4 ms·

At one point in time an extensive road system is a competitive advantage. At another, it makes less sense. The same thing happened with Railroads during their

At one point in time an extensive road system is a competitive advantage. At another, it makes less sense. The same thing happened with Railroads during their heyday. I remember seeing an old railroad map with stops at all these small towns in Nebraska. Now, railroads are almost entirely commercial with very few passenger stops in small towns. It makes sense that at some point you just don't have the need for so many roads. If more people move to urban or even suburban city centers, things like public transportation, ride sharing, Uber, and even self-driving vehicles start to make a lot of sense and cut down a lot on driving volume and the need for roads.

angersock 11y ago
Well, to be fair, the history of railroads in the US is kinda crackheaded.
- Yhippa 11y ago
  What do you mean by that?
  - angersock 11y ago
    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Pre-Amtrak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Pre-Amtrak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_t... Basically, an ongoing waterfall of corruption, regulation, NIMBYism, unfair (arguably) competition from other sectors, and a lot else. It's not quite accurate to just say "Well, passenger rail is dead" as though it was some natural progression of things--especially when you look at it working in other nations.
    - Aloha 11y ago
      Show me another nation /of our geographical size/ with active well used long distance passenger rail outside of a few highly dense corridors - a hint, it doesn't exist - people will nearly always choose speed. There are very few passenger rail systems with higher than 90% farebox recovery - and none in a country of our geographical size. That said, I'm in favor of keeping amtrak for strategic reasons (a trained pool of operating talent for national emergencies).
      - CamTin 11y ago
        What kind of emergencies? Ones where we suddenly have to run a lot of passenger trains?
        Aloha 11y ago
        Ones where for a variety of reasons airspace is closed - WWII would not have been possible for us without railroads - the railroads moves huge numbers of men and materiel cross country faster than aircraft could - railroads also use much less fuel to do it than nearly any method of transport. While I cant think of a tactical situation where we couldn't airlift troops inside the continental US - the skills pool is worthwhile to keep for the 500 million a year is costs the country (a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the rest of the federal government).
        CamTin 11y ago
        WWII wasn't possible without the railroads because the interstate highways hadn't been built yet. They are now, and as a result our rail network has become useless for personnel and troop transport. Sure, we can press our amazing freight network into service for logistics, but there's no reason to prop up Amtrak to keep those skills and infrastructure around, since the freight carriers show no signs of being in danger of extinction anytime soon. But that's freight. If there's really a situation where we need to move vast numbers of /people/ around the country, the few dozen passenger consists that Amtrak owns or leases are just not gonna do the job. It would need to be the highways (probably pressing transit and school buses into service) or nothing. It's possible that the NE corridor services could be helpful in an emergency, but for the vast majority of the country, the idea that Amtrak could be pressed into service as anything other than a minor sideline during a major evacuation or emergency is a just a weird fantasy.
        tsotha 11y ago
        On the west coast Amtrak is more of an amusement park ride than a practical transportation option. If you want to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles the Amtrak trip planner has you on two trains and two buses before you arrive after nine hours. If you want to take a train the whole way there's only one each day and it takes 12 hours (as compared to about 6.5 driving). It's kind of a joke. We should either get serious about a rail system or kill Amtrak altogether.
  - rpcope1 11y ago
    For starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... A lot of the removal of rail capacity has been short-sighted, and often for the gain of automobile manufacturers.
    - Aloha 11y ago
      Don't conflate streetcars and interurban's with all passenger rail.

angersock 11y ago

Well, to be fair, the history of railroads in the US is kinda crackheaded.

Yhippa 11y ago
What do you mean by that?
- angersock 11y ago
  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Pre-Amtrak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Pre-Amtrak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_t... Basically, an ongoing waterfall of corruption, regulation, NIMBYism, unfair (arguably) competition from other sectors, and a lot else. It's not quite accurate to just say "Well, passenger rail is dead" as though it was some natural progression of things--especially when you look at it working in other nations.
  - Aloha 11y ago
    Show me another nation /of our geographical size/ with active well used long distance passenger rail outside of a few highly dense corridors - a hint, it doesn't exist - people will nearly always choose speed. There are very few passenger rail systems with higher than 90% farebox recovery - and none in a country of our geographical size. That said, I'm in favor of keeping amtrak for strategic reasons (a trained pool of operating talent for national emergencies).
    - CamTin 11y ago
      What kind of emergencies? Ones where we suddenly have to run a lot of passenger trains?
      - Aloha 11y ago
        Ones where for a variety of reasons airspace is closed - WWII would not have been possible for us without railroads - the railroads moves huge numbers of men and materiel cross country faster than aircraft could - railroads also use much less fuel to do it than nearly any method of transport. While I cant think of a tactical situation where we couldn't airlift troops inside the continental US - the skills pool is worthwhile to keep for the 500 million a year is costs the country (a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the rest of the federal government).
        CamTin 11y ago
        WWII wasn't possible without the railroads because the interstate highways hadn't been built yet. They are now, and as a result our rail network has become useless for personnel and troop transport. Sure, we can press our amazing freight network into service for logistics, but there's no reason to prop up Amtrak to keep those skills and infrastructure around, since the freight carriers show no signs of being in danger of extinction anytime soon. But that's freight. If there's really a situation where we need to move vast numbers of /people/ around the country, the few dozen passenger consists that Amtrak owns or leases are just not gonna do the job. It would need to be the highways (probably pressing transit and school buses into service) or nothing. It's possible that the NE corridor services could be helpful in an emergency, but for the vast majority of the country, the idea that Amtrak could be pressed into service as anything other than a minor sideline during a major evacuation or emergency is a just a weird fantasy.
        tsotha 11y ago
        On the west coast Amtrak is more of an amusement park ride than a practical transportation option. If you want to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles the Amtrak trip planner has you on two trains and two buses before you arrive after nine hours. If you want to take a train the whole way there's only one each day and it takes 12 hours (as compared to about 6.5 driving). It's kind of a joke. We should either get serious about a rail system or kill Amtrak altogether.
- rpcope1 11y ago
  For starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... A lot of the removal of rail capacity has been short-sighted, and often for the gain of automobile manufacturers.
  - Aloha 11y ago
    Don't conflate streetcars and interurban's with all passenger rail.