Social Why did the US government not prioritize trains?

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.

This juvenile outburst of raging about your life being slightly less convenient would make a good Dodge Ram commercial, especially due to how misguided it is.

Places that use HS rail do not have these problems of massive delays getting somewhere the way you're describing, because they're not designed by incompetent morons. In each of these places the public transit, more often than not, can get you somewhere faster than a car. That's HOW they get people to use the public transit instead of driving. And they service even some of the most remote areas. But Americans, we defend a system that not only REQUIRES we take on an additional monthly 2-3 expenses, but we know for sure kills thousands of people each year, and is one of the top leading causes of death of children every year.

P.S. - there's few things more cucked than using an internet message board to lambast people for being on an internet message board. Last I checked no one required your presence here.
 
This juvenile outburst of raging about your life being slightly less convenient would make a good Dodge Ram commercial, especially due to how misguided it is.

Places that use HS rail do not have these problems of massive delays getting somewhere the way you're describing, because they're not designed by incompetent morons. In each of these places the public transit, more often than not, can get you somewhere faster than a car. That's HOW they get people to use the public transit instead of driving. And they service even some of the most remote areas. But Americans, we defend a system that not only REQUIRES we take on an additional monthly 2-3 expenses, but we know for sure kills thousands of people each year, and is one of the top leading causes of death of children every year.

P.S. - there's few things more cucked than using an internet message board to lambast people for being on an internet message board. Last I checked no one required your presence here.
lol what juvenile outburst? Nobody is upset.

Don’t get mad at me for wanting a useful appliance anymore than you would at someone for having a smartphone. Yeah, I don’t need a smart phone, but it sure is convenient and it does contribute to slavery in Africa and Asia, so there’s the moral argument.

I never realized that you were so insecure about being a mod on Sherdog. I sent those shots at him because he has been my friend on Sherdog for years and I know he would be about as offended at it as I was at his MULTIPLE PARAGRAPHS calling me an unthinking retard. Which is to say, not offended at all.
 
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.

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.

What would you do? Tear down your cities and rebuild them so that everything is within a 30 min walk?

We have exactly the same issue with traffic and congestion here as your big cities, all caused by the fact 90% of our towns and cities evolved from hamlets 1000 years old.

In London parking space are sold for as much as a house would cost in Liverpool or Sheffield.
 
Anti-monopoly lass are good. Passenger rail transit should be a nationalized.
Anti monopoly laws are good if it is applied across the board. Companies like Firestone, GM, and Standard Oil were able to collude together to help takeover that industry once it got weakened. They wanted to push buses instead.

Highways, automotive and airlines have huge government subsidies. Rail doesn't get as much help from the government. The airline industry isn't a profitable one but the government prefers to keep throwing money at it.
 
Last edited:
America had lots of trains at one time but people ultimately chose cars.

Nowadays trains are simply not a safe way to travel in major American cities.
 
The government didn’t choose. People did.

The government did build a large network of railways. Development of them declined as people bought cars instead. It’s still there, it’s wise today just reflects its demand.

Trains can also only do so much. A train can take you from one major hub to the next but after that you’re on your own
 
It's not really a surprise that most of the cities in the world with the highest quality of life also have high quality public transportation options.

Cars are still necessary and may symbolize "freedom" on a very superficial level but the reality is having solid public transportation systems is highly beneficial.
That's what rental cars are for.
 
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.
Our lives and culture were once designed around horse and buggy also, and we moved away from that because it didn't meet our needs. If population stayed small, maybe car centric design would make more sense.

Cars are not efficient even in moderately dense areas though, hence major daily traffic congestion even in medium sized cities. Car centric design was a bad policy decision given how fast America was growing during the highway boom, and the effects of that bad policy decision will only get worse with increases in population. What is your plan for when the population increases? Just wait longer in traffic? Eventually there will be a breaking point.

There is no good alternative to fixing traffic other than prioritizing alternatives to cars. You can't build an infinite number of additional lanes to ease congestion. There isn't enough real estate. Also, car accidents that snarl traffic occur very frequently even in areas with many lanes.

Trains are the fastest way to move large numbers of people. That's a reality. They should be prioritized for most commuting in medium and large cities. Some combination of buses and/or street cars can fill in the gaps for places that can't be reached by trains due to earlier poor city design.

It is possible to design mass transit in ways were cars were no longer necessary for most people. Why would it not be possible? It's already been done in multiple cities. The US mostly having inferior mass transit doesn't make mass transit impossible. You could still easily have cinnamon rolls. We have the resources for making mass transit great, we just haven't made it a priority. We do dumb stuff like build six or more lanes in highly dense areas without building decent commuter rail. We often have infrequent bus service without dedicated bus lanes. Those are very fixable problems. For medium sized cities and above, you could have fast, reliable, safe, and convenient mass transit. We just don't have our priorities in the right place.

For small towns that will always be small, transportation prioritization doesn't matter as much, but I would argue they would still benefit from acces to commuter rails because it would make it possible for them to easily commute larger towns which would vastly improve employment options and the local economy. Charles Town, West Virginia for example has commuter rail to Maryland and DC even though it's a town of less than 8,000 people.
 
Our lives and culture were once designed around horse and buggy also, and we moved away from that because it didn't meet our needs. If population stayed small, maybe car centric design would make more sense.

Cars are not efficient even in moderately dense areas though, hence major daily traffic congestion even in medium sized cities. Car centric design was a bad policy decision given how fast America was growing during the highway boom, and the effects of that bad policy decision will only get worse with increases in population. What is your plan for when the population increases? Just wait longer in traffic? Eventually there will be a breaking point.

There is no good alternative to fixing traffic other than prioritizing alternatives to cars. You can't build an infinite number of additional lanes to ease congestion. There isn't enough real estate. Also, car accidents that snarl traffic occur very frequently even in areas with many lanes.

Trains are the fastest way to move large numbers of people. That's a reality. They should be prioritized for most commuting in medium and large cities. Some combination of buses and/or street cars can fill in the gaps for places that can't be reached by trains due to earlier poor city design.

It is possible to design mass transit in ways were cars were no longer necessary for most people. Why would it not be possible? It's already been done in multiple cities. The US mostly having inferior mass transit doesn't make mass transit impossible. You could still easily have cinnamon rolls. We have the resources for making mass transit great, we just haven't made it a priority. We do dumb stuff like build six or more lanes in highly dense areas without building decent commuter rail. We often have infrequent bus service without dedicated bus lanes. Those are very fixable problems. For medium sized cities and above, you could have fast, reliable, safe, and convenient mass transit. We just don't have our priorities in the right place.

For small towns that will always be small, transportation prioritization doesn't matter as much, but I would argue they would still benefit from acces to commuter rails because it would make it possible for them to easily commute larger towns which would vastly improve employment options and the local economy. Charles Town, West Virginia for example has commuter rail to Maryland and DC even though it's a town of less than 8,000 people.
It is not impossible in a theoretical level, obviously, but you have to ask yourself, if the benefits are so obvious, but Americans aren’t interested, what are the obstacles?
 
America had lots of trains at one time but people ultimately chose cars.

Nowadays trains are simply not a safe way to travel in major American cities.
America never had an amazing mass transit system. Not one that could easily, efficiently link you to lots of towns or the newly devloping suburbs. The investment was never made.

I 100 percent agreement agree that safey needs to be improved on trains, but that is the easiest problem to fix. Just hire additional security until it is safe.
 
My commute is about 100miles each way. When I have the option I do a little over half by car, remainder by train. The portion by train is the most relaxing part of my day.

When I say train I mean passenger train, not subway, or what get run on your mom.
 
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.
Cold hard facts.

8 out of 10 people down here already understand this and there are zero arguments for mass public transportation that could absorb even 5 seconds of the air in the room before laughter breaks out.
Another 10% would love to see it but understand the costs associated with adding the infrastructure on top of the everglades and also the regular maintenance required to keep this project afloat would be astronomical to put it mildly.

The best hope would be to expand the metrorail as a short term project and hope the advancement of technology allows developers and engineers to devise a system that would be cost effective and compatible with the everglades areas out west.
 
Cold hard facts.

8 out of 10 people down here already understand this and there are zero arguments for mass public transportation that could absorb even 5 seconds of the air in the room before laughter breaks out.
Another 10% would love to see it but understand the costs associated with adding the infrastructure on top of the everglades and also the regular maintenance required to keep this project afloat would be astronomical to put it mildly.

The best hope would be to expand the metrorail as a short term project and hope the advancement of technology allows developers and engineers to devise a system that would be cost effective and compatible with the everglades areas out west.
Yeah, I think a good idea would be to expand the metro rail, and make the city of Miami itself a more dense, transit friendly place. The point isn’t to turn the county into Manhattan, just reduce the amount of cars on the road.

There’s no point trying it out in the suburbs west of Miami. Certainly I think we need to plant the seeds of better housing plans for all of Miami-Dade, but I know the municipalities full of Karen’s wouldn’t want it.
 
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.
Did you not read my post ya goober? I'm not saying ban cars and make everyone walk everywhere, just that we need things like congestion pricing and public transit to deal with the problem of traffic in the metro area. In fact I specifically said many households will still want to own cars even as they replace some trips with walking or public transit. Some households might not downsize their cars at all but save on gas over time by replacing some car trips here and there.

Yes cars are cool, they are the most expensive and arguably most sophisticated consumer good most Americans will own with the possible exception of smartphones. In fact I actually have to haul stuff for work and given you haven't mentioned anything like that I almost certainly need a car more than you do so yes I still want high quality public roads and I'll happily pay a reasonable set congestion pricing to get more office drones out of the way during rush hour if I need to haul something somewhere.

You talk about taxation and tolls but if anything cars are heavily subsidized in the US as tolls and taxes associated with cars don't cover the maintenance of roads but are politically radioactive to raise or implement. Just leaning a bit more into things like congestion pricing, tolls, and parking fees would have some effect on driver behavior. No one is saying you have to be a soyboi cuck or whatever nonsense you're worried about there. If you insist on driving your car and paying congestion pricing, tolls, and parking then yeah drive your two ton car to carry half a dozen cinnamon rolls or Chinese take out if you want. But other people should be able to take the bus and walk to these places without worry of being run over.

Pedestrian deaths are on the rise and we know cars have other externalities like pollution compared to more efficient modes of transportation like busses and trains. Not to mention suburban sprawl does not generate enough tax revenue to pay for its own infrastructure so in the end it ends up being subsidized by the dense part so the cities that generate more tax revenue. So its more dangerous both immediately(MVCs) and in the long run(air pollution) in addition to being most costly. Cities should not be neutral on this question, we need quality roads and mass transit so that those who need or want the roads can use them

As far as personal vehicles go, we should be building infrastructure for e-bikes and golf carts so young people and the elderly can still move around the city without endangering others or themselves. I am certain most cyclists would rather get hit by a 1,000lb golf cart going 20mph than a 2,000lb car going 40mph. This is not exactly just theory, I'm sure you know of the suburb in Georgia that does this. Its a great solution for places that aren't dense enough for high frequency mass transit and you can still go "wherever you want whenever you want"

It is not impossible in a theoretical level, obviously, but you have to ask yourself, if the benefits are so obvious, but Americans aren’t interested, what are the obstacles?
I mentioned some. Yes culture is one but part of it is the deliberate policy choice to subsidize cars. The other is that the whole public system for building large infrastructure projects has decayed due to a combination of laws making it easy to sue and drag out projects by citizens and unions that make the building and maintenance of these projects inefficient. For example unions in the Northeast will resist automation technology that is standard practice in Europe because it means less manpower and thus less union guys sucking on the public teat. Note the dockworkers union strike insisted on delaying or preventing the adoption of automation tech because it would mean fewer workers are needed. Lots of that type of fuckery is afoot in transit projects as well. If these projects were completed on time and within the budget I think Americans would feel differently about them.
What would you do? Tear down your cities and rebuild them so that everything is within a 30 min walk?

We have exactly the same issue with traffic and congestion here as your big cities, all caused by the fact 90% of our towns and cities evolved from hamlets 1000 years old.

In London parking space are sold for as much as a house would cost in Liverpool or Sheffield.
You don't need to tear anything down, invest in the proper infrastructure and let the free market take care of the rest. In general there will be two ends of the spetrum when it comes to projects that shift our metro areas from car dependent to pedestrian friendly. There's big projects by big developers who might buy up a dying mall and tear it down for a large mixed use, car-lite development where apartments are located near shops and the buildings are connected by smaller paths meant for golf carts and bikes.

Then there's the small developer hired by a homeowner to renovate their own house into a multifamily and/or mixed use dwelling. Being able to operate your business out of your home is a great convenience but as of now its illegal to do so in most of the US if you want to open up a service oriented business like an eatery or grocer. Allow that kind of thing and people will invest in those kinds of ventures.
Yeah, I think a good idea would be to expand the metro rail, and make the city of Miami itself a more dense, transit friendly place.

There’s no point trying it out in the suburbs west of Miami. Certainly I think we need to plant the seeds of better housing plans for all of Miami-Dade, but I know the municipalities full of Karen’s wouldn’t want it.
Why not though? You mention the Redlands, part of the charm of things like Knausberry Farm is that a family can buy a large property, grow their own produce, and then open up an eatery to sell it directly to consumers. If you allow that at a small scale so that folks can operate grocers and cafes from their suburban homes it would mean more such amenities within walking distance for more residents. Replace sidewalks with multi-use paths allowing for bikes and golf carts for shorter distances and you could create the incentives for local small pedestrian oriented businesses to survive if not thrive.
 
Last edited:
The government didn’t choose. People did.

The government did build a large network of railways. Development of them declined as people bought cars instead. It’s still there, it’s wise today just reflects its demand.

Trains can also only do so much. A train can take you from one major hub to the next but after that you’re on your own
The government did choose though, whether its trains or cars these modes of transportation are only viable with heavily government investment in the necessary infrastructure. These are policy choices. Of course when a certain policy choice is the norm for decades it comes with an inertia that can be hard to counter but at the end of the day policy is what matters.
 
There’s no point trying it out in the suburbs west of Miami. Certainly I think we need to plant the seeds of better housing plans for all of Miami-Dade, but I know the municipalities full of Karen’s wouldn’t want it.
Yes we are inherently stubborn down here, no matter what your background is.
 
Did you not read my post ya goober? I'm not saying ban cars and make everyone walk everywhere, just that we need things like congestion pricing and public transit to deal with the problem of traffic in the metro area. In fact I specificalyl said many households will still want to own cars even as they replace some trips with walking or public transit. Some households might not downsize their cars at all but save on gas over time by replacing some car trips here and there.

Yes cars are cool, they are the most expensive and arguably most sophisticated consumer good most Americans will own with the possible exception of smartphones. In fact I actually have to haul stuff for work and given you haven't mentioned anything like that I almost certainly need a car more than you do so yes I still want high quality public roads and I'll happily pay a reasonable set congestion pricing to get more office drones out of the way during rush hour if I need to haul something somewhere.

You talk about taxation and tolls but if anything cars are heavily subsidized in the US as tolls and taxes associated with cars don't cover the maintenance of roads but are politically radioactive to raise or implement. Just leaning a bit more into things like congestion pricing, tolls, and parking fees would have some effect on driver behavior. No one is saying you have to be a soyboi cuck or whatever nonsense you're worried about there. If you insist on driving your car and paying congestion pricing, tolls, and parking then yeah drive your two ton car to carry half a dozen cinnamon rolls or Chinese take out if you want. But other people should be able to take the bus and walk to these places without worry of being run over.

Pedestrian deaths are on the rise and we know cars have other externalities like pollution compared to more efficient modes of transportation like busses and trains. Not to mention suburban sprawl does not generate enough tax revenue to pay for its own infrastructure so in the end it ends up being subsidized by the dense part so the cities that generate more tax revenue. So its more dangerous both immediately(MVCs) and in the long run(air pollution) in addition to being most costly. Cities should not be neutral on this question, we need quality roads and mass transit so that those who need or want the roads can use them

As far as personal vehicles go, we should be building infrastructure for e-bikes and golf carts so young people and the elderly can still move around the city without endangering others or themselves. I am certain most cyclists would rather get hit by a 1,000lb golf cart going 20mph than a 2,000lb car going 40mph. This is not exactly just theory, I'm sure you know of the suburb in Georgia that does this. Its a great solution for places that aren't dense enough for high frequency mass transit and you can still go "wherever you want whenever you want"


I mentioned some. Yes culture is one but part of it is the deliberate policy choice to subsidize cars. The other is that the whole public system for building large infrastructure projects has decayed due to a combination of laws making it easy to sue and drag out projects by citizens and unions that make the building and maintenance of these projects inefficient. For example unions in the Northeast will resist automation technology that is standard practice in Europe because it means less manpower and thus less union guys sucking on the public teat. Note the dockworkers union strike insisted on delaying or preventing the adoption of automation tech because it would mean fewer workers are needed. Lots of that type of fuckery is afoot in transit projects as well. If these projects were completed on time and within the budget I think Americans would feel differently about them.

You don't need to tear anything down, invest in the proper infrastructure and let the free market take care of the rest. In general there will be two ends of the spetrum when it comes to projects that shift our metro areas from car dependent to pedestrian friendly. There's big projects by big developers who might buy up a dying mall and tear it down for a large mixed use, car-lite development where apartments are located near shops and the buildings are connected by smaller paths meant for golf carts and bikes.

Then there's the small developer hired by a homeowner to renovate their own house into a multifamily and/or mixed use dwelling. Being able to operate your business out of your home is a great convenience but as of now its illegal to do so in most of the US if you want to open up a service oriented business like an eatery or grocer. Allow that kind of thing and people will invest in those kinds of ventures.

Why not though? You mention the Redlands, part of the charm of things like Knausberry Farm is that a family can buy a large property, grow their own produce, and then open up an eatery to sell it directly to consumers. If you allow that at a small scale so that folks can operate grocers and cafes from their suburban homes it would mean more such amenities within walking distance for more residents. Replace sidewalks with multi-use paths allowing for bikes and golf carts for shorter distances and you could create the incentives for local small pedestrian oriented businesses to survive if not thrive.

Golf carts are so radical and gay as a main form of transport that I never considered it.
 
Back
Top