3 ms·

The amount of space need for trains is tiny, and if you do expantion smartly it's really not that hard on the population. Compared to the endless and insane exp

The amount of space need for trains is tiny, and if you do expantion smartly it's really not that hard on the population. Compared to the endless and insane expantions of highway that is for some reason still ongoing it's totally reasonable. Also there is a huge amount that could be done with existing rights off way. Train companies are making enough profit that forcing them to electricity is totally reasonable.

travisporter 4y ago
I saw this video recently that claims that right of way from freight trains are the only thing stopping expanded Amtrak service between many big metros - eg. LA to Vegas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74
mlindner 4y ago
The amount of space needed is indeed tiny, but you still need to cut a fresh line through areas where buildings exist, and it can't follow the road network generally and has to take gradual curves, which increases the amount of buildings that must be destroyed rather than going around them.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  If you are not building for high speed and super long trains, the curves aren't that crazy. And lets not pretend the US is some incredibly densely populated place. Lots of those areas are filled with cheap single family home subburbs, not skyscrapers. If we are not willing to move a few houses for climate change, then how are we ever gone solve anything? Somehow most nations of manage this without that many issues. And again, remove money from highway, to trains and you remove less houses.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Trains go best in those few densely populated areas though. That's kind of the catch 22 with trains, they're best in dense areas, but dense areas tend to obviate the ability to build trains.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Trains are great for populated and less populated places. Lots of not so densely populated places can be connected to more densely populated places with trains.

travisporter 4y ago

I saw this video recently that claims that right of way from freight trains are the only thing stopping expanded Amtrak service between many big metros - eg. LA to Vegas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74

mlindner 4y ago

The amount of space needed is indeed tiny, but you still need to cut a fresh line through areas where buildings exist, and it can't follow the road network generally and has to take gradual curves, which increases the amount of buildings that must be destroyed rather than going around them.

panick21_ 4y ago
If you are not building for high speed and super long trains, the curves aren't that crazy. And lets not pretend the US is some incredibly densely populated place. Lots of those areas are filled with cheap single family home subburbs, not skyscrapers. If we are not willing to move a few houses for climate change, then how are we ever gone solve anything? Somehow most nations of manage this without that many issues. And again, remove money from highway, to trains and you remove less houses.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Trains go best in those few densely populated areas though. That's kind of the catch 22 with trains, they're best in dense areas, but dense areas tend to obviate the ability to build trains.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Trains are great for populated and less populated places. Lots of not so densely populated places can be connected to more densely populated places with trains.