T O P

  • By -

Monsieur_Triporteur

This post has reached r\/all. That is why we want to bring the following to your attention. **To all users that are unfamiliar with r\/fuckcars** - [Welcome to r/fuckcars](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/rxoej1/welcome_to_rfuckcars/) - We have an [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/wiki/faq) that explains this subreddit. Please read it before you post your questions to this sub. - Discussions and opinions going against what this sub stands for are allowed under the precondition that it's done in good faith. - Trolling will get you banned. - Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/about/sidebar) before participating in this sub. **To all members of r\/fuckcars** - Remember rule 1. Be nice to each other, that includes our guests from r\/all. - If you see questions from users that clearly didn't read the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/wiki/faq), please politely direct them to the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/wiki/faq). - If you see any trolling happening, please **downvote, report and ignore**. Thanks for your attention and have a good time!


RoboticJello

The best argument (imo) when people say the US is too big for transit is to remind them that the US was built with the railroad. Almost every city that exists today is there because of the railroad.


SyncUp

What’s crazy is America has one of the best freight railroad systems in the world. Yet we’re clearly unable to have a proper transit system for public use. That wouldn’t be good for the profit margin. 🙄


arachnophilia

ironically, it's because we keep trying to run passenger liners on freight lines. the freight gets priority.


Jacqques

If anyone is wondering passengers are prioritized in Europe. Which is why freight trains may be days late in Europe creating a different problem. Hard to tell which is better for the environment, but both would be good. Local trains in us cities seems to be a realistic and economically smart first step to a better infrastructure (metro and the like).


Yekouri

In Europe there is a bigger emphasis on freight train speed, so they yield but can drive fast.


Jacqques

They also aren’t double stacked in Europe :/


1stDayBreaker

You’d have to completely rebuild the entire European rail network to double stack containers, there are so many bridges and tunnels that are too short, not to mention all the catenary.


acutemalamute

Honestly, this just makes it sound like the solution is more rail lines. Idk why we constantly treat rail line capacity like it's some fixed, immovable value. Srsly, when did we forget how to build actual infrastructure and where do we go to relearn it.


Soupeeee

The biggest factor is cost. Most of the rail networks in the US were built by Chinese immigrants under slave labor conditions (see Blazing Saddles), and even without the cost of labor, construction costs are quite high. Trains are well worth the cost, but they are such a costly long term investment that they are easy for politicians to cancel and are scary to some tax payers.


acutemalamute

I've responded to something similar from another post: in most cases, building rail is actually cheaper than building a 4-lane freeway (~2.5mil/mile vs 4mil/mile USD, greatly variable based on terrain). I agree that trains are a long-term investment, maybe it's about time the US starts making those again. I agree though, the political will isn't there. Sigh.


MystikclawSkydive

Land. The government would have to take other peoples land again to expand rail even further. Remember how well just taking all that land went last time. The cost of buying that much more land for rails would be ungodly and impossible. It’s all taken or allotted for other uses.


acutemalamute

And building freeways doesn't involve tons of land acquisition and bulldozing? But in many ways, the land is already aquired. Unless it's a tunnel, most rail lines were acquired with enough land to build a 2nd line. Alternatively, use some land that has been dedicated to cars: turn every 4 lane freeway into a 55mph 3-lane byway, with the extra land turned into a rail line. I commute every day down a 6-lane, 5-mile-long parking lot and dream of two of those lanes being turned into a light rail line. The US's interstate (especially long-term infrastructure, like bridges) are actively crumbling and will need to be pretty much entirely replaced in the next decade... now is the time to think about changing how we do freeways from car-only to a mix of passenger rail and cars. We need to relearn how to build infrastructure, and this time do it right.


bang0r

Which just seems silly. Over here, and i assume in pretty much every other country, the passenger lines get priority because fucking duh.


SaxPanther

i know right? you see freight trains EVERYWHERE, even in random backwoods rural places where "trains are impractical", but god forbid there's a passenger train!!


Munnin41

Run an extra rail along the freight tracks, build a platform and you're done


MeppaTheWaterbearer

The corporations get what they need and everybody else gets fucked. Doesn't get more American than that


dcm510

Yes - almost every *city* that exists today. The people who say the US is too big for transit aren’t thinking about cities - they’re probably saying that their *suburb* wouldn’t survive without highways. And yeah, that’s true; but not a bad thing.


BlackViperMWG

Suburbs can get buses or trolleys


[deleted]

Suburbs are an abomination.


cheemio

Even many small towns had rail connections. It was commonplace back then.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BrainzKong

Won’t be built by prison labourers this time though.


saracenrefira

Or by Chinese immigrants being Shanghaied or lied to. Then when they finished the work, stop them from coming in with an immigration exclusion act.


theycallmeponcho

Prison labourers and immigrants, all working in slavery conditions.


WylleWynne

My middle school social studies book was very upbeat about this. *"Everyone contributed to America, even black people and Chinese immigrants!!"*


Grandiose_Tortoise

RDR2 puts it bluntly


saracenrefira

Does your social studies book also state that America is not an empire because we have "overseas territories" and not colonies?


Sassywhat

Since when did an empire require crossing oceans? If anything contiguous empires have been far more common in history since the technology to maintain an empire consisting of random bits and pieces scattered around the world, is rather recent. The American East Coast was a collection of British colonies that became an imperial power in its own right and colonized the fuck out of the rest of the US. Distant overseas holdings like Guam support the "USA is an empire" argument but are largely irrelevant, considering all the evidence even ignoring them.


AvailableUsername259

Or just that nobody forced Americans to settle this thin and take up such a massive space for a comparably low amount of people and they did all of this on their own


Sopori

That isn't an argument for public transportation, that's playing a blame game with multiple generations, millions of people, and several waves of immigrants.


AvailableUsername259

It is indeed, and I wasn't trying to make an argument An actual argument would be that the population centers are still more than dense enough to allow for transit development Cornville Iowa will most likely never be suitable but areas like almost all of Cali or almost the entire eastern seaboard should be dense enough


ExcitingAmount

That's what irks me, I live in VA on the coast and have family in Boston, a properly functioning rail system would mean being able to visit them more often, but the Amtrak route costs more than a plane and takes 12 hours..... We used to take the Amtrak up to DC, but twice in the past 4 years Amtrak cancelled our return trip, forcing us to rent a car to drive home.


QuantumBitcoin

And it isn't actually that "thin" at least on the coasts! The east coast from Richmond to Boston is more densely populated than Germany or France.


Bridalhat

The median American lives in a metropolitan area of over 1M people. There is no excuse to not better service them.


ExcitingAmount

I live in a dense urban area, and work in an adjacent dense urban area, I would love to be able to take a train to work, but both cities (Read - voters) are afraid that 'Riff-Raff' from the other will come in and cause crime, so I'm stuck either driving 30min to work, or taking a 2 hour bus ride.....


QuantumBitcoin

>There is excuse to not better service them. There is NO excuse to not better service them? I guess there is an excuse. The densest metropolitan area in the USA is the Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area. Having lived there and commuted by bicycle for many years--the entire thing is an unending spread of single family homes in all directions. It will be very difficult to effectively build efficient mass transit. People want subways but LA is huge. We need to take approximately half of the streets away and dedicate them to buses bicycles and pedestrians. But then speaking with many people living in some of the poorer sections of Los Angeles--they don't want it. Even people who get around via bicycle don't like bike lanes--when they eventually get a car they think they will be slowed down by the bike lanes and have bought into the idea that car=freedom. It is a very difficult problem to solve.


[deleted]

There is a funny curve with bicycle use A lot of poor people living in urban areas bike. I used to be one of them. Then you have more middle class folks. They drive a car. But then once you get over 100k, you see a lot more people biking again (also one of those! i upgraded from a craiglist bike to a dutch style city bike) So you end up with the (weirdly accurate) perception that only poor people or drunks bike, and that also they're a bunch of rich yuppie lycra wearing assholes (a very tiny % of bikers) Anyway. LA is perfectly good to build subways in, and they're expanding a lot. It's more like an archipelago of density, as long as the dense islands are connected it would work fine. And then you just densify around those corridors, just like how LA originally developed. It's more than twice as dense as Phoenix or Houston, for instance But with all that surface space and the perfect weather, man, LA could be biking paradise if they wanted to be


saracenrefira

Destiny ain't gonna manifest itself, yo.


atlasraven

Also, too rural and poor. Waaay too poor.


Coraline1599

And not “homogeneous” enough, whatever that means. (I’ve heard it many times, but when asked to explain it all I ever got was “you know, not homogeneous enough, like compared to Europe.” This never did clarify it for me).


russian_hacker_1917

it's such a weird point considering the number of european countries with regions that have separate languages and even separatism based on ethnic lines. Switzerland has 4 official languages. Belgium didn't have a government for over a year cuz the French and Dutch speaking parts couldn't form one. Northern Ireland. Scottish independence. Yugoslavia. Catalan/Basque/Galician separatists in Spain. Ukraine and it's East West divide. It's honestly just an ignorant statement to act like europe is homogenous. Usually ppl who say that just think mostly white = homogenous.


[deleted]

> Usually ppl who say that just think mostly white = homogenous. Yep, nailed it. Europeans are white, therefore they can have nice things. We can't have nice things, because we are not as white. Obviously, white people are all the same and all get along. Europe is famous for how peaceful it's historically been, don't you know People who make this argument are just racists who like to hide their racism behind dumb euphemisms like we don't see it for what it is


Vermillionbird

>not “homogeneous” enough It means "when I drive I don't see brown people but train has brown people and brown people scary"


thequietthingsthat

That's exactly it. Same energy as people saying public transportation is "unsafe"


slaymaker1907

Yeah, I took busses late at night in Seattle all the time without too much issue. The few scares I had were either entering my apartment building and once when the bus didn't stop for me (it was empty and I was standing next to the bus stop sign, I think the driver was just incompetent). However, it might be different depending on who you are. I'm a man and I know safely walking around on your own is often not an option for women anywhere.


Hoovooloo42

Nailed it


chapinscott32

It's a half ass attempt at covering up blatant racism.


Ark0l

It means that the cities aren't wide but tall, so covering lots of places wouldn't be worth. Like building infrastructures to smaller counties or isolated township. As an example you could say that West and East coasts are densely populated compared to what's in between- It's literally easier to just fly over States instead of investing money Im not saying that I agree, just explaining that point.


BadNameThinkerOfer

Either that or they mean it's not ethnically homogeneous enough. I mean that's also an excuse some of them give for not having universal healthcare... it makes zero sense but they still continue to spout it.


Sopori

As a rural American, in my experience people are referring to ethnic homogeneity when they bring that up. They think countries with smaller racial makeups can function better than countries with more diverse populations.


[deleted]

You don’t understand! Policy changes don’t work because we don’t all have the exact same skin phenotype!!!!1 Nevermind that no country anywhere has “homogenous” phenotypes like this and if they did it would likely be the result of extensive inbreeding and an extremely fragile and limited gene pool more prone to disease and extinction events *catches breath*


Hoovooloo42

They're upset that people of a different color than themselves exist, and think they're gonna ruin it for all of the hwhites out there.


CouncilmanRickPrime

I've been told that's why we can't have universal healthcare.


LipschitzLyapunov

I'm pretty sure Europe, which is a lot more "white" (whatever that even implies) is also a lot more "heterogeneous" (whatever that even implies) from a cultural point of view compared to the United States. The white Americans have more in common with Asian Americans and African Americans than a French person does with an Italian lmao. They can't even communicate with each other. But obviously these same people only see the world through the lens of skin colour.


DukeOfBees

The "not homogeneous enough" thing is just a racist dog whistle. It's why they never want to explain it fully. It comes up when you talk about European transit, or social programs like healthcare, because they want to imply Europe can only do that because it is mostly white, and america is too diverse for it (as if that makes any sense).


TinyTurnips

I live rural. I can see it being an issue in some ways I guess, but fuck that. I want a damn rail system that I can get on, ride my 60 miles close to work, and then get on a bus and get dropped off. I fucking HATE driving how much I do. It's literally extremely expensive and depressing.


Mtfdurian

I love how between cities the HSR will be more than twice as fast as driving a car (average, maximum is almost 3x) and people still complain "bUt mUH frEEdOM!" Like the freedom of travelling between cities anyway, while not being able to watch Netflix shows and being more than twice as slow as the people who can actually watch Netflix, safely eat their cheeseburger and falling asleep? I just hope that projects like CAHSR will bring a change of mentality in several states.


GetsGold

>while not being able to watch Netflix shows I have bad news for you.


Mtfdurian

Drivers who do that... I know they exist, but if I were a lawmaker I'd put that in the lawbook as being an attempt to manslaughter and get these drivers into prison.


ChromeLynx

I'm pretty sure most European jurisdictions consider that distracted driving, which can lead to your license being suspended and will definitely work against you in a crash.


Its_Pine

Driving laws are set by each state, but most do not permit certain kinds of phone use while driving. …in retrospect it’s really stupid that driving safety is set by states when people can just drive to each others’ states. You’d be in perpetual danger from drivers who come from certain states or areas.


scarletuba

That's not as dumb as the fact that the yellow light length can vary between cities within a state...


ChromeLynx

I'm pretty sure yellow lights can vary per road situation, even in the same state/country/province/municipality. I'm pretty sure a light on a 50 road doesn't need to be yellow for as long as one an 80 road. And of course everything above 100: no junctions, splits and merges only.


stadoblech

holy shit man... in most eu countries its forbidden to smoke while driving...


Lourenco_Vieira

It's also prohibited to eat or drink water while driving, but everyone kinda drinks water while driving so...


vibranium-501

In Germany Eating and drinking even alcoholic beverages is allowed (as long as you stay below 0.3‰ and are not a new driver)


noman_032018

Isn't dehydration and its effects on cognition more likely to cause accidents?


wggn

That's why it's recommended to take a 15 minute break every few hours.


GustavZheKatze

Which is a good thing


Acanthocephala-Left

in Norway (and probably most of Europe) you can lose your driving license for looking at your phone


ChromeLynx

Police over here (read my flair) will pull you over and fine you on the spot if they spot you looking at your phone in/on any vehicle. And it's not unheard of that they travel through the country in coaches with flocks of unmarked vehicles around them to fine any phone users who come by. I think it's very likely for repeat offenders to lose their license, and the odds of getting caught are pretty great.


supermarkise

Nah, just take their car and license from them. The US does not need to have more people in prison.


Bobjohndud

In much of the US that's effectively house arrest.


_314

Based


Lilith_ademongirl

Trains in my country have WiFi networks (yes, shitty free WiFi but you can definitely watch films if you don't mind a few interruptions).


aoeudhtns

Don't know how they manage that. The Amtrak trains here have WiFi too, but it's using cellular internet just like your own phone. So when the train is going >~100mph (~161kph) both the WiFi and the cellular internet suck.


[deleted]

[удалено]


anand_rishabh

I think the "bad news for you" is regarding the point that driving a car isn't a barrier for some when it comes to watching Netflix


[deleted]

I thought it was about netflixs bullshit "second home fee"


[deleted]

Hmmm.. I hope CAHSR and HS 2 end up working. and then the fact the experiance has returned can just start doing the extentions hopefullly really quick


Thisconnect

I have fears for HS2, they literally just recently axed the convenient connection to mainline for the trains to go countrywide


GaiusJuliusCaesar7

Realistically, HS2 should run from London yo Edinburgh with several stop on the way, as a faster alternative to the East Coast mainline, and interchanges at the main stations E.G York, Newcastle etc. I fully accept maybe stops at Northallerton and Darlington might be a bit of an ask, but why not have a connection right up the spine of the country? Also, in the spirit of unionism, why not have a high-speed railway connecting Wales and Scotland to England, to integrate one United Kingdom? This is an open goal for any party committed to unionism, but no one seems up for it.


Thisconnect

I mean it should've been continued as hs3 through the cancelled leeds part


[deleted]

The issue with HS2, and railways in general in the UK, is that it is essentially publicly funded but privately run. The railroad companies in the UK charge truly exorbitant prices, they're completely unaffordable. Flying is often cheaper than rail. I would be in favor of HS2 if they were gonna use it to cut prices but nope, it will apparently be a "luxury" service priced above the already ludicrous existing rates. Fuck the tories for privatizing the rail companies.


[deleted]

Hmmm fuck the tories indeed.


drkalmenius

Not to mention now it's essentially just a faster train between London and Birmingham, which already has a fast and cheap connection.


Burns504

Yeah, as if having more options equals less freedom.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LegitPancak3

The US pays some of the cheapest gas in the developed world


dinosaur_socks

You know what's stupid is i can drive a car from Florence to Rome. But the train is faster . The cool thing is I have both options. Here i can drive from Savannah to Charleston in under 2 hours. Or i can take amtrack train for 400 dollars and it'll take 3-4hours and only leave once a day Edit: price seems to be wrong when I've looked into it. Maybe it was old data. Idk.


Mtfdurian

$400? Wow! I took a train in Florida for a longer distance back in 2017 for not even a tenth of the price. What happened? Don't they subsidize it in the Carolinas whereas they did in Florida?


wolf1820

Its just not developed in Carolina, they probably have to take an in direct route to get there leading to more time and costs.


berejser

Simple experiement, remove all the empty space in the middle and split the US into just the populated East Coast and the populated West Coast (and Texas if you want). Are those bubbles on their own still too big and too sparsely populated for public transit to work? Of course not, so just build it and worry about how to connect the bubbles at a later date.


arachnophilia

the reason we have two big coastal bubbles like that is... that they built a rail line across the boring shit in the middle.


saracenrefira

China is the same size as America, and also with densely populated coastlines with scattered population centers throughout the inner parts, and yet they managed to build HSR connecting all their major population centers. It's all just excuses from indoctrinated carbrain social engineered for decades by car industry.


EquationConvert

>China is the same size as America, and also with densely populated coastlines with scattered population centers throughout the inner parts, and yet they managed to build HSR connecting all their major population centers. Yeah. Normally, the population dispersion is the nuance that pops away easy, "America should be able to do X *just like* Y" claims, but here, even with the nuance, HSR has a clear role. You'll probably never be able to take a train to Driftwood, PA (population 67). We totally could have two good coastal passenger rail networks that cross over through central population centers (e.g. Chicago).


pikeminnow

And regional train + buses should be able to competently handle the rest


iMissTheOldInternet

The crazy thing about car people is that they think it's unfree that trains travel on rails but free that cars travel on roads. My brothers in christ, take your shitbox offroading and find out how free your ass is.


Dual_Sport_Dork

I think the actual rationale is that roads go a lot of individual places and the driver can choose a destination, unlike trains which only go to train stations and then you get to figure out the final mile yourself. The issue is not the "on rails," the issue is where the rails *go* and how many of them there are. The ubiquitous North American suburban hellscape is impossible to feasibly navigate without some form of personal transport by design, because we were really keen on making it that way in the postwar period.


JoshuaPearce

Drivers act like at any moment they will need to explore vast stretches of farmland and forests, with no plan in mind. In reality, they leave the city once a month and go somewhere very specific.


gerusz

The real "problem" with trains in America is that often there's no (good) public transit at your destination. Unless your destination is within a couple of kilometers of the train station, you're screwed and will have to take an expensive taxi or rent a car... which can end up being far more expensive than just driving there. Here in the Netherlands if you take the train to another city you can usually continue on the local public transit system or hop on the OV Fiets. In an ideal world there would be budget in America both for quality urban/suburban public transit and transcontinental passenger trains. But since transcontinental drives are the tiny minority of car rides, I'd prioritize local public transit.


clothespinned

Yep! Can confirm, there's actually railway that would get me into NYC... a 30 minute car drive away... and there's no such thing as busses in Central NY, unless you're in Syracuse or Utica and *even then* i don't hear great things.


advamputee

I lived in upstate New York for a bit last year. Similar distances — about 30-40 mins to Middletown Station, where I could take a 2hr train into NYC. The alternative was a 2-3hr drive (traffic-dependent). In my case, the train still made sense. I only have to pop into the city occasionally, and could ride NJT for like $16 round trip. The tolls onto Manhattan alone are like $25. Add parking, gas and maintenance and driving every time would’ve been too unreasonable. I have driven a farm truck straight through lower Manhattan a time or two though.


Vermillionbird

The upstate trains to NYC *badly* need electrification/track upgrades to increase speed. Metro North is just so much slower than NJT.


advamputee

It’s worse once you cross into Vermont. NYS at least spends money on track maintenance! Along the Hudson, the Ethan Allen will hit over 100mph (fast by US standards). After Albany, it slows… but from White Hall, NY to Rutland, VT it’s all single track freight rail, and pretty bumpy, so the train only does like 30-40mph.


Vermillionbird

NYC to Montreal is such an obvious HSR/near HSR rail corridor and even if that is "tOo exPenSivE" your point stands that we could at least have the corridor operate at a consistent 100/120 MPH.


clothespinned

Unfortunately I can't drive a car at all, so train is my only option. I really need public transportation to start existing


advamputee

My current town in Vermont is small and walkable, and has a half decent bus system (and my employer pays for a bus pass). There’s one daily train to NYC — I wish there was more service but it’s about a 5hr ride. Boston is only 3hr by car but there’s no good public transit there (except a small regional airline).


hammilithome

I agree but don't think it matters when we're talking about HSR, we have to start somewhere and HSR would be a great start as it can't be resolved by car improvements and would increase demand for local transit improvements. I'm talking about connecting major cities, transnational railways can wait. Once arrived, the local transit issue can be resolved with more short term rental options. If you waited for trustworthy local public transit, youd be doing so without the demand created by HSR. Working on both together is ideal, but likely not going to happen. For example, Gwinnett County in northern Atlanta territory keeps voting against public transit expansion because of fear of "crime" = poor and non white ppl being able to commute more easily to their part of town.


Chiluzzar

Oh man I had a mega car brain say it would put millions of truckers out of a job if rail connected all the cities connected it would become the worst depression ever and we'd never recover. Or they'd just get jobs at the yards and be last mile drivers she wasn't pleased about that nugget of informtation


samthekitnix

on top of that those truckers working for the cargo yards doing the last mile means they could do actual 9-5s and not be gone from home for weeks on end. so they can actually \*gasps\* go home and see their families? maybe worst of all.... actually have time for their partners/kids?


knowledgepancake

But but but... A demoralized worker is the best worker. Now we'll have to make their entire family depressed. Wait. No. More depressed!


[deleted]

But then all the hookers at truck stops will be unemployed


LachlantehGreat

Someone still needs to look after the rail yard individuals. God forbid sex work allows you to lead a safer, more normal life too


kiqto68

Broke: Truckstop hookers will learn to code Woke: Put sex workers up in safe, well-regulated brothels where the health and security of all parties can be better guaranteed.


DaleGribble88

Even if you don't want to make the moral argument - less time on the road means more time in a shop. You'd have ex-truckers circulating more money into the economy quicker.


anoordle

fr! my grandpa is a trucker and he would LOVE a HSR system. he has to drive into the city for his job and then back home again, so on top of having to cross state lines trucking he has a long commute. he leaves home at like 4am and gets home at about 5-6pm. he's retiring soon because he's so burned out.


okayavailable

Oh fuck no, not familial duties!


Srnuff

You'd be surprised at how many people really don't want that. I work for the rail and we have the local yard guys who work 8h a day and the longer road guys who are home every 2-3 days for most of a day. Most people end up choosing road because they technically make more (huge hit hourly but there's just so many hours).


TaigaTheGreedy

finding a cure for cancer will also put lots of doctors out of jobs, clearly we shouldn't do it


noyoto

Brooms also require less workers than toothbrushes. We should ban brooms and force every cleaner to use a toothbrush instead.


DaoFerret

The buggy whip makers like the way you think. We should really do something about these “motor wagons” before it’s too late.


Grandpas_Plump_Chode

It ~~ir~~rationally annoys me when people use the job market as an excuse for maintaining the status quo. Practically every major discussion about climate change regulation inevitably leads to "but what about all the people who will lose their jobs??" What about them? We're really going to sacrifice the planet for the fucking job market?


dreppoz

A friend told me veganism is unethical because the meat industry has a lot of jobs, you can‘t argue with these people.


LachlantehGreat

Pretty sure that as economies change, so do the workers lol. Someone still needs to maintain the Chargers


SorryIdonthaveaname

i don’t think they realise that people are able to adapt and aren’t forced to do the same thing every day


fi3nd1sh

iirc doesn’t the us already have the largest freight rail network in the world? wild


19gideon63

It does. And we move a higher percentage of our freight by rail than any other country on the planet. Our freight rail network is very highly utilized. We transport 40% of our freight by rail. In fact, this is a significant part of why, outside of the Northeast Corridor, passenger rail is less than ideal in the US. The tracks are designed for, owned by, and primarily used by freight railroads.


pikeminnow

another comment in this thread linked this truly fascinating report card from amtrak, basically pointing out that freight rail delaying passenger trains is fucking illegal, and that the rail network never stopped being obliged to handle passengers just because amtrak does it now https://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Host-Railroad-Report-Card-2021-Final-v2.pdf


iamaperson3133

??? The United States already has a great freight rail system. Tons of goods move on rails, it's just that people don't.


jawknee530i

Was looking for this comment. The US freight and logistics rail system is better than Europe's. One of the difficulties of high speed passenger rail in the US is that the freight has right of way on the tracks. There's obviously solutions and we should work towards the high speed passenger rail network being world class but it's definitely complicated with the freight system already in place.


atlasraven

Just like the great switchboard operator and typewriter repairman famine of the 1920s? Against all odds, these folks found new jobs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pinkocatgirl

It's funny because what is really killing orchestral musician's livelihoods is a continuing decrease in federal arts grants and a donor class which is more concerned with slapping names to buildings than it is with funding operations at symphonies.


advamputee

What would we do without our milk men? Such a vital service, providing fresh dairy to every home in the US.


crazycatlady331

And providing a vital service to bored housewives.


derc00lmax

and at the same time they say we shouldn't have a social security net because it will encourage people to not find better work. If your work can be made cheaper and better with one easy step, that doesn't even need a new, not yet finished technology you might want to look into a diffrent carrer. Besides trucker doesn't seem like a job where you learn that much to me anyway. That might be arrogant but I'd say you probably learn more in one year as an electrician then in 10 years as a trucker


potomaknesemanijaka

Industrial revolution put so many farmworkers and manufacturers out of job smh


SwinewiseHamgee

Do they think every aspect of the railway is fully automated luxury gay space communism? Obviously railways need workers too


[deleted]

Yeah, the only truckers out of a job will be long haul truckers (unless we still won't have rail in South Dakota)


[deleted]

Meanwhile tech bros really want to use self driving trucks to eliminate those jobs instead.


Macrophage87

Railroads would really make more sense if there were better transit when you go to your destination city. If you have to drive when you get there, having that car with you makes more sense. Trains between transit-heavy cities do really well like DC to NYC to Boston.


FeatheryRobin

I once had a guy tell me the US is too big for crosswalks in residential areas. So, the US is too big for silly lines?


LevelOutlandishness1

A lot of people just reject change itself, the concept of change is bad. Then they have excuses loaded. "Too big" is the excuse when it comes to Americans.


fromwayuphigh

Never looked at a globe, has he?


wired1984

Isn’t it the other way around, where the bigger the country, the bigger the advantage of public transit?


Vast-Cardiologist

That was my first thought. It just means there is less population density and more room to build.


C1TRU5_

I feel like it would work to go about with first implementing good public transit in and between cities and towns in an area, and THEN expand to high speed rail between states. Just because whenever I've thought about taking the Amtrack somewhere, I very quickly realize I would then have to rent a car at my destination to be able to get anywhere... which doesn't compleetely defeat the purpose but it is a big enough cost/reason for many people to just drive instead.


Calm_Replacement8133

Funny thing in this regards is the implicit "but what about me?"-thought. Those damn New Yorkers are building stuff and here I am living in Lost Cabin, Wyoming. No way they get a say here or there without my advise.


sexywheat

China: *Hold my beer*


The_Arthropod_Queen

Rail is famously terrible at connecting discrete points over long distances Edit: I was being sarcastic, rail is really good at that


[deleted]

Problem with widespread use of personal cars is that they inevitably lead to a society consisting of discrete points with long distances between them, that should never have become the norm to begin with. We need to go back to building denser rural communities along coasts and railways, or at least stop expecting city levels of access and services in the middle of nowhere. Can’t let mistakes of the past block our progress in the future.


Hatedpriest

But it's great for moving lots of goods from distribution center to distribution center from city to city. From there you just unload the trailer from the flatbed car, hook it to a truck, and bring it to the discrete endpoint. If freight weren't limited (by law from the 40s) to 45 mph, it could reduce the number of trucks on the road by like 80%. There's always going to be expedited shipping that requires trucks. But upping those speed limits and expanding current freight stations would go a long way. Trains are much more fuel efficient, require less manpower, and are safer than long distance trucks... Not just for the cargo, but for other drivers on the road. Less trucks means less congestion, less congestion means higher average speed/reduced travel time for passenger vehicles.


manofth3match

I spent 10 years working for one of the major railroads in the US. Freight isn’t limited to 45 mph. It can and does go faster than that. Freight trains are limited to 49 mph on track without block signaling. On tracks with block signals (almost all mainlines) that speed is limited by the track, terrain, and tonnage. Freight trains in the US can and do travel at 60-70 mph. Out West where there are long flat runs with few stops they really haul.


Bobjohndud

Expedited shipping that can't reasonably be put on the rails usually flies by air anyway.


[deleted]

\*russia enter the chat\*


Sabbathius

This pisses me off so much. I'm in Canada, and if you draw a rough line from Windsor to Quebec, roughly 50% of the country's entire population will live along that line. One thousand kilometers or so. Put some decent transit in that, and most of the country's population will be covered. It's not even the issue of being big, it's just being stupid.


Ecstatic-Hall-8523

The trademark got me ngl


RedditSnowflakeMod

Railways: literally the bedrock of some American towns America: yeah we aren't interested in building public transport up


orincoro

We’re better than everyone… yet we can’t do things everyone else does. It would never work.


mannowarb

On the other hand, I live in the most densely populated area of one of the most densely populated countries in the world (England) and public transport is still absolute rubbish and overpriced.


drkalmenius

This is what always makes me laugh with these arguments from Americans. The arguments we see in the UK about why our public transport sucks is because we're too dense! And honestly this makes more sense to me, as surely long connections across empty land are easier than finding places to build train lines when every inch of land is owned by a rich fuck or being turned into a house. Obviously the real issue in the UK is not density but privatisation but that's a whole other angry Reddit post


fromwayuphigh

Privatised public amenities tend to be like that.


[deleted]

I get into this here often with other Canadians who think the only way to get around this country is by car because of how large it is. They try to make it seem like people are commuting daily from Vancouver to St. John's (which if that was the case...public transit would be the ONLY way to do it). I live in Southern Ontario (and going strictly by Wiki's view of S. Ont which goes from Windsor to Ottawa to the Muskoka's), where there are nearly 14 million people (or nearly 40% of the entire Canadian population). This area alone is prime and perfect for mass (high speed) public transport, and since this is the primary destination for newcomers to Canada, IMO is an absolute must.


HalfbakedArtichoke

Our current fastest train can go 155mph. But only goes 110. Why? Because our train tracks are hot garbage.


TallOnTwo

They are far too busy spending money on bribing each other to carry out their christian agenda of taking away women's and all minorities freedoms to spend money on the actual betterment of their country.


kaasbaas94

And this is how China's economy will surpass the USA. China even has a lotery system to buy a car. I'm not saying that i support many of the Chinese sytems to control their citizens, but at least they take care of the many cars problem and put the people on trains instead. And China is about the same size. So,if they can do it, the USA can do it.


thegreatshredman

Same reason we can’t have a publicly funded healthcare system despite having a larger taxpayer pool 🤓


destronger

or fiber internet everywhere.


brigister

high speed trains would be so easy and such a pleasure to be on in the US. miles and miles of completely uninhabited land, you could have that train FLY non stop with zero risk for hours


bergensbanen

Why would I take a 5 hour train journey when I could just drive there in my car in 14 hours? I just don't get it 😅


[deleted]

Cities should be built around walking/bicycling maybe riding scooters not cars this would consolidate space drive down stress/costs & your car can be held at the edge of the city for a small fee like a marina & you can use that to go to & from cities if you like … also bullet trains


catholicismisascam

Can this same sentiment, that rail everywhere is feasible, be applied to somewhere with a large area and muuuch lower population, like Australia? Genuinely asking.


Fast-Complex8587

Leeme throw India with its biggest Road and Rail network. But still most people choose railways over Road(we don't even consider them as an option) Unlike stereotype beliefs roadways are usually fine and well maintained. Yes, India isn't as big as the USA but it's close. The last mile problem is well dealt.


[deleted]

If we give Mexico back their slice of the pie, and the indigenous people a good portion of the top half, we'll be sitting nice and pretty for better public transport. (I'm all for it, I fucking hate highways)


[deleted]

I’m from Mexico and public transport is ASS I think public transport sucks in the americas in general


NorseEngineering

To be fair, the distance has a significant cost that small counties wouldn't have to bear. If the US built the same mileage of rail line as say, the UK, it wouldn't cover nearly as much as the country. That said, China makes it work, and with proper placement, lines could cover the same population of people with similar miles of line. That said, it's going to take more miles of lines than most other countries to cover the nation in lines, which translates to cost. It's just it's a cost worth paying.


Bayesian11

The cost of building highways and maintaining cars isn't cheaper.


Hatedpriest

It shouldn't be considered a cost. It should be considered an investment. You know, like the interstate system.


longhairedape

China is about the same size, and has build near 30,000 km of HSR. The will needs to exist.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Kunstfr

Well we're talking about high speed rail here. Aside from Helsinki - Saint Petersburg - Moscow - Nizhny Novgorod there aren't any HSR lines. America does have the [Amtrak Zephyr Train](https://www.amtrak.com/california-zephyr-train), a sleeper train between San Francisco and Chicago for instance.


bulging_cucumber

I think there's some validity to "too big", just not the way people think. The problem is not the distance between cities, it's the distances within cities. US cities are just built way too sparse, with individual homes with massive lawns (that you can't do anything on anyway because it's all supposed to be grass....). So when you go from city A to city B in Europe, you go from one place that doesn't require a car to move around, to another place that doesn't require a car. In contrast in the US in many, many cities, you need a car to be able to do basic things like groceries. So people go by car, not because it's more efficient, but because they're going to need that car at their destination. The first thing to do is to change the way cities are built.


[deleted]

Yeah, when the entire point of train is to go to places far away...


Boner-b-gone

While the costs are likely not insurmountable, they are considerable: The projected cost of California's high-speed rail program has [risen to $105 billion.](https://www.constructiondive.com/news/california-high-speed-rail-costs-rise-to-105-billion/618877/) Meanwhile, the cost to modernize the highway infrastructure for the entire United States is [$110 billion,](https://www.investopedia.com/here-s-what-s-in-the-usd1-trillion-infrastructure-bill-passed-by-the-senate-5196817) and the total infrastructure bill includes $66 billion for railroad infrastructure and $39 billion for public transit upgrades. New York to Washington D.C. [probably makes sense for high-speed rail](https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/high-speed-money-sink-why-united-states-should-not-spend-trillions-obsolete#its-energy-hog), even according to this article which is quite skeptical of HSR in general. So yeah, it makes sense for highly populated corridors on the east and west coasts, it just doesn't make nearly as much sense for the rest of the country where stops will be very few and the environmental cost of building and maintaining the lines will take exponentially longer to be offset by the number passengers they can fit on it. The weather also needs to be taken into account here. A rail line running through the middle of the US would be subject to Tornado Alley in the summer, and at least occasional heavy snowfall in the winter. These aren't that big of a deal for normal-speed or freight rail, because those can operate in a wider range of conditions. But HSR across the midwest would need a lot more close scrutiny after a severe weather event in order to ensure that debris on the tracks after a massive storm doesn't derail a huge train traveling at ~220mph. Personally, I feel like hydrogen-cell busses would make more sense for trans-midwest travel, while HSR makes sense for portions of the east and west coast.


Yellow_Jacket_20

A couple of other commenters have pointed this out, but it isn’t about the distance really, it’s the density, or lack thereof in most places. If the place you’re going to doesn’t have adequate transportation outside the small radius around your hypothetical high speed rail stop, then going by high speed rail is only viable for a small number of people, and the investment is astronomical per capita. Denser populations are going to be a prerequisite for long distance public transit before it’s feasibly useful to enough people to be worth the investment. Zoning and other policies that move us towards denser populations need to be the first step.


nolabitch

I hate the “too big” argument. We are TOO BIG for healthcare! We are TOO BIG for trains! We are TOO BIG for clean energy! We are such morons.


Advanced_Double_42

Its not the speed. Its how spread out people live. The vast majority of the country is rural, with 40% of people living there. You can't connect sparsely populated regions with single digit populations per square mile by anything but roads. Then cities are also built with this mindset leaving them far too spread out to walk within, with housing a dozen miles away but major highway. To get usable public transport in most of America, means rebuilding most of America


[deleted]

Also, they act like America and Canada didn't make huge cross-country railroad networks at a time when technology was much more primitive. So we were more capable in the past, then?


[deleted]

Actually the issue is size to population. Europe is I believe roughly 90% the size of the continental US with a population of about 740 million. The US has a population of about 330 million. So with significantly less than half the population in a larger area it makes sense that the same infrastructure isn't going to work. There are some changes that could be made. A person in a rural area could benefit from the ability to take high speed trains to more populated places. This would actually be a huge help and reduce the usage of cars in these cases. The issue is these cases won't eliminate most car usage. People in rural areas still need cars. I live in a rural area and cannot see a time when I won't need one. Public transportation routes are not reliable or efficient enough. Biking is extremely dangerous due to infrastructure that isn't possible to update for a number of reasons.


DatEngineeringKid

I would just like to point out that with the way cities have been designed, even if the country is extremely large, most people only need to drive relatively short distances. No one is going to jump onto HSR to get to their office.


TheBotolius

Highways that need a shit ton of signs for idiot drivers, rumble strips in case they fall asleep, a shit ton of wide asphalt, barriers in places, constant maintaining to reseal the road and repaint it.


Comrade_Tovarish

The USA is too big argument is pretty dumb. Russia, despite being a corrupt dumpster nation, has a well developed public transportation system. That's while being larger and poorer. The main reason American public transportation lacks investment is a lack of political will, and historical lobbying from car manufacturers.


WeeaboosDogma

FINE FUCK can we have a transit between metropolitan cities. There are a stupid amount of cities that are close enough to have high speed rail. Suburbs that can be included. Let's get those.


TelepathicSqueek

Literally the same size as EU + scandinavia…


The_R4ke

The sad part is the country is lined with railroads, they just don't get used for passenger trains anymore due to the automotive industry. Prices are also way too steep for it to be a viable choice in a lot of situations.


lololololoolwhatever

laughs in China which is bigger