To be honest, I havenât seen anyone else mention the real reason: America allowed private companies to buy and own the lands under the rails in the 1800s in order to deal with the massive distances across the US to connect the West and East. 150 years later and just a few companies own almost all the track and rail across America. Almost all private, not public land. Public citizens and communities have very little control over the railways going through their communities. These companies lobby against and make it difficult to introduce new, public rail lines for a multitude of reasons. This is one of very many examples of how corporations abuse law, monopolistic practices, and media to lessen the power of American citizens.
I was in Switzerland and the trains there are incredible. Even the tiniest village in buttfucksburg, nowhere has a train connecting it to the rest of the country.
Iâm a huge train and transit advocate and I try to take Amtrak every chance I get. But âtickets are cheaperâ does not feel like a blanket statement we can make. Maybe on very specific, usually short legs, like Chicago to Milwaukee. Someone correct me if Iâm wrong or thereâs more nuance but once a trip goes past 3 or 5+ hour mark, the price seems to skyrocket past airfare.
Honestly I think it's just sticker shock. I would say that as soon as we get some people would be more willing to get more, but no, because people are hesitant to expand existing rail. MARTA please expand, I beg you. Oh great spirits of public transit, I pray that you soften the NIMBYs' hearts.
It's so upsetting that every small town in my state has an old historic train stop but none of them are actually passenger train stops anymore. Once you see it you can't unsee it. I am 15 minutes from my town's historic train stop which is a steak house now. My parents are about the same distance from theirs, probably even closer, but it's a museum or something. Can I just take a walk to the train, ride down, and see them? Nope. Gotta deal with the hellscape that is metro Atlanta traffic.
This again? The answer is no one knows. We heard legends about it but the prophecy says line go up!
Not to shit on your perfectly reasonable parade, but in Germany there is high speed rail through the whole . takes about 6 hours from top to bottom.
Now look at the scale of the US versus Germany and then the density of people living there. High speed rail makes alot of sense where it's difficult to build (bosnywash) and does not scale well in terms of time spent traveling.
Its better than car, but won't replace air travel anytime soon. Sadly.
Trains not planes is a much more reasonable and practical way to get people behind building more railways than planes not cars. We can talk planes not cars once some of the initial infrastructure is in place, but I think focusing on replacing something people hate (flying) rather than replacing something they like (driving) is probably a good place to start.
I recently went on a holiday using high speed rail in Europe (1100km). Flying was cheaper and faster. Sadly I have feeling of empathy and principles so I went with the train anyway. Wasn't too bad though just did a lot of reading.
And for one more added bonus we wouldnât have to fix the problems with air traffic control
The only national passenger train service I know of is Amtrak, which shares its tracks with freight carriers. So the current infrastructure isn't designed for high-speed rail and freight carriers usually get priority.
Also, The US is really big, so everything isn't a short train ride away from everything else. If I wanted to visit the Grand Canyon from where I live, it's over 2,000 miles away. That's 30 hours of driving just by car.
The US public transportation, especially the passenger rail network is fucking pathetic.
Doesn't Europe have an extensive passenger train network?
Also, I recently rode on Amtrak for a long trip from Columbia, SC to Baltimore, MD. This was my first time on any kind of train other than a subway or metro line. It had its drawbacks (incredibly long travel time and delays), but I always felt safe, and I had a lot more room than I would have had on any flight. The major drawbacks where the seats were somewhat uncomfortable and things like that are largely due to the fact that the cars were pretty old, and not inherent to train travel if it was properly maintained. The cost was much less, and the free parking was such a great bonus.
I'm not sure about other countries but one thing Amtrak has over planes is that they're more disability accessible. Still making improvements on legacy equipment but they're under the ADA, whereas airlines lobbied themselves out of it, which is why they never bothered to create wheelchair spaces or accessible bathrooms or even seats a normal human can occupy comfortably.
Train infrastructure is so underfunded (thx oil) that you can still get the fingering at most train stations for a really reasonable fee.
Are they stupid?
(Yes)I live in South Korea and HSRs are pretty much the only mode of (intercity) transportation that is relevant. Buses take too long, planes are expensive, while HSR(KTX)s are marginally cheaper than buses and take about â of a time.
Of course, our country's much much smaller than US/Canada so even the farthest lane takes only about 2.5 hours. It's pretty cool.
I kind of like the thought of me pissing in the train and it travelling 300+ kph sideways and 9.8 m/sÂČ downwards
Every time I take an airplane, I feel tired and worn out. I don't want to do anything for the rest of the day except take a nap.
Trains are no problem.
The main reasons might be relatively low oxygen at altitude (cabins are usually pressurized somewhere between 1/3rd to 1/2 atmosphere) and uncomfortable seats. But I think the whole dreary process of getting on and off the airplane is part of it, too. Train stations are so much more low key, even in large metropolitan areas.
I mean, some of this is just silly and entirely based on the locations involved. For instance, a flight from Chicago to Florida is going to be cheaper and faster than Rail, and youâre not going to just hop off wherever the hell you want. And no you canât just hop on the next one, you miss your train departure and youâre SOL.
I do also question the âsafetyâ aspect. Iâm pretty sure both trains and planes have extremely high safety rates, and are pretty much on par with each other.
Also⊠why is âon the groundâ a bullet point? Youâre on the ground 99.9% of your life, you telling me itâs not cool as shit to be flying through the air?
based.
Parking is cheaper No TSA fingering your asshole Tickets are cheaper Safer travel On the ground Can take the next train if late
These aren't (completely) true where I live, it's still more convenient to take a plane or even drive to go to another major city 500-600km away, which is ridiculous specially considering that it's consistently ranked among the best high speed rail systems in the world.
A train can't take me up remote roads 15 miles up a canyon to destinations that only a capable 4x4 can reach (this is the point of those roads), then take me out the other end of the canyon via those trails into a small town with a delicious diner and ice cream shop. All while checking out abandoned mines (no I don't go in), ghost towns, and other history from before my time.
I heard that their is two issue for massive train transportation : -1. Public fund : to make every city more attractive for tourists, kerosene is take free for company. Which lower the price of the ticket -2. Freight : in order to not use massively truck, train freight need to have some span.
Railway is expensive to build.
Edit: I love trains, it's the best transport. But depending on the terrain, railway can be very expensive. Not to mention is difficult to add tracks today, because cities are densely populated and you need space that is not available. It's much easier to buy and rud a couple of planes, than to add tracks.
