Social Why did the US government not prioritize trains?

[jefferz]

Our trains are not "very well-connected" nor are they efficient. They are slow and out-dated. Italy's high-speed rail put their National airline out of business. Because airports suck and air travel isnt as cheap as the trains ended up being

Another big issue with trains is priority. Passenger trains get put at the bottom of the list.
Legally, they're supposed to be at the top, but it isn't enforced.

 

[Gutter Chris]

What could be more liberating than sitting in traffic?

Nothing really. I can still smoke , still listen to the tossers full blast and still carry my weapon in a traffic jam

 

[Bobby00]

Our trains are not "very well-connected" nor are they efficient. They are slow and out-dated. Italy's high-speed rail put their National airline out of business. Because airports suck and air travel isnt as cheap as the trains ended up being

Why did you put very well connected in quotes? I cant speak for italy but where i am its almost always cheaper to fly than take that train unless you dont mind many stops and changing trains. Generally direct trains are expensive. You can go by train and it can take 3 hours or 8 depending what you want to pay. You can look up and compare how much each cost to travel to. Maybe im off as i said dont know about Italy.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Nothing really. I can still smoke , still listen to the tossers full blast and still carry my weapon in a traffic jam

Cancer, hearing impairment and gun violence. Almost makes me want to head straight into traffic right now.

 

[Sinister]

Why did you put very well connected in quotes? I cant speak for italy but where i am its almost always cheaper to fly than take that train unless you dont mind many stops and changing trains. Generally direct trains are expensive. You can go by train and it can take 3 hours or 8 depending what you want to pay. You can look up and compare how much each cost to travel to. Maybe im off as i said dont know about Italy.

What I'm saying is that the trains cannot be described in any real sort of positive manner outside of that they exist. Their gross iniffeciency is at the root of why they're not cheaper than the planes here.

 

[Sinister]

Cancer, hearing impairment and gun violence. Almost makes me want to head straight into traffic right now.

I don't think he meant cigarettes

 

[Gutter Chris]

I don't think he meant cigarettes

I did. I wouldn't be smoking blunts in the car with a gun on me.

 

[Gutter Chris]

Cancer, hearing impairment and gun violence. Almost makes me want to head straight into traffic right now.

2 outta 3. I can't argue that cancer isn't a side effect or that I haven't put a beating on my ears but I'm not taking part in any violence in a holster

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

because private transit makes capitalists money. not public transit.

 

[Bobby00]

What I'm saying is that the trains cannot be described in any real sort of positive manner outside of that they exist. Their gross iniffeciency is at the root of why they're not cheaper than the planes here.

Dont like airports either so we can agree on that. Isnt part of the issue also the mass of the US and how lowly populated some areas are? I know US big cities do have a train system like NY or Philadelphia are they terrible as well or is it more long distance issue? In my country you can reach almost all places by train with the help of busses and trams.

 

[Soggust]

Another fucking Trainy thread

 

[Islam Imamate]

Culture is huge when it comes to these arguments. It's partially what determines our low population densities even in cities, but suppose we somehow fixed the culture to the point where we can do housing better and create denser cities, and suppose we had brought back a huge network of psychiatric hospitals and kicked all the mentally ill bums off the street, and suppose we had zero tolerance for crime, and suppose we could somehow make these projects in budget and on time, and we have the perfect framework for good public transit we would have two (2) problems..

1) There would be a huge lag in American's utilizing these services because of our previous views on mass transit (so we would probably have less people using it than we should)
2) We, and I am including myself here, take it for granted that we should be able to go wherever we want, whenever we want, without hassle (except for all the fucking traffic.) I could not imagine not owning a car and so I would contribute to these things being underutilized. The metrorail for me is a little luxury that I would only consider going to like twice a year when I want to attend an event in the city and just park my car at Dadeland station or South Miami. But even then you have skeptical girlfriends who think that it's gonna be swarming with crackheads even though we are relatively good with that in Miami-Dade.

Culture matters a bit but not really buying that its this decisive. First off you yourself hit the nail on the head in regards to the problem with the "go wherever you want when you want idea" as it relates to cars which is traffic, not to mention parking availability and prices in the denser parts of the cities which are the highest demand areas. With public transit that has short enough frequencies you can pretty much go wherever you want when you want. If a train or bus appears every 3-5 minutes and there are frequent enough stops connected to relevant locations you don't need to plan your trip, just go there and wait for the next departing time.

The reality is that you and many Americans aspire to the future we saw in Wall-E where you sit in couches all day that have screens attached and move you around like a mobility devices. That's why you yearn for the possibility of self-driving cars instead of using what provably works like trains and busses. For someone like you for whom your couch with wheels and the gas to go with it is a reasonable expense of course you'll take your car if that's your preference. But for the people at the margins it matters. Some of us are perfectly rational economic actors all of the time and all of us are perfectly rational economic actors some of the time so on average you're going to see people adapt to the opportunities of better public transit. That might mean holding off on buying your first car or a household that would normally have two cars settling for one. And the significant difference here that makes these not equivalent alternatives is that car traffic comes with steeper externalities in the form of pollution and deaths/injuries resulting from MVC so there's a technocratic reason to prefer transit over car traffic.

In terms you might understand it means fewer brokies on the road driving beaters and clogging traffic which means more room for you to show off your Mazda6 to your date, vroom vroom! Of course, progressives get some things seriously wrong about public transit too. If you listen to them their ideal form of public transit is free but looks like an underground pedestrian path with "unhoused neighbors" and "justice impacted persons" wandering around unimpeded. Behind the scenes it means bloated unions being overpaid for subpar work because they can put their thumbs on the scale of local politics if anyone suggests otherwise. One argument I hear against congestion pricing in NYC, an overall good policy that generally should be implemented, is that people don't trust the MTA to spend the money wisely. I don't think that's a baseless concern. Few in Tokyo complain where they have fewer lines but move more people due to less downtime for maintenance.

If people are going to use public transit it has to be pleasant and efficient or only the most desperate will use it even if its free. People don't mind paying a fare and I would wager are happy to if it means quality service in terms of cleanliness, order and safety, proper maintenance, being on schedule and so on. I feel for the homeless and mentally ill and whatnot which is why they should be brutally thrown from the train or bus into the arms of a social worker or what have you. At the end of the day people will forgive a lot if the trains run on time which is usually mean figuratively but in practice it works literally too. At some point if you knew you could get to work in 20 minutes by public transit instead of 45 minutes by car you'd take the transit trip even if only some of the time and when you do someone else gets to enjoy their Mazda6.

Nothing really. I can still smoke , still listen to the tossers full blast and still carry my weapon in a traffic jam

Sure but on a train while you can't smoke you can do many thing you can't in a car like read a book or watch something on your phone. I guess you can try in traffic if you have a reckless disregard for your own life and that of others but thankfully on a train that's not needed to enjoy a book or a screen.

 

[Sinister]

I did. I wouldn't be smoking blunts in the car with a gun on me.

Man I had hella homies that did that even in HS

 

[Sweater of AV]

I don't think he meant cigarettes

I had it at 50/50.

 

[jeremyemilio]

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.

Canada, too.

They will point to a map and tell you that the geography doesn't work because the land masses are too large, but that's BS.

Canada has a population of 40,000,000 and literally half of that population lives in a very narrow strip just over 1,000 km long connecting Quebec City to Winsor Ontario (which is just across a bridge to Detroit). A single line starting in Quebec City, going through Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, London, and ending in Windsor would be almost as straight as an arrow (with a little bump north to hit Ottawa) and would take a massive load off of the highway system.

But that doesn't even come close to what a train running an equally straight line from Portland ME, through Boston MA, through New York NY, through Philadelphia PE, through Baltimore MD, ending in Washington DC would service. It's criminal that a line like that doesn't exist.

 

[NoSmilez]

Our train system currently moves freight instead of passengers. We have these anti monopoly laws that broke up companies. Companies used to own trains and street cars. We killed off streetcars and replaced them with buses. Car companies and big oil also lobby against new public transportation in America. They might not attack public transportation directly but they will fund small grass root groups to dispense information to voters about how funding public transportation will increase taxes.

We also invested in airlines. Flying used to be somewhat seen as glamourous and modern. People will dress up in suits and go to the airport. Flying in America really sucks now. You got to take off your shoes. You can't even wear a sweatshirt. TSA is bitchy about containers of liquid and protein powder. It's such a terrible experience. I don't think we will get legit train service but we might have automated cars that run in their own lanes sometime in the future.

 

[Lead]

I could see a good case for one on the East coast connecting DC, Baltimore, Philly, Boston areas. One going across the country seems like overkill and I don’t see there being a strong demand for it. The problem is the US is doing great with these types of projects. There’s a lot of agencies and preparation needed that often leave the whole thing paralyzed.

 

[Sinister]

Dont like airports either so we can agree on that. Isnt part of the issue also the mass of the US and how lowly populated some areas are? I know US big cities do have a train system like NY or Philadelphia are they terrible as well or is it more long distance issue? In my country you can reach almost all places by train with the help of busses and trams.

No. The problem is essentially capitalism, and in different facets. The idea that this is too big of a Country for anything is farcical. This Country was built and industrialized via railroad, and that includes cargo and passenger trains. We just never updated that system a whole lot once the Model T was invented. The car manufacturers bought various forms of transit and dismantled them to promote car dependency.

Besides, the idea of a National rail system shouldnt be erected FOR profit. It should be an service just like the Post Office. The idea is to move people where they need to be, because that's how you get commerce and growth. If there was a 1.5-2hr rail system between Vegas and LA, people could live here and work there. Or vice versa. That brings growth. What doesnt bring growth is traffic jams, and adding lanes that judt creates bigger traffic jams. And box stores where the parking lot is 5x the size of the facility, losing all that taxable real estate.

 

[Sinister]

Our train system currently moves freight instead of passengers. We have these anti monopoly laws that broke up companies. Companies used to own trains and street cars. We killed off streetcars and replaced them with buses. Car companies and big oil also lobby against new public transportation in America. They might not attack public transportation directly but they will fund small grass root groups to dispense information to voters about how funding public transportation will increase taxes.

We also invested in airlines. Flying used to be somewhat seen as glamourous and modern. People will dress up in suits and go to the airport. Flying in America really sucks now. You got to take off your shoes. You can't even wear a sweatshirt. TSA is bitchy about containers of liquid and protein powder. It's such a terrible experience. I don't think we will get legit train service but we might have automated cars that run in their own lanes sometime in the future.

Anti-monopoly laws are good. Passenger rail transit should be a nationalized service

 

[Yehudim]

Culture matters a bit but not really buying that its this decisive. First off you yourself hit the nail on the head in regards to the problem with the "go wherever you want when you want idea" as it relates to cars which is traffic, not to mention parking availability and prices in the denser parts of the cities which are the highest demand areas. With public transit that has short enough frequencies you can pretty much go wherever you want when you want. If a train or bus appears every 3-5 minutes and there are frequent enough stops connected to relevant locations you don't need to plan your trip, just go there and wait for the next departing time.

The reality is that you and many Americans aspire to the future we saw in Wall-E where you sit in couches all day that have screens attached and move you around like a mobility devices. That's why you yearn for the possibility of self-driving cars instead of using what provably works like trains and busses. For someone like you for whom your couch with wheels and the gas to go with it is a reasonable expense of course you'll take your car if that's your preference. But for the people at the margins it matters. Some of us are perfectly rational economic actors all of the time and all of us are perfectly rational economic actors some of the time so on average you're going to see people adapt to the opportunities of better public transit. That might mean holding off on buying your first car or a household that would normally have two cars settling for one. And the significant difference here that makes these not equivalent alternatives is that car traffic comes with steeper externalities in the form of pollution and deaths/injuries resulting from MVC so there's a technocratic reason to prefer transit over car traffic.

In terms you might understand it means fewer brokies on the road driving beaters and clogging traffic which means more room for you to show off your Mazda6 to your date, vroom vroom! Of course, progressives get some things seriously wrong about public transit too. If you listen to them their ideal form of public transit is free but looks like an underground pedestrian path with "unhoused neighbors" and "justice impacted persons" wandering around unimpeded. Behind the scenes it means bloated unions being overpaid for subpar work because they can put their thumbs on the scale of local politics if anyone suggests otherwise. One argument I hear against congestion pricing in NYC, an overall good policy that generally should be implemented, is that people don't trust the MTA to spend the money wisely. I don't think that's a baseless concern. Few in Tokyo complain where they have fewer lines but move more people due to less downtime for maintenance.

If people are going to use public transit it has to be pleasant and efficient or only the most desperate will use it even if its free. People don't mind paying a fare and I would wager are happy to if it means quality service in terms of cleanliness, order and safety, proper maintenance, being on schedule and so on. I feel for the homeless and mentally ill and whatnot which is why they should be brutally thrown from the train or bus into the arms of a social worker or what have you. At the end of the day people will forgive a lot if the trains run on time which is usually mean figuratively but in practice it works literally too. At some point if you knew you could get to work in 20 minutes by public transit instead of 45 minutes by car you'd take the transit trip even if only some of the time and when you do someone else gets to enjoy their Mazda6.

Sure but on a train while you can't smoke you can do many thing you can't in a car like read a book or watch something on your phone. I guess you can try in traffic if you have a reckless disregard for your own life and that of others but thankfully on a train that's not needed to enjoy a book or a screen.

1) Not only do you use Sherdog (which disqualifies you from being a perfect rational economic actor) you’re a moderator on Sherdog which means you’re an extremely irrational economic actor
2) What I basically was saying is that our lives and culture are so designed around cars, that unless you live in Manhattan and have the equivalent infrastructure, and intend on never leaving your bubble, you’re going to want your own car because it is convenient.

Even people in NYC own cars, especially those outside of Manhattan. I am not going to forgo having a car in Miami-Dade because even if we do adopt good public transit, it cannot possibly service every area to the extent that it is reasonable to not own a car. I’m not going to avoid driving to the Redlands for Knaus Berry cinnamon rolls, or avoid driving to the Chinese hot pot place in Broward because I want to be a soyboi cuck that wants to take an incredibly long bus ride because I want to LARP as a New Yorker.

Stuff that is a 20 minute drive which are not little treats like I mentioned, but are necessary, would be annoying to use for public transit. It’s a pain in the ass to do grocery shopping without your car, etc.

There’s A LOT of good reasons to own a car, and places with great transit know this, they know people want their own cars, and that is why they do all kinds of taxation, registration, tolls, etc to keep you from owning one.

Face it, cars are amazing. Not amazing enough to stifle good public transportation, but even people in Tokyo want and own cars.