3 ms·
This is an extremely simplistic view. For instance, the US moves more of its freight (by percentage) than all western European countries except Switzerland: htt
by davidgay 5mo ago
This is an extremely simplistic view. For instance, the US moves more of its freight (by percentage) than all western European countries except Switzerland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usage#Freight_modal_share_for_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...
- troupo 5mo agoPassengers are not freight. And freight is one of the reasons US railways suck for passengers.
- Der_Einzige 5mo agoFreight is better. Passengers don’t belong on trains.
- troupo 5mo agoTell it to Northeast Corridor. Or Japan.
- xnx 5mo agoMoving people by train in the US makes about as much sense as delivering pizzas by barge.
- troupo 5mo agoBecause the US is soooooo exceptional, right? And yet the moment you provide actual proper train connections the lines are successful and profitable (see e.g. Northeast Corridor.
- llbbdd 5mo agoIs that profitability calculated before or after billions in federal funding?
- troupo 5mo agoHave you calculated profitability of vehicles after government has funded all the infrastructure for them?
- llbbdd 5mo agoNo, but I was pointing out that profitability isn't a very useful metric for selling the benefits of either mode. Otherwise the counterargument would be that transit in the rest of the US outside the Northeast Corridor makes it the exception to the rule. In any case, what vehicle infrastructure does the government fund today that goes away if you expand rail service? I still need to get to my house, and I don't want to live anywhere near a public transit station. Is the pitch that we get rid of the highway system entirely and make all intercity travel rail or plane?
- troupo 5mo agoNo, the pitch isn't that. And yet in the US inevitably people will always demand to know government subsidies for everything but cars, and will pretend that alternative modes of transport are only proposed as a full replacement of cars. No one is taking your precious cars away.
- llbbdd 5mo agoI didn't bring up money except to call out that profitability of either trains or cars is irrelevant to actual utility and comfort. Obviously they both cost money and you can subsidize either one. I'm also not concerned with or pretending that alternative modes of transport are full replacements of cars; basic comparison of the modes obviates that. I also don't own a car, and if I did I wouldn't consider it precious, or be worried about anybody taking it away. Public mass transit advocates always go there though, it's a pretty common ad-hominem-adjacent implication. Cars are just generally a better experience. They go from A to B, and they don't have other people on them. Those factors make them obviously desirable. If somebody comes up with a teleporter I can install at home I'll use that instead. Maybe then I'd consider that precious, or even be in love with it. It would save me a lot of time. All of that aside my main point is to push back against the idea that more trains solve any problems with US transit, especially looking forward even a little into the future. They're complicated and time consuming to build out additional infrastructure for compared to an airport, and solve a transit gap between self-driving vehicles and air travel that will likely increasingly narrow.
- insane_dreamer 5mo agoWe're talking here about passenger rail, not freight rail. And when it comes to passenger rail, the US is terrible by the standards of other developed countries.