5 ms·

OK, you build trains from Sidney, Montana, to Lewistown. I'm not interested in self-driving cars, but thinking trains solve all problems is a very narrow, urba

by msla 4y ago

OK, you build trains from Sidney, Montana, to Lewistown. I'm not interested in self-driving cars, but thinking trains solve all problems is a very narrow, urban view.

alex_young 4y ago
There is existing rail connecting both of those towns according to https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ I'd also point out that these are 2 towns with less than 6000 population each, in one of the lowest population density parts of the country, with one of the worst climates for self driving cars. In many European countries there are vast networks of trains connecting small towns with larger cities. Is there a good reason we can't do the same here?
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  In Europe, 100 miles is far, and in America, 100 years is a long time. The European towns you are referring to are usually a lot closer together than American towns.
noahtallen 4y ago
I’m not sure it’s a very narrow view. 80% of the US lives in an urban area. Rural areas are also already serviced by rail for cargo. I don’t think OP is suggesting trains solve all problems. But they certainly solve more problems than we currently use them for in the US.
dendrite9 4y ago
I don't think trains have to just be an urban thing. Maybe you wont get a train stop in McDermitt, NV or Loa, UT or Mackay, ID but there are plenty of places with higher density than that. It took me a long time to realize the history of the various interurban trails I've seen. This tweet I saw recently has some interesting maps of the networks of people focused rail to even small towns near Boston. https://twitter.com/FischermanDan/status/1571919260661809152 https://twitter.com/FischermanDan/status/1571919260661809152 It's a response to this: https://nitter.net/grescoe/status/1571863398366973960#m https://nitter.net/grescoe/status/1571863398366973960#m "By 1920, the network of interurbans in the US was so dense that a determined commuter could hop interlinked streetcars from Waterville, Maine, to Sheboygan, Wisconsin—a journey of 1,000 miles—exclusively by electric trolley. The tracks, and often the wires, extended deep into forest and farmland, making the railroads de facto intercity highways; after nightfall in the countryside, farmers would signal drivers to stop by burning a rag next to the track. Streetcars and interurbans became the dominant mode of urban transportation in North America, carrying 11 billion passengers a year by the end of the First World War."
- Tangurena2 4y ago
  Before WW1, companies building housing developments used to also build tram lines so that people could commute to jobs in the city from those new homes. Post-WW2, building suburbs without any sort of public transit was an additional way to discriminate against "the poors" as virtually all of those suburbs had race & religion restriction covenants in the property deeds.

by msla 4y ago

OK, you build trains from Sidney, Montana, to Lewistown. I'm not interested in self-driving cars, but thinking trains solve all problems is a very narrow, urban view.

alex_young 4y ago

There is existing rail connecting both of those towns according to https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ I'd also point out that these are 2 towns with less than 6000 population each, in one of the lowest population density parts of the country, with one of the worst climates for self driving cars. In many European countries there are vast networks of trains connecting small towns with larger cities. Is there a good reason we can't do the same here?

pclmulqdq 4y ago
In Europe, 100 miles is far, and in America, 100 years is a long time. The European towns you are referring to are usually a lot closer together than American towns.

noahtallen 4y ago

I’m not sure it’s a very narrow view. 80% of the US lives in an urban area. Rural areas are also already serviced by rail for cargo. I don’t think OP is suggesting trains solve all problems. But they certainly solve more problems than we currently use them for in the US.

dendrite9 4y ago

I don't think trains have to just be an urban thing. Maybe you wont get a train stop in McDermitt, NV or Loa, UT or Mackay, ID but there are plenty of places with higher density than that. It took me a long time to realize the history of the various interurban trails I've seen. This tweet I saw recently has some interesting maps of the networks of people focused rail to even small towns near Boston. https://twitter.com/FischermanDan/status/1571919260661809152 https://twitter.com/FischermanDan/status/1571919260661809152 It's a response to this: https://nitter.net/grescoe/status/1571863398366973960#m https://nitter.net/grescoe/status/1571863398366973960#m "By 1920, the network of interurbans in the US was so dense that a determined commuter could hop interlinked streetcars from Waterville, Maine, to Sheboygan, Wisconsin—a journey of 1,000 miles—exclusively by electric trolley. The tracks, and often the wires, extended deep into forest and farmland, making the railroads de facto intercity highways; after nightfall in the countryside, farmers would signal drivers to stop by burning a rag next to the track. Streetcars and interurbans became the dominant mode of urban transportation in North America, carrying 11 billion passengers a year by the end of the First World War."

Tangurena2 4y ago
Before WW1, companies building housing developments used to also build tram lines so that people could commute to jobs in the city from those new homes. Post-WW2, building suburbs without any sort of public transit was an additional way to discriminate against "the poors" as virtually all of those suburbs had race & religion restriction covenants in the property deeds.