3 ms·
This was a great read, particularly while self-loathing. The author needs to see the bigger picture: The USA had to keep the money ball rolling in American He
by theProblemYo 3y ago
This was a great read, particularly while self-loathing. The author needs to see the bigger picture:
The USA had to keep the money ball rolling in American Heavy Industry after the highly-mechanized WWII. The USA had: cheap steel, cheap gasoline, and...a bunch of guys who had been risking their lives in mechanized equipment around Europe for a few years! Everybody wanted to buy a car after the war, and this resulted in the modern USA: highly accessible to automobiles first, and the associated car culture.
I'm wondering if the author was unable to find this insight themselves, it seems they are trying to find a pattern among the failures, to explain "why USA has no successful high speed rail."
Maybe in a few more generations, everyone will forget about that war, and then, we can ride from anywhere in Megacity One to Peachtrees tower.
- ojbyrne 3y agoThey definitely buried the lede, but it is there in the conclusion: "...car travel is much cheaper in the US than in many other countries, making high-speed rail comparatively less competitive"
- melling 3y agoYou can’t really take a high-speed train in the US. Cars do ok against slow trains but a lot of people will fly when in other countries the same distance is quick enough by train.
- drew-y 3y agoWhich is a shame. Because car travel in the US is still wildly more expensive than high-speed rail in other countries, while being a vastly inferior form of transportation.
- Moldoteck 3y agoImo it's not the price, it's the convenience. They have a lot of highways n parking lots n priority on intersections n sprawl. Trains would be competitive if zoning was abolished, more tracks built n trains will come at least every 15 mins