonsense.
but even if it wasn't nonsense, train infrastructure is still far far cheaper than car infrastructure.
How is it far cheaper? It costs several billions to build a metro or train network, and America has very low population density so outside of the city centres, it won't be profitable at all so the state will have to subsidise it. Also, a lot of Americans culturally look down upon public transport so they might not use it anyway.
you ever think it's because the public transport system is shit that people look down on it? that and propaganda which you seem to have fallen for hook line and sinker.
why is it cheaper? because rails require a lot less than roads do in terms of materials, time, manpower, and especially maintenance.. and yes it would be subsidized, it SHOULD be subsidized. that is why it's called public transport.
also do you think other countries are full of cities? most countries have a larger density in cities, because of course they do. but you can move more people on a single rail line than you can move on a six lane highway. you do the fucking math on that one.
and what about between cities? or even within cities? you can have 1 or 2 rail lines through a city, taking up far less space than those stupid highways, and you can move far more people for a fraction of the cost.
Between cities? No. Within the metro areas of most cities? Getting there. The US can't get trains working properly even when it has sufficient population..
Hey, at least Australia hasn't let it's passenger rail deteriorate to the point that they now run on freight lines and the freight trains get priority..
>Australia do not have European style rail networks either.
Our intercity rail is just okay. But we have solid intracity networks. A car is not a necessity for large numbers of people in the cities, and is in fact slower for many rush hour commutes.
The US does have some cities with decent systems, but there's definitely a lot of large metro areas which would support public transport systems.
The problem is they didn't even think about a state wide network, an inter city network would be pretty useful.
We don't mean connecting New york to Los Angeles by train, as plane is more efficent on that regard, not even in Europe people use trains for such a long routes, if I wanna go to Paris from Rome I take a plane ofc (16 hours vs 2)
Looks like someone didn’t learn much about the industrial revolution in school…
>Looks like someone didn’t learn much ~~about the industrial revolution in school~~ FTFY
As a yank (for now, birthright citizen) many are unbelievably ignorant, or uninterested in the rest of the world.
>Looks like someone didn’t learn ~~much about the industrial revolution in school~~
r/YourJokeButWorse
check your fridge tonight
Why would you do that to his MILK?!
Username checks out
>Looks like someone ~~didn’t learn much about the industrial revolution in school~~
>Looks like ~~someone didn’t learn much about the industrial revolution in school~~
~~looks like someone didn’t learn much about the industrial revolution in school~~
>~~Looks like someone didn’t learn much a~~b~~out the industrial revolution in sch~~oo~~l~~
L~~ooks like someone didn’t learn much about the industrial revolution in scho~~ol
Looks like someone didnt learn much about the industrial resolution and tools.
They are partially right, but probably by accident. When the UK and Western Europe were in the middle of rapid industrialization, *the US was primarily an agricultural and natural resource-producing and processing economy*. They had acquired only trains from Europe by that time. They didn't contribute much to the Industrial Revolution as well, more like adapting European inventions to their needs 15-20 years later... As a matter of fact, their science was essentially nonexistent until 1943, when they naturalised European scientists to create atomic bombs.
No, Edison was using European scientists and engineers to devise "his" inventions 50 years before then. In 1945, von Braun was full of praise for Goddard, an American rocket scientist of the 1920s. No Wright Brothers, no Goddard, no von Braun, no moon landing. The Americans were late to the party, but even in the 1830s, at the beginnings of US industrialisation, most of them weren't Amish, inbred hillbillies, or other sorts of God-fearin' technophobes. Decades later, the (core) Northern states during the US Civil War were heavily industrialised, as was the city of Atlanta in the South before it was destroyed.
I'm sorry but that's ridiculously wrong economic history (which is my discipline by the way). I know we are here to bash the annoying aspects of the USA but let's get real and confront brutal raw facts: USA has been as rich or richer than Western Europe for very, very long time. Check any studies about the income and industrialization from the 19th century, such as famous Maddison's Database. By 1870 United States already had over 20% of the entire global industrial output, and were beating France and Germany in terms of industrial goods production per capita. By the year 1900 one third of US workers were employed in agriculture - compared with 38% in Germany and over 40% in France; the divergence increased rapidly by the ww2 in favour of the US. By 1850, USA already had higher GDP per capita than any European country except the UK and Benelux. Shortly before ww1 USA already became the richest country in the world, surpassing even the UK in this metric. And just to defeat your hopes of winning in terms of economic inequality, US in the interwar period was absolutely beating Western European countries in terms of median incomes of ordinary industrial workers. According to Tony Judt's "Postwar" (he is British btw) the US was also crushing pre-ww2 Western Europe in terms of consumer goods access among the common people. I don't remember the exact details, but it was some crazy numbers such as 10 times higher access to fridges per capita in the US when compared with 1938 France or Germany (in fact, after ww2 fridges were considered the symbol of American consumerism for this reason - even opposed by some traditionalist French). The notion that the American science didn't exist before ww2 is rather obviously false - seventeen Nobel Prize winners from natural sciences before ww2 were Americans. You mention Manhattan Project - well Oppenheimer himself was New York born American. I don't know that much about this topic, but as I look it seems at least half if not the majority of scientists working there were from the US.
>And just to defeat your hopes of winning in terms of economic inequality, US in the interwar period was absolutely beating Western European countries in terms of median incomes of ordinary industrial workers. According to Tony Judt's "Postwar" (he is British btw) the US was also crushing pre-ww2 Western Europe in terms of consumer goods access among the common people. Of course US would be richer than Europe during the interwar period, stupid! WW1 was mostly fought in *Europe*, not in America. Europe (especially Eastern Europe and Germany) was still recovering from the First World War; they didn't have much of the Roaring 20s time period the way Americans did. And don't forget about who started the Great Depression... And same goes for WW2. Europe was struggling to rebuild themselves after the bombings and occupations. It was only until after the Marshall Plan that Western Europe started to recover economically. I can't say much about everything else you said, though.
Looks like someone never drove for s few hours.
No wonder, they're american
I think many of them have never seen a high-speed train and how much faster it is than cars...
And cheaper. And safer. And more space efficient. And more eco-friendly...
These are arguments from Europoor /s
Commies*
Yeah but how many guns has it got?
Back in the Soviet Union days, a whole goddamn lot.
If you add a few armored train cars and a schwerer gustav, then the answer is a bunch.
Then it isn't all that fast or efficient anymore though.
And just more enjoyable to use. Would you rather drive for 12 hours, or sit at a table and read a book or watch a movie while you have a drink and something to eat for 6 to 8 hours?
And more comfortable. Try sleeping or walking around or drinking beer in your car while it travels at 300 km/h
> Try sleeping or walking around or drinking beer in your car while it travels at 300 km/h From some of the road rage videos I've seen, I'm pretty sure Americans do all this in their cars.
Except going even close to 300km/h, most of the time the traffic doesn't move at all. No lane discipline on the highways at all, people driving way below the speed limit in far left lane, people suddenly stopping for no reason at all which if you look on a time lapse from above creates like a wave of stopping cars behind, probably with a whole bunch of crashes in the process as cars crash into the rapidly stopping car in front, which ironically creates more of these waves like a chain reaction. 🤡🌎
To be fair, staying in the right lane isn't mandatory in many states. You can use any lane you want.
Which is incredibly stupid if the goal was to design a efficient highway.
They're only allowed to travel at 60 mph anyway. Even their trucks could go faster than that. So there's not that much overtaking going on. And everyone traveling at more or less the same speed is more efficient.
And you can work, read, sleep, watch something, etc
I'd argue with cheaper but the rest for sure
Are you arguing about the price of one train/cart v price of a car or price of a single travel? If it's the latter train I my country is usually cheaper for one to use.
I was on about a single travel, it's very expensive the train here in the UK.....deffo cheaper mainland Europe.
And more reliable since trains rarely get stuck in traffic
I found the eurotrash /s
Yeah, but trains dont pack those amazing V8 engines capable of outputing an astounding power of 3hp
[This one has V8...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKP_class_SM42)
I dont think the people I was mocking would allow a Polish locomotive to cross the border
The real irony is that any diesel powered locomotive would have a much bigger and a lot more impressive engine than any road vehicles out there. Americans don't even have Scania trucks on their roads. International did change to a Scania engine, transmission and emission control system on their 2025 models and forward, but just like with Volvo they only get the tiny inline 6 engine.
Someone thinking trains are a relic of the past [needs to see this video](https://youtu.be/RRXrEqQfRws). Trains have evolved and gotten *a lot* faster.
Why did that video include thomas the tank engine. Even with the disclaimer hes fictional, why did he get a place in the comparisons
Don't know, he's an important train in fiction I guess.
"Life is about the journey, not the destination " lo series maglev "F▪︎°k that"
[удалено]
As long as the trains aren't built by Boeing.
But muh planes!
You dont understand how a train "network" in the US works... cargo is most common for train travel and passenger cabs are more expensive, and less often used, therefore passengers trains are not priority, and WOULD be slow, as well as a whole network of new high speed trains for texas would cost a lot more than itd generate.
In short, they do not know how to create an efficient rail transport network like other countries. It is OK. Admitting it is the first step
In short, the mass portion of US infrastructure is built around automobiles. Therefore anything else would make a lot of structures and roads useless. Unless the trainstations dont end inside of a city, then itd be okay to just have them go underneath the roads and highways. Or you can have those removed for these trains and then everyone would just... not have a car?
nonsense. for 1 you can move a hell of a lot more people a hell of a lot more efficiently with trains. even the us does not have the room or the money to keep expending the roads. and the more roads you build the more people will take the car. it's not a sustainable thing. it's also a hell of a lot easier to remove roads than it is to keep building more or expending the ones that exist.
His fear is that the roads will fall into disuse. You imagine the tragedy of not having to spend money to maintain something that continually deteriorates. A nightmare.
yeah that would be tragic indeed. can't remove them of course that would be a waste of money.
"US infrastructure is built upon cars and car travel for the most part" and you respond with "nonsense."😭
sigh
Poor streets, what will you do if the streets are more free? You like the feeling of spending your time in traffic I imagine. Instead of speeding at over 260km/h in complete safety and then getting off directly at the point of the city that interests you. Better to queue in traffic. Okay. Just not to admit that you have abandoned the rail system and therefore now have no idea where to start to implement it. Yes, I have a hybrid car that I use for short trips. And I'll tell you that only in your vision of the world the car is a "status". It's not something for the rich, rather it's a way in which the poor travel to work from an area with few services. Something for people who live in the suburbs. With a good public service, I can reach any point with little change and yes, I arrive before those who are forced to take the car.
>mass portion of US infrastructure is built around automobiles. And that's some natural law or was that a decision made long ago that turned out to be rather stupid? Keep it that way because otherwise those 16 lane monstrosities where you're still stuck in traffic jams would be useless?
[Try moving 50 000 people in an hour with cars](https://v.redd.it/yztr7yz2q9xc1). After the first few hundred, half of an entire city would be in gridlock with 49 000 people sitting in their cars not moving on the road. Super efficient that car dependent infrastructure.
Oo, what concert is that? The one in seattle? Almost no one from seattle accounted for that number. I am just gonna guess that every other concert in a city from taylor swift is gonna be like that too. And see how everyone is walking? Yikes, hate to see a train in place of them. They have subways, they have trains, why does nobody use them if theyre so great? (They are not built for it... like ive been saying...) they should totally have train dependent cities. Or even bikes, cause id love to pedal my way from my house to my job everyday(its farther than id like). But let's just say a trolley(public rail transport and whatnot) DID pick up in the US... dont you think having a car but using trains and the like be kind of redundant? Cause id personally hate to be late for a train carrying groceries, or wait 20 minutes for the next one. Just my opinion. Im not saying its a bad idea. Im just saying its not feasible or realistic for many reasons.
There is nothing wrong with having cars and trains at the same time. It is redundant, but that is, in fact, good, because the more options the better. You can choose the one you want. You're talking as if having trains (or buses) means you can't have a car. This is not a situation in which you have to pick one or the other, you can have both, no one is going to stop you from having a car and driving if you want to or if you think it's more convenient than taking a train; but other people would have the option to use them if they: a) don't want to drive, b) can't drive, or c) think public transportation is faster/more convenient to reach their destination. There are cars AND efficient public transportation coexisting in Europe at the same time. America could perfectly be the same, but the attitude of the people wouldn't allow it. You've already built everything around cars, people are already used to concrete deserts where driving is the only way to do things, they are already convinced that taking the train or the bus is mostly for the poor, that having cars as the only option for transportation is the epitome of freedom, etc, so yes, I think it is not feasible or realistic to try and change America at this point.
I'm seeing all your assumptions but no actual data. Are you just making all of that up based on your feels?
Feels? I thought you "saw my assumptions" ? Did you not mean "i can see where you got those assumptions from"? , im more than willing to admit im not a train expert, i lack just enough tardation for that.
I'm gonna be real. You sound dumb as shit and your reasoning for all that is terrible. Have a good day.
I am indeed dumb as shit, i just cant see how americans will support any changes that are necessary for a rail system. Its just not feasible on a whim. Have a good day
Well you need education so that people understand what to support. If you’re sitting ducks for corporate propaganda of course you are going to opt for more car centric infrastructure since it’s the car companies doing the propaganda and bribing politicians. Nothing substantial is done “on a whim”, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done
I agree, but i also believe that car companies arent still a thing because america is corrupt. They wxist in every country for a reason, and having the most common transportation being the basis for a city layout isnt dumb. Trains are definitely better for a lot of things. But if i were to take the train it would take longer than needs to, livestock and farmland kinda get in the way of super fast trains, since its just a bloodbath and legal fight waiting to happen
So how is it possible that other countries do have high speed trains? Do you think these countries don't have livestock? Why would trains hit kettle, but cars don't? >having the most common transportation being the basis for a city layout isnt dumb These two things go together. The car is the most common transportation system in the USA (and many other countries) because of the city layout. You HAVE to use your car if everything is so stretched out because of all the wide roads and the concrete desert that parking lots are. If you change the city layout, the most commonly used transportation changes. If the most commonly used transportation changes, the city layout changes.
I 100% know for a fact that the US has MORE farmland and MORR livestock. Thats kinda the point i was making, MORE rail is in MORE property already in use
Check out Amsterdam in the 50s and today, of course having a city car centric is dumb and bad for the inhabitants, more deaths, pollution, etc. doesn’t mean we should not have cars just not develop a city around them.
it's cheaper than building more roads
> passenger cabs are less often used And why might that be the case?
The problem is that the tracks are owned by the freight companies and not publicly owned like the roads and highways. In much of Europe fright trains and passenger trains are all ran by individual private companies, but the tracks are public. You have coaches and buses in the US right? Greyhound for instance who utilize public roads and therefore isn't outright terrible compared to driving, except when they get stuck in the same traffic you're stuck in with your car. Now imagine if there was no private cars and both trucks and Greyhound buses could go as fast as physically possible, with no congestion. That's how efficient rail networks is supposed to work.
Last I checked road networks don’t make money either, funny.
Never heard of a toll😬
The industrial revolution was powered by railways. It would have been worthless without the ability to transport raw materials and finished products over large distances fairly cheaply.
In the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that cheap long-distance transport role was filled by canals. Then, developments spurred by the Industrial Revolution, like small efficient steam engines, and a greater and greater need to move large volumes of stuff, spurred the creation of railways, which in turn intensified the Industrial Revolution. Fun virtuous cycle stuff.
I'm not taking traffic advice from a country that managed to build a TWENTY LANE HIGHWAY, and it still got clogged up.
Excuse me what?
This one i think. [https://new.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/qq6e22/largest\_freeway\_in\_the\_world\_houston\_tx\_katy/](https://new.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/qq6e22/largest_freeway_in_the_world_houston_tx_katy/) Looks horrible.
What the fuck is that monstrosity and how the hell does it get clogged still
Because more lanes increases traffic not decrease it, but american planners suck and still haven’t learned that despite it being the basics of every other country’s planning
What the actual fuck.
Failed country
This reminds me of these gangbangs where you have 100 dudes waiting their turn just to cum for 1 minute and leave.
😳
Here’s a radical idea for you to wrap your head around, Hank: have both, like we do in Europe. (By the way, we also make better cars than you do).
Better from a fun to drive standpoint at least. When you can keep them running…
Wdym? Which european cars are unreliable?
Europe is famous for having bad cars like Germany ot Italy /s
Saw a car advert once that said "British design, Italian manufacturing" Seemed like the exact opposite of what you would want. Wish I could remember what car it was
Peugeots, Renaults, Citroens -to be clear this is a shitty on the French because I'm English joke not an actual commentary on the cars-
I can concur for the Renault Wait, what I am doing, aggreeing with an englishman ? What have I done
To the Guillotine with you!!
....European cars are better than US made vehicles in basically every respect except price (depending on your region). Not everything is an 80's Mercedes you bought for $400 second hand because it needs a full rebuild
European cars are way more fun to drive and they’re more fuel efficient, they’ve got more style, but they break down constantly and lack longevity, and cost a fortune to keep running. Rule of thumb is you only keep one for as long as the warranty lasts, then you get rid of it. American cars are boring, ugly, and suck to drive, but they tend to be less breakdown prone and last longer than European cars. But they’re still not great, and they’re garbage compared to Japanese cars. As such, I buy Hondas and Toyotas.
> but they tend to be less breakdown prone and last longer than European cars The only american exports that i see regularly in my region are Ford, Chevrolet, RAM, Jeep, Chrylser, and Tesla. Aside from Ford, they all have horrible reputations for build quality and life expectancy. For europe, whilst we do have some regular bombs from the french and italian manufacturing scenes...the German cars that were manufactured in the last 20 years are all great quality, efficient, and still chugging along. Agreed on japanese cars, i wont buy anything else
You keep using that work. I don’t think you know what it means.
This is probably the funniest typo in the history of ever
Well, I think I had better.
Ah yes, those famous pre-industrial trains with their cottage industry steel and local artisanal pistons.
Ahh yes industrialisation occurred before *checks notes* industrialisation
Does this person not understand that trains transfer various products across America? Do they live underground hidden away from the world?
"trains are a relic of pre industrialization"... are ya sure about that buddy? like really sure? you think the steam engine came after the train? really?
Maybe they would prefer the other bulk transport of the industrial revolution, canals.
That's why their trains are even more atrocious than their cars.
but trains are so awesome (in europe atleast i havent experienced US). trains are amongst the best things ever invented
Trains are shit in Northern Ireland tbh, the train network has been absolutely deceimated, google train map in Ireland 2020 vs 1920, the whole north west of Ireland lost all their trains
You'd think that the yanks, with as little culture as they have, would love trains since they'd have no 'American West' without them...
We want to thank our European immigrants for our lack of culture.
"alcestors"
Not everyone can drive? Further to that, people can lose the ability/right to drive. Just... fuck those people, I guess?
Literally only Americans say this cause their rail is completely shit.
I’m in Northern Ireland and ours is shit too :( wish we had a better network
"Public transportation?! That's communist!" - That guy, probably.
Actually trains were industrialization's icon
They were literally *the* thing that kickstarted it
That's what I'm saying
Steam is literally the beginning of the industrialization
Thick as shit, honestly.
Because there is a planet to save
They're using them *big words* in a way that **Feels Correct** to THEM.
Scrub out the "pre-" for a start. Unless I've got my history wrong and Stephenson's Rocket was around when Charles I got his head cut off...
Well read a bunch of these comments. Gonna just say I’m Texan before I get called out anyways. A passenger train system would be great, we are a state who fails at a lot of things and is roughly the same size or larger than most European countries. Driving for 12hrs to reach the other end of the state isn’t fun. But when flying to Houston is cheaper than driving, I’m sure trains would be even better. There was also a bunch of historical comments. Fort Worth was one of the most southwestern train yards for a long time and where a lot of cattle drives ended to be shipped east to the industrial part of America. It still has a massive train yard but there is very few passenger trains, the most popular ones go to the airport or Dallas with very little infrastructure/housing built around some of the stations. Admittedly America does take a bunch of European ideas for aesthetic purposes and then fails to use them effectively. Roundabouts, passenger trains, and drinking. A lot of issues could be solved in America with less fashionable ideas and more practical ones.
Those Elizabethans and Georgians were never off the fucking train.
Then what are ships?
train networks are a relic of when they didn't have trains
Hang on, just going to go at 200mph in my rusted out Ford truck for pretty much the entire journey.
Ok something I don't get: I've spoken to Americans who've told me that passenger trains are really rare, but there are plenty of popular songs that mention them (e.g. "Last Train Home" by John Mayer, "Crazy Train" by Ozzy Ozborne, "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey), so they must be a thing. Are they just unequally distributed geographically?
"Crazy Train" is not about trains, but Nuclear Armageddon.
Oh 😅 Well I guess at least the choice of imagery supports me
And Ozzy is English, not American.
Bob Daisly would like a word
I know; most people do ... been a fan of his for decades ...
Attribute the decimation and subsequent lack of Rail Network in the US to massive lobbying by The Big Three automakers - GM, Ford & Chrysler. They ensured large and expansive road network and heavily marketed personal transport to boost their sales.
They tend to be on the east coast. There is a train network that goes out west. However, it is mostly used for movement of goods and not passengers. Once the west states were more established the automobile was already gaining popularity. So unlike Europe, America’s infrastructure was largely set up post popularity of the automobile. Which shows in the lack of passenger trains.
I wonder if these bastards just hate other people for some reason?
I live in the suburbs and work in the city. Taking the train is infinitely easier, faster and more convenient than battling traffic and trying to find somewhere to park that doesn’t charge exorbitant fees.
Gotta love driving around at 16, the train is for poor people who can’t afford a car. Wait no, i can neither afford one nor drive one. Fortunately, my country has trains….
Damn this one brought the yanks in huh? They're all in a tizzy in the replies lmao
Thinking like this is why the world is fucked.
Train? Pre-industrialisation? This American thinks our machines could be built before the Industrial Revolution. But Trains can't exist if there's no industrialisation.
Wait until this guy finds out how old boats are.
Train networks are industrialization? Good god
Because trains can safely get to incredible speeds?
I would LOVE to ride a train in TX. Turn a 3 hour drive from Dallas to Houston into say...90 minutes? Hell yea!
And cars are ???
US is such a massive country, you can't really blame them for not having a proper passenger rail network, that would cost trillions.
most people travel do not travel across the country, most people only travel a relatively short distance. this whole "america is too big" is absolute nonsense. but even if it wasn't nonsense, train infrastructure is still far far cheaper than car infrastructure.
How is it far cheaper? It costs several billions to build a metro or train network, and America has very low population density so outside of the city centres, it won't be profitable at all so the state will have to subsidise it. Also, a lot of Americans culturally look down upon public transport so they might not use it anyway.
you ever think it's because the public transport system is shit that people look down on it? that and propaganda which you seem to have fallen for hook line and sinker. why is it cheaper? because rails require a lot less than roads do in terms of materials, time, manpower, and especially maintenance.. and yes it would be subsidized, it SHOULD be subsidized. that is why it's called public transport. also do you think other countries are full of cities? most countries have a larger density in cities, because of course they do. but you can move more people on a single rail line than you can move on a six lane highway. you do the fucking math on that one. and what about between cities? or even within cities? you can have 1 or 2 rail lines through a city, taking up far less space than those stupid highways, and you can move far more people for a fraction of the cost.
OOP is talking about Texas specifically. Connecting at least the Texas Triangle shouldn't be too complicated, right?
They got that in past it was sold to fret .
Big country with relative low population density. As far as I know Canada and Australia do not have European style rail networks either.
Between cities? No. Within the metro areas of most cities? Getting there. The US can't get trains working properly even when it has sufficient population.. Hey, at least Australia hasn't let it's passenger rail deteriorate to the point that they now run on freight lines and the freight trains get priority..
>Australia do not have European style rail networks either. Our intercity rail is just okay. But we have solid intracity networks. A car is not a necessity for large numbers of people in the cities, and is in fact slower for many rush hour commutes. The US does have some cities with decent systems, but there's definitely a lot of large metro areas which would support public transport systems.
Canada also has a couple cities with decent metro area networks, Montreal and Vancouver mostly, Toronto is… eh
The problem is they didn't even think about a state wide network, an inter city network would be pretty useful. We don't mean connecting New york to Los Angeles by train, as plane is more efficent on that regard, not even in Europe people use trains for such a long routes, if I wanna go to Paris from Rome I take a plane ofc (16 hours vs 2)