Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Kellhound]

Why isn't it?

Because the US is too large and spread out. The US once had a spectacular passenger network, but cars and planes killed it off.

[shimerra]

Because the US is too large and spread out. The US once had a spectacular passenger network, but cars and planes killed it off.

Correction. Extensive lobbying by people like the Koch Brothers to subsidize cars and highways and to suppress public transportation killed it off.

[Draco-Onis]

Because the US is too large and spread out. The US once had a spectacular passenger network, but cars and planes killed it off.

If you looked it up the reason the US doesn't have a large transportation networks isn't because we are too spread out, it is because the big three car makers lobbied to build highways and subsidize the local car industry early in our history. We could easily build small local networks and link them to a national one however it will never happen due to the amount of lobbying from the auto and gas industry.

[Kellhound]

Correction. Extensive lobbying by people like the Koch Brothers to subsidize cars and highways and to suppress public transportation killed it off.

It wasn't public.

[Elegiac]

Because the US is too large and spread out

The US once had a spectacular passenger network

So it is not, in fact, too large and spread out. Lol.

[Dontrike]

It wasn't public.

Buses, railways, etc weren't public? There were private railways and buses?

[Kellhound]

If you looked it up the reason the US doesn't have a large transportation networks isn't because we are too spread out, it is because the big three car makers lobbied to build highways and subsidize the local car industry early in our history. We could easily build small local networks and link them to a national one however it will never happen due to the amount of lobbying from the auto and gas industry.

The US had a massive passenger network that consisted of both local and long range passenger trains. Cars killed the locals, aircraft killed the long distance ones. The loss of mail contracts also had a major negative impact, as that was the only profit point for many passenger trains. Today, almost all passenger trains in the US lose money. The main exception is the Northeast Corridor where Acela runs on the excellent bones of the Pennsy. It is also the best location for passenger rail in the US given its population density.

- - - Updated - - -

So it is not, in fact, too large and spread out. Lol.

It is. Trains have a massive speed disadvantage compared to aircraft.

- - - Updated - - -

Buses, railways, etc weren't public? There were private railways and buses?

Almost all railroads in the US have been private until recently. Greyhound, Trailways, etc. were all private buses.

[Elegiac]

It is. Trains have a massive speed disadvantage compared to aircraft.

Okay? "X mode of transport is faster than Y" does not mean "Z place is too spread out for Y", or else it would never have had a rail network in the first place, lol. It also doesn't address the point regarding travel within metropolitan areas.

It might not be relatively commercially viable, but... so what? It's a service, it costs money.

[Kellhound]

Okay? "X mode of transport is faster than Y" does not mean "Z place is too spread out for Y", or else it would never have had a rail network in the first place, lol. It also doesn't address the point regarding travel within metropolitan areas.

It might not be relatively commercially viable, but... so what? It's a service, it costs money.

I know this will come as a surprise to you, but when passenger trains were at their peak, they were the fastest means of transport. Once that was no longer the case, the passengers disappeared.
Commuter trains are not even close to being commercially viable. They were massive albatrosses around the necks of railroads that had them. They cost massive amounts of money to operate.

[Elegiac]

I know this will come as a surprise to you, but when passenger trains were at their peak, they were the fastest means of transport. Once that was no longer the case, the passengers disappeared.

And once again, "planes are faster than trains" is not "the US is too big for trains". Trying to insist that the US is unserviceable by rail while simultaneously pointing out the US' rail network was "fantastic" is a contradiction. Lol.

Commuter trains are not even close to being commercially viable. They were massive albatrosses around the necks of railroads that had them. They cost massive amounts of money to operate.

Okay, and?

It's a service. It costs money. I don't expect the police or the fire department or the armed forces to be commercially viable, either.

[Dontrike]

Almost all railroads in the US have been private until recently. Greyhound, Trailways, etc. were all private buses.

Passenger trains were private? Also railway describes more than railroads. Greyhound never let the public use them?

[Benggaul]

Pretty fitting to derail the thread arguing about trains...

[Draco-Onis]

The US had a massive passenger network that consisted of both local and long range passenger trains. Cars killed the locals, aircraft killed the long distance ones. The loss of mail contracts also had a major negative impact, as that was the only profit point for many passenger trains. Today, almost all passenger trains in the US lose money. The main exception is the Northeast Corridor where Acela runs on the excellent bones of the Pennsy. It is also the best location for passenger rail in the US given its population density.

So we agree? The US being spread out actually makes it prime for high speed rail as we see in other modern economies. If we had built that way the country would also be very different just like towns and neighborhoods are built around highways they would be built around public transportation networks.

High speed rail is also significantly cheaper and more comfortable than planes, if you had taken one overseas you would understand unless you had to you wouldn't fly.

[Bodakane]

MMOChampion Shrugged

[Dontrike]

That’s not what private/public means in this context. Private is owned by a company, public is owned by the government.

To me it doesn't matter who it's owned by, if it's accessible by the public then it's public in my eyes, but that's me.

[Bodakane]

To me it doesn't matter who it's owned by, if it's accessible by the public then it's public in my eyes, but that's me.

Its pretty absurd for you to make up your own definitions of words, then argue based on those made up definitions and do so without even telling anyone you made up new definitions or cluing them in to what those fake definitions are.

[Shadowferal]

Because the US is too large and spread out. The US once had a spectacular passenger network, but cars and planes killed it off.

When was this "spectacular network?"

[Bodakane]

When was this "spectacular network?"

During the time the rail was being built on the backs of slaves and indentured laborers. You know, the "spectacular" times......

[Kellhound]

And once again, "planes are faster than trains" is not "the US is too big for trains". Trying to insist that the US is unserviceable by rail while simultaneously pointing out the US' rail network was "fantastic" is a contradiction. Lol.



Okay, and?

It's a service. It costs money. I don't expect the police or the fire department or the armed forces to be commercially viable, either.

People's primary concern with long distance travel is speed. They take the fastest mode available. When trains where the fastest mode they ruled travel over long distance. Now planes, with their massive speed advantage, rule. The US is too large for trains to be viable NOW.

I was countering your argument that they are almost commercially viable, because they are not. Most current US commuter lines are based on private operations that government had to take over to keep them from killing the railroads that were operating them.

[Zan15]

It is. Trains have a massive speed disadvantage compared to aircraft.

LOL I'd love to see you fly out of Boston to NYC and get there in less then 3:30 total time invested.


Acela Train Icon
2155
Acela
DEPARTS
7:15

3h 32m
ARRIVES
10:47


Of course the actual flight is only 1:20-1:40 ish....




imagine we actually invested in real trains