3 ms·
the u. s. doesn’t have enough housing density to support passenger rail that people actually want to use you could build the rail first and hope the dense hous
by foolfoolz 3y ago
the u. s. doesn’t have enough housing density to support passenger rail that people actually want to use
you could build the rail first and hope the dense housing comes later, but that would saddle cities with an expensive rail network no one uses
even in the bay area we have decent rail solutions given the size of the area, and most people prefer to drive. because they live far enough from the station that driving to the station and then training, and the destination stations are far from the destinations
without all this investing in roads and highways will have the biggest direct impact to most americans
- jeffbee 3y agoOh heavens, not a speculative railroad giveaway. That would be totally unprecedented[1] in American history! 1: Except for the time we gave the railroads literally 10% of the land area of the country for a "rail network no one uses".
- exactlysoso 3y agoThis is exactly what is happening in Seattle, another genius idea from the people who banned police.
- mitthrowaway2 3y agoPassenger rail was economically successful in the US through the 19th and early 20th centuries when population was much lower. The very successful Japanese model is that railway companies buy land and develop it, and the railway adds value to that land. But it's hard to compete when the government subsidizes and legally mandates roads and not railroads.
- jjjjj55555 3y agoTrains only work if people live close enough to walk to the station and if the destination station is walking distance to where they want to go. Driving to a train station, then later taking a bus or cab when I get off the train is ridiculous. I would rather just drive.