While I agree that we need a national public works project worth of new modern trains.
Anyone who says stuff like this should be forced to drive 10 hours across the US first.
Anywhere to anywhere. Drive for 10 hours. Then plot your completed course on a map of the lower 48. Just to demonstrate how monstrously fucking huge this country is. So they understand that while trains are amazing. They aren’t the panacea some seem to think.
Anyone who says stuff like this should be forced to drive 10 hours across the US first.
I am gonna be honest, this is such a lame, US exceptionalism line that people in the US repeat ad nauseam as if it adds anything to the conversation.
Nobody is saying for the couple of people living in North Dakota that they can’t keep their truck and drive around everywhere, the transportation needs of people that live in rural places like this are vanishingly small compared to the problem we are talking about here. We are talking about MASS TRANSIT so places that actually have enough people for major industry, and for major movements of people and material that can actually clog transportation networks. Why when people try to have a conversation about the economic centers of the US that actually make this country run do people obsess about the guy living in the middle of nowhere Kansas who can go on happily driving a pickup for the rest of eternity and who has no impact on the places that actually matter in the US in terms of transit?
Nobody lives in most of the US, so no the fact that those parts of the US exist does not make the US uniquely difficult to make mass transit for because “it is too big”, you just make the mass transit where the high population density is. Deep red rural government-handout states can continue to be based entirely around cars, great, it really doesn’t affect much of the US population because most of the US population doesn’t live in those places and don’t desire to go to them.
Great now that we have been over this, please never throw this line out lazily again, it adds nothing.
why are you asking for a less granular map? I’d have preferred to give you a more granular map as an increase of detail would just make the point even more clear.
It’s not about getting rid of cars entirely. It’s about prioritizing other modes of transport that are more efficient at moving people for 90% of daily trips they need to make.
Cars will still exist, they will just not be most people’s first choice for going to/from places. Ideally they exist more as a tool for specific situations where needed, such as work that covers a broad/rural area and requires large/specialized tools.
10 hours only gets you 1/3 across the US. I drive that regularly. The US is huge, and so many places you could never get to in a train like you mention. Hell even any of the proposed train routes anywhere only touch the surface of anywhere in this country. If you live in a city, and never leave, it only occasionally travel to another major city, sure a train or a bus work, I spent 8 years without owning a car, I know more then most how limiting it is.
So in part, yes because of that’s what we spent the money on and also yes, because we can do things with roads that we can’t do with rail.
With rail, you generally don’t want over 0.5% grade, maybe 1.5% grade. With roads 5% grade is considered no big deal, 8% for freeway ramps, and mountain roads commonly being 15-20%. Also turns can be much tighter with roads.
It’s much much cheaper to do roads, particularly through hilly or mountainous terrain.
While I agree that we need a national public works project worth of new modern trains.
Anyone who says stuff like this should be forced to drive 10 hours across the US first.
Anywhere to anywhere. Drive for 10 hours. Then plot your completed course on a map of the lower 48. Just to demonstrate how monstrously fucking huge this country is. So they understand that while trains are amazing. They aren’t the panacea some seem to think.
I am gonna be honest, this is such a lame, US exceptionalism line that people in the US repeat ad nauseam as if it adds anything to the conversation.
Nobody is saying for the couple of people living in North Dakota that they can’t keep their truck and drive around everywhere, the transportation needs of people that live in rural places like this are vanishingly small compared to the problem we are talking about here. We are talking about MASS TRANSIT so places that actually have enough people for major industry, and for major movements of people and material that can actually clog transportation networks. Why when people try to have a conversation about the economic centers of the US that actually make this country run do people obsess about the guy living in the middle of nowhere Kansas who can go on happily driving a pickup for the rest of eternity and who has no impact on the places that actually matter in the US in terms of transit?
Nobody lives in most of the US, so no the fact that those parts of the US exist does not make the US uniquely difficult to make mass transit for because “it is too big”, you just make the mass transit where the high population density is. Deep red rural government-handout states can continue to be based entirely around cars, great, it really doesn’t affect much of the US population because most of the US population doesn’t live in those places and don’t desire to go to them.
Great now that we have been over this, please never throw this line out lazily again, it adds nothing.
Wow. Talk about overused lines of delusional bullshit.
Twinsies I guess?
Please never say this absurd nonsense again. For your own benefit.
“nobody lives in most of the us” is a factually correct statement.
Do it again. And go by state. See how spread out people really are.
why are you asking for a less granular map? I’d have preferred to give you a more granular map as an increase of detail would just make the point even more clear.
Exactly
that’s not a counter argument to better public transportation. That’s a supporting argument for public transportation.
It takes about 10 hours to drive 688 miles from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City, an actual distance of 580 miles.
For more than double that distance, at 1238 miles, a high-speed train from Hong Kong to Beijing takes 9 hours.
“The US is way too big for trains and public transit to be feasible” is a lousy excuse for poor infrastructure and planning.
I 100% agree. But the whole “build trains AND get rid of cars” thing will not actually work.
It’s not about getting rid of cars entirely. It’s about prioritizing other modes of transport that are more efficient at moving people for 90% of daily trips they need to make.
Cars will still exist, they will just not be most people’s first choice for going to/from places. Ideally they exist more as a tool for specific situations where needed, such as work that covers a broad/rural area and requires large/specialized tools.
10 hours only gets you 1/3 across the US. I drive that regularly. The US is huge, and so many places you could never get to in a train like you mention. Hell even any of the proposed train routes anywhere only touch the surface of anywhere in this country. If you live in a city, and never leave, it only occasionally travel to another major city, sure a train or a bus work, I spent 8 years without owning a car, I know more then most how limiting it is.
Are the roads any better?
So in part, yes because of that’s what we spent the money on and also yes, because we can do things with roads that we can’t do with rail.
With rail, you generally don’t want over 0.5% grade, maybe 1.5% grade. With roads 5% grade is considered no big deal, 8% for freeway ramps, and mountain roads commonly being 15-20%. Also turns can be much tighter with roads.
It’s much much cheaper to do roads, particularly through hilly or mountainous terrain.