3 ms·

We don’t fund lots of potential transport modes, like canals, blimps, or horse carriage ways. Dollar per dollar, region specific studies in the US show that we

We don’t fund lots of potential transport modes, like canals, blimps, or horse carriage ways. Dollar per dollar, region specific studies in the US show that we get more out of roads, which is why the money goes there. It’s just about basic economics.

munk-a 4y ago
I don't accept the assumption that the US gets more potential value out of roads than trains and buses - I do accept that currently the train infrastructure is so insanely poor that nobody wants to ride it. I think if we take a look at the world at large we'd see that the eastern seaboard and southern california could look a lot more like the Rhine valley and the lowlands while improving quality of life for residents. Roads need to exist and I am not trying to say they don't - but they shouldn't be the primary transit option for most people on most of their routes.
kinjba11 4y ago
Isn't this circular reasoning? Rails are terrible, so nobody uses them, hence nobody invests, hence poor ROI. Roads are heavily invested, so are usable to the point it is uneconomical to use any alternative, so roads get more investment, etc.
- matt_attack 4y ago
  Plenty of people use rail in the US just for carrying goods instead of people. It turns out trains are most efficient at hauling large loads with high tolerances for latency, which humans are not and do not have.
  - munk-a 4y ago
    I would like to direct your attention to Europe where they can do both and the passenger train service is extremely well run and used widely.
    - matt_attack 4y ago
      Except busses and airplane flights tend to be much cheaper than train tickets there (excluding subways/local trains). If trains were so efficient that would likely be shown in the pricing. While in Spain for several months it was only economical for me to take a train a single time. It was several times more expensive than the alternatives in every other case. This left me either flying or bussing. In Stockholm it's actually cheaper to take a bus to the airport than the train, and that's just local travel.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        because trains pylay for railways but busses dont pay for the road
        matt_attack 4y ago
        That's not necessarily true. Fuel taxes and registration pay for road construction and most railway construction is heavily subsidized by governments.

munk-a 4y ago

I don't accept the assumption that the US gets more potential value out of roads than trains and buses - I do accept that currently the train infrastructure is so insanely poor that nobody wants to ride it. I think if we take a look at the world at large we'd see that the eastern seaboard and southern california could look a lot more like the Rhine valley and the lowlands while improving quality of life for residents. Roads need to exist and I am not trying to say they don't - but they shouldn't be the primary transit option for most people on most of their routes.

kinjba11 4y ago

Isn't this circular reasoning? Rails are terrible, so nobody uses them, hence nobody invests, hence poor ROI. Roads are heavily invested, so are usable to the point it is uneconomical to use any alternative, so roads get more investment, etc.

matt_attack 4y ago
Plenty of people use rail in the US just for carrying goods instead of people. It turns out trains are most efficient at hauling large loads with high tolerances for latency, which humans are not and do not have.
- munk-a 4y ago
  I would like to direct your attention to Europe where they can do both and the passenger train service is extremely well run and used widely.
  - matt_attack 4y ago
    Except busses and airplane flights tend to be much cheaper than train tickets there (excluding subways/local trains). If trains were so efficient that would likely be shown in the pricing. While in Spain for several months it was only economical for me to take a train a single time. It was several times more expensive than the alternatives in every other case. This left me either flying or bussing. In Stockholm it's actually cheaper to take a bus to the airport than the train, and that's just local travel.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      because trains pylay for railways but busses dont pay for the road
      - matt_attack 4y ago
        That's not necessarily true. Fuel taxes and registration pay for road construction and most railway construction is heavily subsidized by governments.