Social Why did the US government not prioritize trains?

[BreatheSherBro]

Why did the US government not prioritize trains over cars?

• Trains are the fastest way to move large numbers of people.
• Trains are the fastest way to move large numbers of goods.
• Trains are safer than cars.
• Trains are better for the environment.
• Trains are more energy efficient.
• Trains while exspensive, would overall have a lower cost.

I know there are a lot of people that prefer cars, but that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about why the government chose cars over trains. The government chose to build highways everywhere including huge multilane highways that will always be plauged by horrendous traffic rather than prioritizing rail. This was a huge policy decision with major consequences. Why did the folks running the government go that route?

Again, I know there are a lot of people that would prefer cars. Unless you think your elected officals give a shit about your personal preferences though, that doesn't fully explain why the government prioriized cars over trains.

My guess is that it was just easier. Roads are more straight forward than well designed rail networks. Road projects tend to be smaller in scale. Less can go wrong. Bad roads have smaller consequences than bad rail networks. It's eaiser to convince people to absorb the costs of car ownership and car travel even though the costs are quite large.

 

[west42]

Trains are ghey

 

[KaNesDeath]

Why did the US government not prioritize trains over cars?

For starting in the 1950's(?) car manufacturers bought up all privately owned public transportation networks. Slowly phasing them out to push car ownership instead.

 

[Kingz]

We do have a massive rail system for the shipment of goods but strictly for that.

Other than that, cars and the freeway are symbolic of individual freedom while mass transit is considered collectivist, cosmopolitan and totally gae.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Why did the US government not prioritize trains over cars?

• Trains are the fastest way to move large numbers of people.
• Trains are the fastest way to move large numbers of goods.
• Trains are safer than cars.
• Trains are better for the environment.
• Trains are more energy efficient.
• Trains while exspensive, would overall havr a lower cost.

I know there are a lot of people that prefer cars, but that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about why the government chose cars over trains. The government chose to build highways everywhere including huge multilane highways that will always be plauged by horrendous traffic rather than prioritizing rail. This was a huge policy decision with major consequences. Why did the folks running the government go that route?

Again, I know there are a lot of people that would prefer cars. Unless you think your elected officals give a shit about your personal preferences though, that doesn't fully explain why the government prioriized cars over trains.

My guess is that it was just easier. Roads are more straight forward than well designed rail networks. Road projects tend to be smaller in scale. Less can go wrong. Bad roads have smaller consequences than bad rail networks. It's eaiser to convince people to absorb the costs of car ownership and car travel even though the costs are quite large.

Most Western countries invested heavily into car infrastructure after WWII, not just the US. Japan was an exception and of course their railway system is legendary but even European countries that have good overall urban planning and public transit had a car phase back in the day.

Part of the reason is cultural as Americans like cars but it goes beyond that. Lots of big cities have populations who would love good public transit to include railways but for a variety of reasons its hard to do big infrastructure projects in general. For one, most big cities lean heavily Democrat who favor unions that make these big projects inefficient and thus they frequently run behind schedule and overbudget. Sometimes within these jurisdictions different representatives will fight for different unions to have the right to suck the public teat. To make matters worse we have lots of laws which make it easy for people to sue the city for municipal projects. On the surface they seem like good reasons like suing for environmental impact or disability access but more often than not the city has thought of these things already and the people suing are doing so purely to stall the project.

But the cultural element does matter. A lot of these issues also apply to highways but Americans are more willing to tolerate these inefficiencies when its a highway because cars are seen as a middle class form of transportation while public transit is for poors. So for example when the government wants to appropriate land for a project its going to meet less resistance when its a highway than if its a railway of some kind. But liberals and progressives need to tackle the inefficiency problem if they ever want more public buy in for public transit. I'm sure many Americans would change their tune about public transit if these projects were completed on time and within budget.

 

[Koro_11]

We do have a massive rail system for the shipment of goods but strictly for that.

Other than that, cars and the freeway are symbolic of individual freedom while mass transit is considered collectivist, cosmopolitan and totally gae.

 

[Islam Imamate]

We do have a massive rail system for the shipment of goods but strictly for that.

Other than that, cars and the freeway are symbolic of individual freedom while mass transit is considered collectivist, cosmopolitan and totally gae.

What could be more liberating than sitting in traffic?

 

[SKYNET]

What could be more liberating than sitting in traffic?

is that Key Biscayne during the regatta?

 

[Islam Imamate]

is that Key Biscayne during the regatta?

It is from South Florida, pulled from an article about how Miami has some of the worst traffic in the world. I live in the outskirts of the metro area and even here I'm noticing it.

The city is investing in public transit but feels like it's too little too late.

 

[AWilder]

I travel by train sometimes. Recently went to Washington DC from Raleigh. The new line has way less stops making it about a 5-6 hour journey. This is a decent compromise for the price-time-stress Delta of travel, imo. It's cheap and stress free (unless major delays) but slower than flying. But once you get into longer rides nothing the time-cost becomes way less appealing. We looked at taking the train to see my wife's parents in Ohio and I just don't want to sit in a train for 18 hours.

While we were in DC we exclusively used the metro. Hotel was across the street from a stop by the white House and we could walk or take the metro depending on how we felt. Also used a private bus that has a few open top busses doing loops around the sights. But that's more of a tourist trap thing

 

[SKYNET]

It is from South Florida, pulled from an article about how Miami has some of the worst traffic in the world. I live in the outskirts of the metro area and even here I'm noticing it.

The city is investing in public transit but feels like it's too little too late.

Oh I know just that pic is a bit drastic. I can tell it's probably the keys. The other lane is smooth sailing.

It takes about 3 hours to get off the islands after a holiday weekend.

 

[Cole train]

Probably because Usa is huge and people probably can afford flying

Russia is 2x bigger and everyone who can flies, but people are poor so most go by train because it cheaper and cant afford plane ticket

Just my 2 cents

 

[BreatheSherBro]

Probably because Usa is huge and people probably can afford flying

Russia is 2x bigger and everyone who can flies, but people are poor so most go by train because it cheaper and cant afford plane ticket

Just my 2 cents

In several parts of America, it often takes an hour and a half or longer to commute from your job to your house due to consistently horrendous traffic.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

In several parts of America, it often takes an hour and a half or longer to commute from your job to your house due to consistently horrendous traffic.

I've worked from home for 5 years but yep before the pandemic, it was like that here in Houston. My wife starts a job tomorrow and I dont think she understands or recalls the soul suck of commuting.

 

[nostradumbass]

Densely populated metro areas do, and they're pretty gross. Outside of those cities, the US is too spread out. Population density here is pretty low.

What could be more liberating than sitting in traffic?

Getting lit on fire, pushed onto the tracks or stabbed by bums and illegals doesn't sound especially liberating.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Probably because Usa is huge and people probably can afford flying

Russia is 2x bigger and everyone who can flies, but people are poor so most go by train because it cheaper and cant afford plane ticket

Just my 2 cents

Size is mostly irrelevant, people don't commute across the country.

In fact LA used to have the largest streetcar system in the world but it was ripped out in favor of cars.

Getting lit on fire, pushed onto the tracks or stabbed by bums and illegals doesn't sound especially liberating.

Public safety matters and that's where progressives drop the ball in regards to transit but I don't think it's a problem inherent to trains whereas growing cities without good public transit pretty much always suffer traffic.

Good public transit is good for drivers too as it gives those who don't need or want to drive an alternative whereas without one they clog the road. In practice outside of the most dense cities most folks are going to both drive and use public transit depending on their specific trip.

 

[Anewt]

Because ford and co brought up millions of miles of rail networks and tore them up

 

[Cole train]

Size is mostly irrelevant, people don't commute across the country.

In fact LA used to have the largest streetcar system in the world but it was ripped out in favor of cars.

Public safety matters and that's where progressives drop the ball in regards to transit but I don't think it's a problem inherent to trains whereas growing cities without good public transit pretty much always suffer traffic.

Good public transit is good for drivers too as it gives those who don't need or want to drive an alternative whereas without one they clog the road. In practice outside of the most dense cities most folks are going to both drive and use public transit depending on their specific trip.

Was mainly thinking long distance stuff

That being said thinking about commute and public transport, reason everyone i know prefers cars is other people in public transport

You get the retards who play music or who watch videos full volume, people who scream into phone which is on speaker, crackheads shooting up, crazy people doing crazy stuff and people who want to fight you because you happen to exist on same train as them

One video of nyc underground crazies proves my point lol

 

[The Big Yin]

Trains are incredibly expensive to run & maintain, with virtually all networks in the world being government subsidized.

The US is gigantic and it would take a huge commitment of government spending. Also most of Europe with great rail networks work because the urban centres are compact and you can get to a rail station relatively easily. It's not uncommon for people I'm cities not to own a car. I can see most people in the US still needing to drive miles just to get to a station.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Trains are incredibly expensive to run & maintain, with virtually all networks in the world being government subsidized.

The US is gigantic and it would take a huge commitment of government spending. Also most of Europe with great rail networks work because the urban centres are compact and you can get to a rail station relatively easily. It's not uncommon for people I'm cities not to own a car. I can see most people in the US still needing to drive miles just to get to a station.

The reason our cities are not compact is because of cars which take up a lot of space. When you plan cities around cars they're necessarily going to be less dense because you need more space for roads and parking.

In other words it's a policy decision, not some hard reality about American geography.

Was mainly thinking long distance stuff

That being said thinking about commute and public transport, reason everyone i know prefers cars is other people in public transport

You get the retards who play music or who watch videos full volume, people who scream into phone which is on speaker, crackheads shooting up, crazy people doing crazy stuff and people who want to fight you because you happen to exist on same train as them

One video of nyc underground crazies proves my point lol

Maybe on an individual level but as an electorate there's a lack of trust that transit authorities will spend the money efficiently which is far from baseless.

Red states being right to work opens up opportunities for them to build transit more efficiently than blue states. The political will isn't there yet though hopefully that can change. I think you're more likely to convince local and state Republicans that transit is a good idea than you are to convince state and local Dems to push back against unions.