• FishFace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The size isn’t that relevant. Trains are far better than cars for long distance travel. The problem with the US is the many areas of low but non-zero population density.

    To accommodate that you need a good rail network and then probably cars to take you the last few hours. This would work best if those cars were self driving, so they can get back to a hub rather than wherever you are in bumfuck nowhere.

    • Zephorah@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I agree that subsidizing more rail would be good, but it’s pretty fixed, location wise. It’s already in place for most intercity travel.

      Rural/outside city living is diffuse, scatters in all directions from a city. It’s why there’s rush hour in most cities. How do you run rail to all those locations? Can you imagine the nimby screams? It also significantly drops real estate values having trains rolling through the backyard.

      • FishFace@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        According to Wikipedia there are three U.S. cities with populations over 2 million that have no intercity passenger rail service (Las Vegas, Columbus OH, and Nashville). Dozens of cities used to have rail services but don’t any more. In European countries, it’s normal for all cities and towns with a population of at least, say, 50,000 to be served by intercity rail, so there’s a lot of improvements possible.

        I’m not saying that US rail should aim to serve the rural population - that’s what the cars are for.