A more rail-oriented US
- Thread starter Alon
- Start date
What a brilliant argument.
I do not recall at any point in this thread where I was debating. Commented, yes, debated, no.
I live in suburbia. I'm always worried about my car breaking down, because without it, I can't get to work. You have to drive to everything. Do you want to make groceries? That's a 4 mile drive.
Do you need cold medicine?
That's a 2 mile drive.
If your car breaks down in the middle of the winter, you're SOL.
Oh, and there's nothing to do here either.
marathag
Banned
And there is a chance your Public Transport is late or breaks down, and you miss work. That's completely out of your hands.
Maintaining your vehicle, that's on the owner.
Want reliability? get a Honda rather than a British car.
Miscalculate on you can't make dinner? Lucky that food can be delivered, it's one call away for Domino Pizza, or stop at the Convenience Store on the way home from work, if you don't feel like the drive to Trader Joes or Cub Foods to stock up.
Traffic sucks, no matter where you go.
Being on the bus in gridlock while people are walking faster, or it's taken 5 light cycles to get through sucks, especially when the person on one side of you is yelling into their phone, the person on the other side is eating a durian, kimchi, Limburger and sürstromming on onion bun sandwich, and someone else has their backpack right in your face. Getting stuck in standstill highway traffic right after you pass an offramp also sucks, especially when you're stuck behind a lifted F-350 with fully extended towing mirrors but no trailer, 5 equally-annoying morning zoo DJs, and a cop stuck next to you so you can't even peek at your phone even if you wanted to.
Random thoughts
Approximately 90% of adults in the US own a car. If in general most people liked mass transit that 90% would find a way to get more mass transit. But they don’t so in general most of that 90% must like the car...
Pretty much every major city without draconian anti car laws have as many cars on the roads as you can fit at rush hour. So even in huge cities with good mass transit you get a ton of people that still prefer to take a car.
I have never driven anywhere and worried that if I was 5 minutes late I would miss my car. And have to wait hours to catch the next car, But I have been in France and London and Germany and watched people miss the train by seconds and the next train was 1 to 6 hours later assuming they could get a ticket.
A 2 hour train commute. Traveling at 125mph is 250 miles. Add in getting to the train 15 minutes early, 10 min to get on and 10 to get off and in and out of the station. And we are talking an extra half hour. Assuming 15 minutes to travel to the train station and 15 to travel to my final destination and we are at 1 hour and 5 minutes. If you have to get mass transit on the far end or wait for a cab or rent a car you are looking at another 10 to 45 minutes. So we are looking at that 2 hour commute is actually 3:15 to 4:05. At 50 mph I can drive that 250 hours in about 5 hours. I don’t have to go and return based on the trains schedule I don’t worry about missing my train if I stay 5 minutes to long. And I can go ANYWAY within 250 miles not just the two spots the railroad is going.
So under 200 miles or slower the 125 and a car is a better choice. 200-300 a car is slower but offers more freedom. And I can go directly from A to D not passing through B and C. Above 500 miles and and airplanes are better, This creates a very limited distance that trains are truly useful
When it is raining or snowing or very cold or very hot I don’t have to go out and walk a mile or more in the weather.
When I sprained my foot. Jammed my toe, had my operation or was just under the weather I could walk 50 feet on either end and not the long walk to mass transit.
Folks with disabilities that can’t walk long distances can often use a car.
You can not stop “sprawl” in the US we have to much land so land is relative cheep and many folks will exchange longer commute times for more land or bigger living areas or both.
Almost any city in the world that has a large mass transit system has one or more of the following. Limits on its expansion usually by geographical constraints. Has been around for hundreds of years. Has land use restrictions. Is in a poorer country or on that otherwise limits car ownership either by law or economics. Started a very advanced (for its time) mass transit before cars where very common. Are in counties where land is more expensive (in general) and limited. So in short outside influences caused the city to be very densely built and Or restricted cars.
Trans only can be affordable if you get enough folks going to the same place at the same time.
Trollies and busses are not much better the cars as they are subject to traffic as well.
Streat car systems started to die as soon as cars became affordable.
I don’t have to stand in line to get in my car.
If more then two are going someplace (say mom dad and two kids) it is much simpler to pack everyone into a car.
Bringing home a new microwave on the subway is a lot harder then in a car. Same holds true for 10 bags of groceries (not everyone wants to go shop for food every day).
If mass transit was so great why did we leave it die off?
As for the OPs question. I don’t think it is that big a difference, Sure those that live in the area know the difference but does anyone else?
Mass transit of any form has multiple issues it has to overcome and those issues (some listed above) are all more of a problem then the system being divided up.
having traveled on a number of rail systems in France, Switzerland Germany and England (as well as mass transit systems) I will state they have pluses and minuses but are not the “amazing” transit solution many think they are.
Having driven around France, Germany, Switzerland and England (and Austria and Monaco and northern Italy). I can tell you that all of those countries other then Perhaps Switzerland use cars and expressways to maximum rush hour capacity. And in order to use it more they would need more lanes and most of them have been expanding expressways. So the locals must want to use cars despite the high taxes in gas. So even with good trains and mass transit and high taxes on cars the locals still choose to use cars. Go figure. So not everyone take trains in Europe.
Perhaps the more passenger trains and or more mass transit and or less sprawl topics should join the aquatic mammal topics? In that by the time you have changed the countries involved enough to allow them to happen you have changed them so much that they are no longer the original counties.
Well that is just some random thoughts on this topic.
Approximately 90% of adults in the US own a car. If in general most people liked mass transit that 90% would find a way to get more mass transit. But they don’t so in general most of that 90% must like the car...
Pretty much every major city without draconian anti car laws have as many cars on the roads as you can fit at rush hour. So even in huge cities with good mass transit you get a ton of people that still prefer to take a car.
I have never driven anywhere and worried that if I was 5 minutes late I would miss my car. And have to wait hours to catch the next car, But I have been in France and London and Germany and watched people miss the train by seconds and the next train was 1 to 6 hours later assuming they could get a ticket.
A 2 hour train commute. Traveling at 125mph is 250 miles. Add in getting to the train 15 minutes early, 10 min to get on and 10 to get off and in and out of the station. And we are talking an extra half hour. Assuming 15 minutes to travel to the train station and 15 to travel to my final destination and we are at 1 hour and 5 minutes. If you have to get mass transit on the far end or wait for a cab or rent a car you are looking at another 10 to 45 minutes. So we are looking at that 2 hour commute is actually 3:15 to 4:05. At 50 mph I can drive that 250 hours in about 5 hours. I don’t have to go and return based on the trains schedule I don’t worry about missing my train if I stay 5 minutes to long. And I can go ANYWAY within 250 miles not just the two spots the railroad is going.
So under 200 miles or slower the 125 and a car is a better choice. 200-300 a car is slower but offers more freedom. And I can go directly from A to D not passing through B and C. Above 500 miles and and airplanes are better, This creates a very limited distance that trains are truly useful
When it is raining or snowing or very cold or very hot I don’t have to go out and walk a mile or more in the weather.
When I sprained my foot. Jammed my toe, had my operation or was just under the weather I could walk 50 feet on either end and not the long walk to mass transit.
Folks with disabilities that can’t walk long distances can often use a car.
You can not stop “sprawl” in the US we have to much land so land is relative cheep and many folks will exchange longer commute times for more land or bigger living areas or both.
Almost any city in the world that has a large mass transit system has one or more of the following. Limits on its expansion usually by geographical constraints. Has been around for hundreds of years. Has land use restrictions. Is in a poorer country or on that otherwise limits car ownership either by law or economics. Started a very advanced (for its time) mass transit before cars where very common. Are in counties where land is more expensive (in general) and limited. So in short outside influences caused the city to be very densely built and Or restricted cars.
Trans only can be affordable if you get enough folks going to the same place at the same time.
Trollies and busses are not much better the cars as they are subject to traffic as well.
Streat car systems started to die as soon as cars became affordable.
I don’t have to stand in line to get in my car.
If more then two are going someplace (say mom dad and two kids) it is much simpler to pack everyone into a car.
Bringing home a new microwave on the subway is a lot harder then in a car. Same holds true for 10 bags of groceries (not everyone wants to go shop for food every day).
If mass transit was so great why did we leave it die off?
As for the OPs question. I don’t think it is that big a difference, Sure those that live in the area know the difference but does anyone else?
Mass transit of any form has multiple issues it has to overcome and those issues (some listed above) are all more of a problem then the system being divided up.
having traveled on a number of rail systems in France, Switzerland Germany and England (as well as mass transit systems) I will state they have pluses and minuses but are not the “amazing” transit solution many think they are.
Having driven around France, Germany, Switzerland and England (and Austria and Monaco and northern Italy). I can tell you that all of those countries other then Perhaps Switzerland use cars and expressways to maximum rush hour capacity. And in order to use it more they would need more lanes and most of them have been expanding expressways. So the locals must want to use cars despite the high taxes in gas. So even with good trains and mass transit and high taxes on cars the locals still choose to use cars. Go figure. So not everyone take trains in Europe.
Perhaps the more passenger trains and or more mass transit and or less sprawl topics should join the aquatic mammal topics? In that by the time you have changed the countries involved enough to allow them to happen you have changed them so much that they are no longer the original counties.
Well that is just some random thoughts on this topic.
A Toyota doesn't prevent you from having an iced out road or your car not starting because it's -20F.
kernals12
Banned
The first one can be solved with all wheel drive the 2nd by an engine block heater.
And there's still nothing to do in the burbs. Back when I lived in the city, I could simply walk to a bar and hang out with some cool and vibrant people.
kernals12
Banned
That's a pretty broad generalization isn't it?
When I lived attended Fordham at their Lincoln Center Campus, I left midtown Manhattan a grand total of 8 times in 2 years. Every journey required a lot of planning as I had to figure out what subway station was closest to where I wanted to go and what time it was arriving. Then I had to figure out how long to walk for.
Depends on where in Australia you mean. Generally, If you live in a capital city on or near a main suburban trunk rail corridor or on an arterial road that was/is on the tram network, you’ve got good heavy rail, light rail or bus rapid transit. These places are usually within 10km of the CBD. OTOH, if you’re in the outer suburbs and beyond walking distance from a station then a 2-person household needs at least 1 car, maybe 2. Same if you live outside a capital city in the regions. The buses are dire and train services are very thin.
Lost the game
Banned
I'd like a source for this graph for one thing. For another, how come it's okay to spend tens of billions every year on highway maintenance but somehow rail is always a boondoggle? Areas like the Northeast corridor and the Texas triangle are perfect for high speed rail - far enough away that it's a bitch and a half to drive (buses won't solve that" but close together enough that flying is a waste.
Putting the total cost on the backs of users would pretty much kill off rail.
Lost the game
Banned
Suburbanization has a definite history of racism in this country, as does antipathy towards major cities. To this day when somebody from Pennsylvania says they hate Philadelphia, my usual assumption is that the fact that the city they "hate" is also PA's largest concentration of black people isn't a coincidence (TBF plenty of people from central PA show Deep South levels of casual racism)
EDIT:
Today I learned that when the Vine Street Expressway (which I'm admitting was probably necessary) was built it was done by manipulating tectonic plates to create more land from scratch.
Last edited:
kernals12
Banned
Almost all of us drive and through gas taxes and registration fees, we mostly cover the cost of highway maintenance. Rail doesn't come close to covering its costs.
And there have been several attempts at bringing bullet trains to Texas, all of them failed, presumably because their business model looks something like this
Lost the game
Banned
That must explain why Congress is always authorizing more money for highways outside of gas taxes and registration because the same people who insist suburbs are a must also go into a frothy rage whenever raising gas taxes is broached.
Has anyone told you you come off as extremely extremely smug and condescending?
Sounds like more of a you problem than a me problem. Personally I live in West Philly and love our public transit system.
The fact is that public transport is.. well, public. There's no reason to expect it to make a proft because that's not the point - the point is to move people. Cut public transit and you leave millions of poor people shit outta luck, so please for the love of god consider that fact that not only do plenty of people not want to live in a hermetically sealed box with invasive plants growing exactly 2.75 inches tall out front, not everyone can afford it. Consider the fact that as someone who grew up in an affluent suburb and went to an expensive college in Manhattan, you had a more privileged upbringing than roughly 70% of Americans.
A) Save the US steel industry during stagflation by major infusion into Amtrak for TGV-style high-speed rail (HSR)
B) Eliminate the interstate passenger rail restriction that gives Amtrak its monopoly
C) Encourage HSR in the 1980s especially in California/Orrgon/Washington/Arizona/Vegas, the Northeast, and Gulf Coast states
D) Upgrade to 200+ MPH rail with a national network overtaking air travel for most purposes that don't involve transcontinental or transoceanic travel. Potentially extend rail service to Cancun and much of Canada.
B) Eliminate the interstate passenger rail restriction that gives Amtrak its monopoly
C) Encourage HSR in the 1980s especially in California/Orrgon/Washington/Arizona/Vegas, the Northeast, and Gulf Coast states
D) Upgrade to 200+ MPH rail with a national network overtaking air travel for most purposes that don't involve transcontinental or transoceanic travel. Potentially extend rail service to Cancun and much of Canada.
marathag
Banned
or other reasons
Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents)
Property Crimes (vehicle theft, arson, larceny, and burglary) 30.54
Violent 9.45
Broken down to (per 1000)
Murder .21
Rape .75
Robbery 3.81
Assault 4.69
You're safer in Chicago.