• TheSlad@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Americans can’t do trains because it requires public infrastructure (rails), which apparently we are allergic to.

    • kieron115@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’ve read articles in the past about high speed trains and/or just new train lines in general would get held up by little towns who didn’t want to lose the commuter traffic since it was the only thing keeping them afloat. There are too many towns that exist literally just to serve motorists and now nobody wants to get rid of them.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 day ago

        Anybody who is making money off existing transportation is going to be against public transportation. Cab companies lobby against rail everywhere, from city to burbs or airport to downtown. Trucking, for obvious reasons. Passenger rail can carry cargo at night. And of course anybody selling fuel to the mass of cars, the petro industry.

      • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 day ago

        They are just very short sighted. Just lobby to have a station and a have commuter stops and people will flock to those “cheaper” areas to live bringing in tons of tax revenue and boosting the local economy.

        • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          These small towns would still be an hour+ away from large cities, even with European speed high speed rail.

          Like for me, the nearest “big town” is about 100 miles from me, which is about a 2hr drive. And, at least from some quick googling, it looks like most commuter rail in France tops out at about 100mph. A train would not bring in more people haha

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Yeah, while I’m a huge advocate for an American Shinkansen, there’s really 4 zones of America for train speeds. East of the Appalachians its fast and easy and rail already works easy. West of them but east of the Mississippi, you’re gonna need high speed rail, but it’ll be somewhat similar to Europe. Between the Mississippi and the west coast, you’re gonna need high speed rail and quite a bit of patience. And on the west coast, you’ll hit up small cities, but honestly it’d be a great second high speed line after the New York-Chicago

          • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            You’d be suprised how many people commute more than an hour by car. The prospect of having affordable housing with more job opportunities will certainly bring in more people.

            • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              France spends ~$15 million/mile for high speed commuter rail. Which means that line would cost $1.5 billion.

              I don’t think it’s bringing in that many more people. Even when you amortize it across all of the little cities it would go through

              • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Implying the line would stop at the town and not carry on to the next. Also, how much is being spent on building and maintaining freeways?

                • jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  22 hours ago

                  too much, which is why I propose dirt highways with 45mph speed limits. Low initial cost, drivers drive safer, and helps the towing industry grow.

                • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Even when you amortize it across all of the little cities

                  Please read the comment in it’s entirety before responding ❤️

      • dmention7@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        That is so odd… I’ve only ridden Amtrak a few times, but I was amazed at how many stops were just some small town that happened to lie on the rail line.

        Most small towns that lie on a major highway and are supported by commuter traffic are only going to support a truck stop and a few fast food restaurants at best. Sure, a true high speed rail line would likely only stop in larger metropolitan areas, so those meager income sources may dwindle. But on the other hand if I were a rail commuter in one of those rural/suburban areas, I’d be much more likely to spend some time doing a bit of shopping or lingering in a restaurant during that transition from the train to my car after work, than if I were just passing through in my car.

    • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      it requires cooperation with the project across all of these counties that the railway runs through. and they’re all corrupt or subject to democracy or whatever