This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
The only national passenger train service I know of is Amtrak, which shares its tracks with freight carriers. So the current infrastructure isn't designed for high-speed rail and freight carriers usually get priority.
Also, The US is really big, so everything isn't a short train ride away from everything else. If I wanted to visit the Grand Canyon from where I live, it's over 2,000 miles away. That's 30 hours of driving just by car.
freight carriers usually get priority.
They're not supposed to. Passenger traffic on Amtrak should be getting priority but the rail lines basically say "fuck it" and do what they want.
With 300mph trains instead is highways that's 7 hours, k, let's say 10 hours of leisure, dining, sightseeing.
(vs 2h airport + 4h flight + 1 or 2h airport taxiing & stuff again)
The railroad infrastructure seems expensive just bcs it is presented that way (and planes & roads arent).
Train infrastructure is so underfunded (thx oil) that you can still get the fingering at most train stations for a really reasonable fee.
Something something Hungarian National Railway fucking useless once you go further than a 100 kms from the capital city.
Are they stupid?
(Yes)
I was in Switzerland and the trains there are incredible. Even the tiniest village in buttfucksburg, nowhere has a train connecting it to the rest of the country.
I fly because it's fast, not because I like airplanes. Even the fastest train is way too slow to replace a plane for a long-distance trip. Then for shorter distances cars win out because of how convenient they are. There's no niche for passenger trains except for commuting into urban areas with no parking.
It doesn't help that in the USA train tickets seem to cost more than plane tickets. I think I'd still usually fly even if the train was free, so I'm certainly not going to pay extra for a slower method of transportation even if it is a little more comfortable.
I live in South Korea and HSRs are pretty much the only mode of (intercity) transportation that is relevant. Buses take too long, planes are expensive, while HSR(KTX)s are marginally cheaper than buses and take about ⅔ of a time.
Of course, our country's much much smaller than US/Canada so even the farthest lane takes only about 2.5 hours. It's pretty cool.
Dane here. While I love trains, they are a) more expensive than flying in almost every long distance scenario, and b) take much longer. We are trialling sleeping trains but reception is mixed and capacity limited. People don't like to waste an extra 2-4 days of their vacation on travel. Especially if they're paying more for that privilege. I should note that this isn't an issue of imbalanced subsidies. The EU subsidises air travel (in many ways) to the tune of around €30–40 billion annually depending on what you include and what you consider to be a "subsidy." Using similar criteria, rail is subsidised to the tune of €40–75 billion per year. So rail gets a lot more investment despite it serving 16% fewer travel kilometers per year in the EU than air travel.
The thing is, if even we can't make it cheaper and faster despite our relatively high population densities and high rail subsidies, I fear the case is much harder still in the U.S. My personal position is that trains are excellent commuter alternatives, and should be liberally built and subsidised in all dense cities. For longer travel, there is no substitute for airoplanes.
I kind of like the thought of me pissing in the train and it travelling 300+ kph sideways and 9.8 m/s² downwards