5 ms·

> Trains have these things, called 'stops' and then different people get in or out depending on what journy they are on. Yes, I’m aware of this. And if you hav

> Trains have these things, called 'stops' and then different people get in or out depending on what journy they are on. Yes, I’m aware of this. And if you have enough population density, which most of Europe does, you can have frequent train service because enough people will have overlapping trips at the same time that they can share a rail line. The advantage of a highway network is that a single vehicle can simply take the fastest route from point to point all by itself even if relatively few people are traveling that route. Germany is about the same land area as Montana or New Mexico. Those states have populations of about 1 and 2 million, respectively. Germany has 84 million. Texas has twice the land area of Germany and a population of 30 million. So yeah, if you’re going just about anywhere in Germany there are probably enough people going the same way at about the same time to make a train a reasonable solution. That’s not going to be true in the United States. And even Germany has the Autobahn, which was decades ahead of the American highway network in sophistication. > At anytime I can check an app, tell it where I want to go and I almost certainly have reasonable connection within the next 15 min. I live within a 15 minute drive of just about everywhere I need to go on a regular basis. Why would I wait that long for the train when I could just be there already? > If you want to see what single rail corridor can do in a city, check out Münich S-Bahn for example. I’ve ridden the Munich S-Bahn, it was great!

kiba 2y ago
Highway networks are expensive and relatively low capacity, which lead to traffic congestion in urban area, which is where the majority of Americans live. High speed roads should be limited to rural area and no more than two lane, one for each direction.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > High speed roads should be limited to rural area and no more than two lane, one for each direction. Because no freight moves by road, only people. And even those people mostly shouldn't. That is, your "should" doesn't actually work in the actual world. Trucks carry something like 60% of the freight in the US. You could say that rail should carry more of it, and that works for longer distance, but regional traffic is usually more efficiently handled by truck. So unless your vision of the future is people living in their cities, with nothing in their apartments, and not eating, you need better roads than that. And then, you run into human nature. Some of us like going places, and more of us want to do so than you seem to like. Your "should" becomes "you should live your life the way I want you to, not the way you want to". You should expect a rather hostile response for that...
  - kiba 2y ago
    The majority of traffic on the road are....personal users, not freight. Induced demand and the usage of personal cars is what clogs road networks in urban area. Usage of mass transits such as train and trams will reduce road usage and freer flow of freight, with freight moved onto trains as much as possible, and reduction of urban area footprint. I didn't say we should get rid of roads, I said that high speed road should be limited to 2 lanes...in rural area, exactly the area that don't need high capacity roads.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      I see that you've never driven Interstate 80 across Wyoming. It's rural, and it still needs to be high capacity. You're trying to get to the world that you want (aren't we all?), but you're not starting with the world as it is, but with a world that exists in your head. As a result, your "solution" is completely unworkable in reality.
      - kiba 2y ago
        Unworkable in reality how? Is it political? Is it economic? Is it physics? Is it geometry? What about Interstate 80 that makes it special? Is it about freight carrying capacity? Can that be substituted by trains? Why does it have to be in that particular way? You can say that a solution is 'unworkable', but you haven't explained your model of the world state well enough to convince someone. You haven't explained even "human nature". Is my proposed "solution" politically unworkable? Yes, based on prevailing political opinions, society mores, cultural expectation and preferences. But perhaps you mean something else.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Nope. You're the one proposing the change; you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that your proposed change is an improvement to the existing situation. The traffic is there. It's not going to fit on one lane each way. What are you going to do with it? Try to fit it on railroads? Can you show that railroads can realistically handle 250% of current freight traffic, and 100000% of current passenger traffic? My gut feel is that they can't. If you have evidence that they can, then let's see it. Or are you just going to tell the traffic to go away? Tell people to buy less stuff, so that less freight moves? Tell people to not go places, so that there's less passenger traffic on roads? The answer to that is going to be middle fingers from a huge number of people.
Mawr 2y ago
Looking at average population density is nonsensical - people aren't uniformly distributed. Most live in relatively dense urban areas and most trips they make are local. America isn't special in any of these regards. The advantages of road networks as efficient means of point-to-point transportation disappear very quickly as the rate of non-point-to-point trips increases. Static routes like commuting and grocery shopping account for most traffic and are incredibly wasteful. You aren't stuck in traffic because of bespoke trips that necessitate a car, you're stuck because people make the exact same trip from A to B and back every single day.
- philwelch 2y ago
  Actually I'm not often stuck in traffic, because I live somewhere with a big enough road network to service the local population, which is dispersed widely enough that we don't have huge amounts of density. We also don't have natural geographic chokepoints, which was a common cause of traffic congestion in Seattle, where I used to live.
panick21_ 2y ago
> Yes, I’m aware of this. And if you have enough population density, which most of Europe does, you can have frequent train service because enough people will have overlapping trips at the same time that they can share a rail line. If you are in a low density place you don't need high frequency to have a useful system. I used to live in a place that had only villages of a few 1000 people with lots of farmers around. Having a 1hly small rural train is perfectly useful and a great thing to have. And you only basically need a single rail line with a few crossing places to provide that kind of frequency. The idea that trains are only useful in a super dense place is just one of those myths the US population has been brainwashed into. > The advantage of a highway network is that a single vehicle can simply take the fastest route from point to point all by itself even if relatively few people are traveling that route. Wrong. Highways has intersections that are spaced out. Each intersection requires a huge amount of cost to set up. Highway intersections also take up a gigantic amount of space and are horrible places for humanity. Train stops and intersection on the other hand can be small and efficient. They are often beautiful places and you can even have shops and development there. New towns pop up on important rail intersections and stations, but not near highway intersections. > Germany is about the same land area as Montana or New Mexico. Those states have populations of about 1 and 2 million, respectively. Germany has 84 million. Texas has twice the land area of Germany and a population of 30 million. Now you are just making ridiculous arguments. I can't actually believe that you are making those arguments in good faith. But I am going are as if you were in good faith. Nobody is making the argument that Montana or New Mexico should have a train system like Germany. Literally nobody. But they also don't even need full highway either. Normal roads of maximum 1-2 per direction and normal intersections should be perfectly enough for that kind of density. You can then still have excellent public transport with buses for much of the state. But even in a place like Montana trains still make sense. There are still town like Billings or Bozeman and friends that are easily large enough for a train. Maybe not a high speed train. Where I live having a single village of 1000 people not be connected by regular trains is considered strange. Billings is significantly larger then the largest regional city here and that city has an S-Bahn system with multiple lines of 15-min interval trains. So while Montana as a whole doesn't need a huge system, each town still can use trains and trams in a number of ways. That said, and the reason why I think you are arguing in bad faith, is that if you actually look at a density map of the US. You comparison fall completely on its face. The reality is, the US actually has very nice locations for trains. You brought up Texas. Yeah Eastern Texas is mostly empty, but Western Texas isn't. So instead of just taking arbitrary political boarders, you need to actually look at the regions where people actually live. https://ecpmlangues.unistra.fr/civilization/geography/map-us-population-density-2021 https://ecpmlangues.unistra.fr/civilization/geography/map-us... And when you actually do that, you realize that the US has a number of urban mega clusters that are actually perfectly placed for trains. Basically, Bay Area, Southern California, Great Lakes, Texas Triangle, Northeast Coast, Florida. Are the most important ones, there are few other depending on how you look at it. If you do your density analysis based on those actual regions were people actually live, you will see that your 'density' argument falls flat on its face. And those regions actually mater, not arbitrary state borders. For example, the very successful train line from Paris to Lyon. Turns out that Dallas to Houston is actually about the same distance. Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio and Houston have plenty of population and are in optimal distance for a rail network. The Great Lakes region has more population THEN LITERALLY ALL OF FRANCE and isn't much bigger. Arguable its actually better for rail then France is. So please for the love of god spare me the 'its all about density argument'. Basically 80% of US population will live in such a urban region soon. So your argument is simply wrong. Local density does matter for ridership and things like that, but that is very much a DELIBERATE DESIGN and has NOTHING to do with overall density of a the US or individual states. This is a video that goes threw the US and shows them visually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lupWYQdDgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lupWYQdDgQ > I live within a 15 minute drive of just about everywhere I need to go on a regular basis. Why would I wait that long for the train when I could just be there already? Of course, for places you go regularly, you don't need a train or a car. I live in a place I can walk everywhere in 10 min or less. And with 15 min on my bike I can literally be on an actual mountain/natural trail. Have you considered that trains are also useful if you don't use them regularly? Do you never want to drink or smoke weed? Do you never go to another place where you don't have a car available. Do you understand that there are people in the world who can't drive for various reasons. And you don't actually wait for a train for 15min, you just do literally 5s of planning by looking at the clock. Even with 0 planning the majority of the time you would wait 7min or less.

kiba 2y ago

Highway networks are expensive and relatively low capacity, which lead to traffic congestion in urban area, which is where the majority of Americans live. High speed roads should be limited to rural area and no more than two lane, one for each direction.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> High speed roads should be limited to rural area and no more than two lane, one for each direction. Because no freight moves by road, only people. And even those people mostly shouldn't. That is, your "should" doesn't actually work in the actual world. Trucks carry something like 60% of the freight in the US. You could say that rail should carry more of it, and that works for longer distance, but regional traffic is usually more efficiently handled by truck. So unless your vision of the future is people living in their cities, with nothing in their apartments, and not eating, you need better roads than that. And then, you run into human nature. Some of us like going places, and more of us want to do so than you seem to like. Your "should" becomes "you should live your life the way I want you to, not the way you want to". You should expect a rather hostile response for that...
- kiba 2y ago
  The majority of traffic on the road are....personal users, not freight. Induced demand and the usage of personal cars is what clogs road networks in urban area. Usage of mass transits such as train and trams will reduce road usage and freer flow of freight, with freight moved onto trains as much as possible, and reduction of urban area footprint. I didn't say we should get rid of roads, I said that high speed road should be limited to 2 lanes...in rural area, exactly the area that don't need high capacity roads.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I see that you've never driven Interstate 80 across Wyoming. It's rural, and it still needs to be high capacity. You're trying to get to the world that you want (aren't we all?), but you're not starting with the world as it is, but with a world that exists in your head. As a result, your "solution" is completely unworkable in reality.
    - kiba 2y ago
      Unworkable in reality how? Is it political? Is it economic? Is it physics? Is it geometry? What about Interstate 80 that makes it special? Is it about freight carrying capacity? Can that be substituted by trains? Why does it have to be in that particular way? You can say that a solution is 'unworkable', but you haven't explained your model of the world state well enough to convince someone. You haven't explained even "human nature". Is my proposed "solution" politically unworkable? Yes, based on prevailing political opinions, society mores, cultural expectation and preferences. But perhaps you mean something else.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Nope. You're the one proposing the change; you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that your proposed change is an improvement to the existing situation. The traffic is there. It's not going to fit on one lane each way. What are you going to do with it? Try to fit it on railroads? Can you show that railroads can realistically handle 250% of current freight traffic, and 100000% of current passenger traffic? My gut feel is that they can't. If you have evidence that they can, then let's see it. Or are you just going to tell the traffic to go away? Tell people to buy less stuff, so that less freight moves? Tell people to not go places, so that there's less passenger traffic on roads? The answer to that is going to be middle fingers from a huge number of people.

Mawr 2y ago

Looking at average population density is nonsensical - people aren't uniformly distributed. Most live in relatively dense urban areas and most trips they make are local. America isn't special in any of these regards. The advantages of road networks as efficient means of point-to-point transportation disappear very quickly as the rate of non-point-to-point trips increases. Static routes like commuting and grocery shopping account for most traffic and are incredibly wasteful. You aren't stuck in traffic because of bespoke trips that necessitate a car, you're stuck because people make the exact same trip from A to B and back every single day.

philwelch 2y ago
Actually I'm not often stuck in traffic, because I live somewhere with a big enough road network to service the local population, which is dispersed widely enough that we don't have huge amounts of density. We also don't have natural geographic chokepoints, which was a common cause of traffic congestion in Seattle, where I used to live.

panick21_ 2y ago

> Yes, I’m aware of this. And if you have enough population density, which most of Europe does, you can have frequent train service because enough people will have overlapping trips at the same time that they can share a rail line. If you are in a low density place you don't need high frequency to have a useful system. I used to live in a place that had only villages of a few 1000 people with lots of farmers around. Having a 1hly small rural train is perfectly useful and a great thing to have. And you only basically need a single rail line with a few crossing places to provide that kind of frequency. The idea that trains are only useful in a super dense place is just one of those myths the US population has been brainwashed into. > The advantage of a highway network is that a single vehicle can simply take the fastest route from point to point all by itself even if relatively few people are traveling that route. Wrong. Highways has intersections that are spaced out. Each intersection requires a huge amount of cost to set up. Highway intersections also take up a gigantic amount of space and are horrible places for humanity. Train stops and intersection on the other hand can be small and efficient. They are often beautiful places and you can even have shops and development there. New towns pop up on important rail intersections and stations, but not near highway intersections. > Germany is about the same land area as Montana or New Mexico. Those states have populations of about 1 and 2 million, respectively. Germany has 84 million. Texas has twice the land area of Germany and a population of 30 million. Now you are just making ridiculous arguments. I can't actually believe that you are making those arguments in good faith. But I am going are as if you were in good faith. Nobody is making the argument that Montana or New Mexico should have a train system like Germany. Literally nobody. But they also don't even need full highway either. Normal roads of maximum 1-2 per direction and normal intersections should be perfectly enough for that kind of density. You can then still have excellent public transport with buses for much of the state. But even in a place like Montana trains still make sense. There are still town like Billings or Bozeman and friends that are easily large enough for a train. Maybe not a high speed train. Where I live having a single village of 1000 people not be connected by regular trains is considered strange. Billings is significantly larger then the largest regional city here and that city has an S-Bahn system with multiple lines of 15-min interval trains. So while Montana as a whole doesn't need a huge system, each town still can use trains and trams in a number of ways. That said, and the reason why I think you are arguing in bad faith, is that if you actually look at a density map of the US. You comparison fall completely on its face. The reality is, the US actually has very nice locations for trains. You brought up Texas. Yeah Eastern Texas is mostly empty, but Western Texas isn't. So instead of just taking arbitrary political boarders, you need to actually look at the regions where people actually live. https://ecpmlangues.unistra.fr/civilization/geography/map-us-population-density-2021 https://ecpmlangues.unistra.fr/civilization/geography/map-us... And when you actually do that, you realize that the US has a number of urban mega clusters that are actually perfectly placed for trains. Basically, Bay Area, Southern California, Great Lakes, Texas Triangle, Northeast Coast, Florida. Are the most important ones, there are few other depending on how you look at it. If you do your density analysis based on those actual regions were people actually live, you will see that your 'density' argument falls flat on its face. And those regions actually mater, not arbitrary state borders. For example, the very successful train line from Paris to Lyon. Turns out that Dallas to Houston is actually about the same distance. Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio and Houston have plenty of population and are in optimal distance for a rail network. The Great Lakes region has more population THEN LITERALLY ALL OF FRANCE and isn't much bigger. Arguable its actually better for rail then France is. So please for the love of god spare me the 'its all about density argument'. Basically 80% of US population will live in such a urban region soon. So your argument is simply wrong. Local density does matter for ridership and things like that, but that is very much a DELIBERATE DESIGN and has NOTHING to do with overall density of a the US or individual states. This is a video that goes threw the US and shows them visually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lupWYQdDgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lupWYQdDgQ > I live within a 15 minute drive of just about everywhere I need to go on a regular basis. Why would I wait that long for the train when I could just be there already? Of course, for places you go regularly, you don't need a train or a car. I live in a place I can walk everywhere in 10 min or less. And with 15 min on my bike I can literally be on an actual mountain/natural trail. Have you considered that trains are also useful if you don't use them regularly? Do you never want to drink or smoke weed? Do you never go to another place where you don't have a car available. Do you understand that there are people in the world who can't drive for various reasons. And you don't actually wait for a train for 15min, you just do literally 5s of planning by looking at the clock. Even with 0 planning the majority of the time you would wait 7min or less.