3 ms·

The US had the largest rail system in the world and more streetcar lines that Europe not over 100 years ago. They're all gone now. Here's a great video: https:

The US had the largest rail system in the world and more streetcar lines that Europe not over 100 years ago. They're all gone now. Here's a great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cjfTG8DbwA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cjfTG8DbwA "America is too spread out" is a bullshit argument. You put the rail architecture back in and you'll watch communities draw inward, zoning laws merge and neighborhoods get closer and more sustainable. Access to transportation is the biggest factor in being able to move out of poverty. That's not a subjective statement. It's been verified in study after study. Don't like living next to people and hate public transport? That's fine. There are tons of Europeans and Australians like that who live outside the cities and drive. They have that choice, because the cities are affordable and livable. Every Australian capital has commuter rail except Darwin, Hobart and ACT. In America, it's incredibly difficult to live without a car in almost every major city and most of our capitals, and we have a far far greater population density.

microcolonel 9y ago
> "America is too spread out" is a bullshit argument. It may well be a bullshit argument, but it's also an argument that I did not make. My point was entirely that the markets do not seem to value high speed rail highly enough to justify its costs, and that the U.S. (for its faults) largely represents this low market valuation of high speed rail by not financing it. You seem to make an argument with the assumption that you know the utility of high speed rail is higher than the cost, I avoid this assumption. High speed rail is apparently worth less than it costs, state pricing distortions included. You might like it, it might be attractive, it might make things more dense, you might think that's a good thing... and none of that matters because apparently it's just not worth it to the market which will be tasked with funding it, all things considered.
- herbst 9y ago
  IMO this shouldnt be a cost decission but quality of life for the tax payer. Pretty sure governments arent ment to be profitable in all what they do.

microcolonel 9y ago

> "America is too spread out" is a bullshit argument. It may well be a bullshit argument, but it's also an argument that I did not make. My point was entirely that the markets do not seem to value high speed rail highly enough to justify its costs, and that the U.S. (for its faults) largely represents this low market valuation of high speed rail by not financing it. You seem to make an argument with the assumption that you know the utility of high speed rail is higher than the cost, I avoid this assumption. High speed rail is apparently worth less than it costs, state pricing distortions included. You might like it, it might be attractive, it might make things more dense, you might think that's a good thing... and none of that matters because apparently it's just not worth it to the market which will be tasked with funding it, all things considered.

herbst 9y ago
IMO this shouldnt be a cost decission but quality of life for the tax payer. Pretty sure governments arent ment to be profitable in all what they do.