3 ms·

America use to have more rail at one point in time than Europe has today. It wasn't that long ago. We're talking less than 70 years. If we start building infra

America use to have more rail at one point in time than Europe has today. It wasn't that long ago. We're talking less than 70 years. If we start building infrastructure in our cities again for rail and express buses, you will see things being to naturally be more compact. Business spring up around rail stations, and people who want to live close to one another fill in those spaces and move closer to the city. The "America is too spread out" argument is total bullshit. At the very least, make the cities have good transport and walkable areas. It can happen in a very short time frame. We lost it in a short time frame. Northern Indiana has the same population density of Scotland, so it can work if we build it. We use to have trains from Nashville to Atlanta. The famous "Chattanooga Choo-choo" doesn't even have an AmTrak anymore. Transportation is the largest factor in the ability of people to move up from poverty. This isn't some subjective statement. There are tons of objective studies to support this[1]. The idea that you need to own a car (and insurance an maintenance) in most of America is pretty insane. A car shouldn't ever be a necessity. Associating it with freedom, as the American car companies have, and buses with poverty, is ass fucking backwards. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cjfTG8DbwA&t=316s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cjfTG8DbwA&t=316s

Karnickel 9y ago
> The "America is too spread out" argument is total bullshit. In support of this statement, here is a map of "mega regions": http://www.america2050.org/sync/elements/america2050map.png http://www.america2050.org/sync/elements/america2050map.png Source: http://www.america2050.org/maps/ http://www.america2050.org/maps/ Alternative: "The Mega-Regions of North America" http://martinprosperity.org/content/the-mega-regions-of-north-america/ http://martinprosperity.org/content/the-mega-regions-of-nort... > All told, these dozen mega-regions span 243 metropolitan areas in the U.S. and Canada, more than six in ten of all U.S. metros. They have a combined population of more than 230 million people, including 215 million from the United States or 70 percent of the U.S. population. Together, they produce more than $13 trillion dollars in economic output, equivalent to three-quarters of America’s total GDP. Vast regions of the US don't even matter for the purpose of this discussion. When you only look at those regions the problem is no different than in a lot of other countries. That is also the geographical level where public transport makes sense, it's per-region (and different regions may want to/have to solve it in very different ways since their respective situations are different), not one solution for the whole country.
pc86 9y ago
> We use[d] to have trains from Nashville to Atlanta. The famous "Chattanooga Choo-choo" doesn't even have an AmTrak anymore. Why do you think that is? Because nobody bought tickets from Nashville to Atlanta. Do you think that route was throwing off millions a year in profit to AmTrak and some executive sat back and said "No, I hate poor people let's get rid of that route."? Of course not. If people bought the tickets but the business was mismanaged, that's one thing. But not enough people bought the tickets.
- buckbeak 9y ago
  pc86 you are wrong. I have bought tickets on Amtrak, and Amtrak sucks. I have done the price/time opportunity cost calculation for several destinations, and Amtrak came out a big loser, and I ended up driving. I have taken trains in Europe many times, and the overall difference is astounding. I don't know how to fix it, but American trains just seem to want to fail.
  - bunderbunder 9y ago
    Amtrak is a bit of a special beast. It's a Frankenstein's monster that the government assembled from the corpses of the many independent rail companies that were failing in the mid 20th century. As for why Amtrak's service is so poor, my personal sense is that Amtrak made a bunch of bad decisions that maximized their bottom line, such as using excessively cushy (and heavy, and low-capacity) rolling stock for the kinds of routes that would be covered by something more like IC service in Europe. In essence, they made a gamble that what rail travelers want is luxury, which translated into 250lb seats with half an acre of leg room and 3" of foam padding, when what they really want is frequent, regular service. Commuter train systems like Chicago's Metra are much better, but they're unable to extend themselves out to full-fledged intercity service, no matter how successful they might be at it, because Amtrak enjoys a statutory monopoly.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
ataturk 9y ago
None of what you just said is going to happen as long as there exists a desperately under-funded pension system in every city, state, and nationwide. Also, the biggest factor relating to poverty these days is overpopulation--too many people, not enough jobs. The jobs that do exist are never going to lift anyone out of poverty, even "good" paying office jobs won't take you very far. That is the reality. The other reality with public transportation is that outside of a few major cities, it doesn't respect an individual's time at all. I used to take a bus to my job in the downtown area of a city, but to get to that bus, I had to drive. I commuted to then commute again. It nearly wrecked my life, 90 mins. a day lost to all that bs. I got smart and quit that stupid job. Humanity's future is dire--go visit China or India and realize that those places are the guideposts for everyone's future. Filthy humanity overflowing with nowhere left to go, air pollution, trash all over, stench. That's humanity.
cjslep 9y ago
The difference between rail in the US and Europe is that on a lot of the rail in the US, cargo has right of way over passengers.
jcranmer 9y ago
> America use to have more rail at one point in time than Europe has today. It wasn't that long ago. We're talking less than 70 years. The US has a larger rail network than the EU, still. Actually, the US's freight rail system is the envy of Europe, although our passenger rail sucks. > The "America is too spread out" argument is total bullshit. At the very least, make the cities have good transport and walkable areas. It can happen in a very short time frame. We lost it in a short time frame. Northern Indiana has the same population density of Scotland, so it can work if we build it. We use to have trains from Nashville to Atlanta. The famous "Chattanooga Choo-choo" doesn't even have an AmTrak anymore. No, it's not bullshit. It is not profitable to have a train route of more than about 5 hours (China is sort of the exception that proves the rule, as their air network is incredibly constrained which eliminates alternatives to trains). That is roughly the straight-line distance between Chicago and NYC, which (as I've pointed out before) is longer than the longest axes of most European countries. And Chicago-NYC is one of the shorter links between major city pairs in the US. It's also funny that you compare to Scotland, since Scotland has some of the worst availability of rail in Europe.
- chetanahuja 9y ago
  > No, it's not bullshit. It is not profitable to have a train route of more than about 5 hours Most of the discussion in this tread is mostly about mass transit in metro areas.

Karnickel 9y ago

> The "America is too spread out" argument is total bullshit. In support of this statement, here is a map of "mega regions": http://www.america2050.org/sync/elements/america2050map.png http://www.america2050.org/sync/elements/america2050map.png Source: http://www.america2050.org/maps/ http://www.america2050.org/maps/ Alternative: "The Mega-Regions of North America" http://martinprosperity.org/content/the-mega-regions-of-north-america/ http://martinprosperity.org/content/the-mega-regions-of-nort... > All told, these dozen mega-regions span 243 metropolitan areas in the U.S. and Canada, more than six in ten of all U.S. metros. They have a combined population of more than 230 million people, including 215 million from the United States or 70 percent of the U.S. population. Together, they produce more than $13 trillion dollars in economic output, equivalent to three-quarters of America’s total GDP. Vast regions of the US don't even matter for the purpose of this discussion. When you only look at those regions the problem is no different than in a lot of other countries. That is also the geographical level where public transport makes sense, it's per-region (and different regions may want to/have to solve it in very different ways since their respective situations are different), not one solution for the whole country.

pc86 9y ago

> We use[d] to have trains from Nashville to Atlanta. The famous "Chattanooga Choo-choo" doesn't even have an AmTrak anymore. Why do you think that is? Because nobody bought tickets from Nashville to Atlanta. Do you think that route was throwing off millions a year in profit to AmTrak and some executive sat back and said "No, I hate poor people let's get rid of that route."? Of course not. If people bought the tickets but the business was mismanaged, that's one thing. But not enough people bought the tickets.

buckbeak 9y ago
pc86 you are wrong. I have bought tickets on Amtrak, and Amtrak sucks. I have done the price/time opportunity cost calculation for several destinations, and Amtrak came out a big loser, and I ended up driving. I have taken trains in Europe many times, and the overall difference is astounding. I don't know how to fix it, but American trains just seem to want to fail.
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  Amtrak is a bit of a special beast. It's a Frankenstein's monster that the government assembled from the corpses of the many independent rail companies that were failing in the mid 20th century. As for why Amtrak's service is so poor, my personal sense is that Amtrak made a bunch of bad decisions that maximized their bottom line, such as using excessively cushy (and heavy, and low-capacity) rolling stock for the kinds of routes that would be covered by something more like IC service in Europe. In essence, they made a gamble that what rail travelers want is luxury, which translated into 250lb seats with half an acre of leg room and 3" of foam padding, when what they really want is frequent, regular service. Commuter train systems like Chicago's Metra are much better, but they're unable to extend themselves out to full-fledged intercity service, no matter how successful they might be at it, because Amtrak enjoys a statutory monopoly.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago

ataturk 9y ago

None of what you just said is going to happen as long as there exists a desperately under-funded pension system in every city, state, and nationwide. Also, the biggest factor relating to poverty these days is overpopulation--too many people, not enough jobs. The jobs that do exist are never going to lift anyone out of poverty, even "good" paying office jobs won't take you very far. That is the reality. The other reality with public transportation is that outside of a few major cities, it doesn't respect an individual's time at all. I used to take a bus to my job in the downtown area of a city, but to get to that bus, I had to drive. I commuted to then commute again. It nearly wrecked my life, 90 mins. a day lost to all that bs. I got smart and quit that stupid job. Humanity's future is dire--go visit China or India and realize that those places are the guideposts for everyone's future. Filthy humanity overflowing with nowhere left to go, air pollution, trash all over, stench. That's humanity.

cjslep 9y ago

The difference between rail in the US and Europe is that on a lot of the rail in the US, cargo has right of way over passengers.

jcranmer 9y ago

> America use to have more rail at one point in time than Europe has today. It wasn't that long ago. We're talking less than 70 years. The US has a larger rail network than the EU, still. Actually, the US's freight rail system is the envy of Europe, although our passenger rail sucks. > The "America is too spread out" argument is total bullshit. At the very least, make the cities have good transport and walkable areas. It can happen in a very short time frame. We lost it in a short time frame. Northern Indiana has the same population density of Scotland, so it can work if we build it. We use to have trains from Nashville to Atlanta. The famous "Chattanooga Choo-choo" doesn't even have an AmTrak anymore. No, it's not bullshit. It is not profitable to have a train route of more than about 5 hours (China is sort of the exception that proves the rule, as their air network is incredibly constrained which eliminates alternatives to trains). That is roughly the straight-line distance between Chicago and NYC, which (as I've pointed out before) is longer than the longest axes of most European countries. And Chicago-NYC is one of the shorter links between major city pairs in the US. It's also funny that you compare to Scotland, since Scotland has some of the worst availability of rail in Europe.

chetanahuja 9y ago
> No, it's not bullshit. It is not profitable to have a train route of more than about 5 hours Most of the discussion in this tread is mostly about mass transit in metro areas.