ListNook

Ameph Mar 27, 2026 +231

After visiting Japan last year, I saw that we are way behind on trains and I think the auto industry is to blame.

231

Least_Tax1299 Mar 27, 2026 +108

+ Airlines

108

gagilo Mar 27, 2026 +58

Car industry - local transit Air lines - interstate rail

58

TKHawk Mar 27, 2026 +32

And rail companies. America has one of the most expansive railway networks in the world, but it's all privately owned. Freight is a lot more valuable than people so even if you want passenger trains they have to defer to the freight trains, leading to long delays. Also the railways aren't built for high speed rail and since passenger rail isn't seen as valuable there's no way they'll ever upgrade them. We need to nationalize the railways.

32

Couldnotbehelpd Mar 27, 2026 +3

A lot of the Japanese railways are privately owned too.

3

TKHawk Mar 27, 2026 +12

Japanese government has subsidized and funded railway infrastructure improvements and the relatively small size of Japan (and port access to basically everywhere) makes freight not nearly as lucrative. In the US, you need freight rail to transport goods over the massive distances.

12

BurstSwag Mar 28, 2026 +1

They privatized them. They were originally publicly owned.

1

DukeofVermont Mar 28, 2026 +4

We also have a much larger nation. Even if you built a perfectly straight HSR line from LA to Chicago it'd still take at 8 hrs 45 mins at 200 mph. Add in stops, the fact that the Rockies exist, and not going full speed the entire time and you're looking at at least 20 hrs, and that's after spending hundreds of billions for tunnels, new tracks and most important buying the land from private owners who will sue you constantly. HSR is great for the East and West coast and maybe connecting the cities from NYC to Chicago but past that you'll be spending hundreds of billions for routes no one will take. The current route is 45-59 hrs long and costs $350-$1200+

4

HakuIdante Mar 27, 2026

Both wrong gas , big pharma and electricity will always do the evil deeds with their massive funds. More public transport = less oil purchasing for less gas cars on road

0

_bits_and_bytes Mar 27, 2026 +59

The auto industry did everything in its power to kill train infrastructure projects in the mid 1900s.

59

One_Olive_8933 Mar 27, 2026 +21

Kind of like how Musk started the boring company to quash new rail infrastructure in Vegas?

21

C5-O Mar 27, 2026 +11

And hyperloop to sabotage CAHSR

11

One_Olive_8933 Mar 27, 2026 +3

That’s the one!

3

APeacefulWarrior Mar 28, 2026 +1

See also: *Who Framed Roger Rabbit.* A lot of people don't know it was based on real events. An automotive consortium really did conspire to shut down LA's public transit system and build a freeway in its place. "And billboards, wonderful wonderful billboards stretching as far as the eye can see! My God... it will be beautiful!"

1

WindowsVistaWzMyIdea Mar 27, 2026 +7

You know back in the day most cities had some form of light rail

7

FLHCv2 Mar 27, 2026 +21

This is why we should encourage EVERYONE to travel. I'm sure there's many exceptions out there, but frequently, it's the people who are the least traveled that do not understand why we should spend money towards public services/infrastructure/etc, because they have not experienced a place where those things are significantly better than here. Like we shouldn't HAVE to sit in traffic for 30 minutes to go get groceries. We should be able to walk to a corner store in our neighborhood to grab the necessities, but the majority of zoning in the US makes it illegal to do that.

21

Sw0rDz Mar 27, 2026 +3

Yes. Under Eisenhower administration, they invested heavily in highways and interstate.

3

DramaticSweet3412 Mar 27, 2026 +5

Japan's high speed rail has been around since the 1960's. We're over 60 years behind on that front.

5

Old_Channel44 Mar 27, 2026 +3

+europe+china

3

queentweezer Mar 27, 2026 +3

I implore you to do some research on what the auto industry did to Detroit and then apply that to the rest of the country.

3

linktothe Mar 27, 2026 +3

Yeah. For a century. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is literally about the auto industry crippling public transit.

3

siqiniq Mar 27, 2026 +2

And the bus service is also shit.

2

drobits Mar 27, 2026 +5

It's disgusting that the United States only really has one truly walkable city

5

420catloveredm Mar 27, 2026 +4

You can go damn near anywhere else and see how behind we are on public transit.

4

Sentinel-Wraith Mar 27, 2026 +3

While Japan has a good train system, around 80% of the population still owns cars. Japan also recently increased train prices, some by as much as 70%. It’s often cheaper to fly than use the bullet train.

3

Enough-Run-1535 Mar 28, 2026 +2

Lots of people will choose trains over flying: \- no security checks with the Shinkansen \- no passports needed \- Way, way, way less delays. So many times I've taken flights out from Haneda to other domestic destinations, thinking 'oh, 45 min flight flight', and then have to wait 2 hours for a delay Sometimes the cost is worth the hassle of flying: Tokyo to Osaka for $100 round trip for an hour of flying is usually worth it. But if it's a 90 min train ride, train is still the best way to go. Car is only good for that last 5 km from train to destination if it's out of the way.

2

Intru Mar 28, 2026 +1

80% of households, not population.

1

Darkhallows27 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Eisenhower’s fault for putting the focus on cars iirc

1

Raveen92 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Well USA has the issue of being a very large country with many diferent climates. Japan is much smaller than the US, countries in Europe are as big as our states. They havethe ability to be a more centrilized approach to area.

1

Piccolo60000 Mar 28, 2026 +1

The auto industry is absolutely to blame. Back in the 40s and 50s, Los Angeles used to have a comprehensive rail network in the form of streetcars, like what you’d see in Hiroshima. Well, Firestone had a problem with that, so they bought up all the rail lines and ripped them out so that they could replace them with bus lines and sell more tires. F*** US auto.

1

MegaPlane2 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Most recently, Amtrak had 3 CEOs in a row that their background was running an airline. They tried to make the long distance trains horrid but many people have no choice so the ridership stays up.

1

DiskSalt4643 Mar 27, 2026 -1

Auto industry highly influenced decision makers but it was society itself that wanted highways to be the main form of travel.

-1

Less_Ambition3971 Mar 27, 2026

>it was society itself that wanted highways to be the main form of travel. No… it wasn’t

0

DiskSalt4643 Mar 27, 2026 +1

Listnook: always confident, frequently wrong.

1

erishun Mar 28, 2026 +1

Yes and no. Japan is a small country. The entire country can easily fit inside Montana. ## * Japan's 2 biggest cities are Tokyo and Yokohama and they're 23 miles apart. * United States' 2 biggest cities are New York and Los Angeles and they're 2,800 miles apart. ## The United States literally spans an entire continent; it’s just not feasible to take a train thousands of miles.

1

borazine Mar 27, 2026 +33

“Just move to the Netherlands, bro! Simples!😎” - a noted YouTuber and urbanist refugee

33

Empty_glass_bottle Mar 27, 2026 +13

It was just him trying to give his family a better life since he knew north America wasn't gonna make any major changes anytime soon Which I totally understand if you have the means to do so. I never really heard him suggest everyone has the means to do the same so idk where you got that from

13

ahumblecardamompod Mar 27, 2026 +9

I love his videos, but, yeah.

9

wayoverpaid Mar 27, 2026 +5

I can already hear the chime from the opening.

5

Quick_Parking_6464 Mar 27, 2026 +9

The US *freight* train system is amazing and works very well. Our *passenger* rail system is garbage outside of the DC, NYC, Boston corridor. I'd rather take a train anyday than fly, even if it takes longer.

9

puchamaquina Mar 28, 2026 +1

Freight is built out, but certainly doesn't work very well. Remember the big train derailment a couple years ago that made a whole town hazardous to be in? Those happen all the time. Same reason, short term profit over long term stability.

1

Quick_Parking_6464 Mar 28, 2026 +1

I would disagree. One derailment is not evidence. Key aspects of the U.S. freight rail system: * **High Efficiency and Capacity:** Freight trains move a ton of freight nearly 500 miles on a single gallon of fuel, making it a highly sustainable and cost-effective transport method. * **Economic Impact:** The system moves over 38% of all U.S. trade (by weight), preventing highway congestion and maintaining lower shipping costs. * **Infrastructure Investment:** Railroads are privately owned, with companies investing billions annually in maintenance, safety tech, and network expansion. * **Safety Improvements:** Since 2005, train accident rates have dropped by roughly 40% and derailments by roughly 46%, with 2025 marking a record low for employee casualties, notes the [Association of American Railroads (AAR)](https://www.aar.org/freight-rail-facts-figures/). * **Challenges:** The industry is dominated by a few major companies, leading to concerns about monopolistic practices. Additionally, the adoption of Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) has raised concerns about service reliability and safety among some users and labor unions. The system primarily excels in hauling bulk commodities—such as coal, grain, and chemicals—as well as intermodal traffic (shipping containers), operating with high efficiency, especially over long distances, explains the [Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)](https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/freight-rail-overview).

1

puchamaquina Mar 28, 2026 +2

Correct, one derailment is not evidence. That's why I said they happen all the time, [an average of 3.5 times per day.](https://www.frantzlawgroup.com/insights/train-accidents/how-common-is-train-derailment/#:~:text=While%20not%20an%20everyday%20occurrence,a%20half%20derailments%20per%20day.) Most of what you shared isn't disagreeing with me. It's well connected and used for lots of cargo, I know. But it's not well-maintained or staffed, hence the "concerns from users and labor unions" you (or AI?) mentioned in the last bullet point. Safety has "improved", but it's still bad. Also PSR makes for a very fragile system, but it's most profitable for the shareholders so it's what happens.

2

lukes2ndhandemporium Mar 27, 2026 +41

Find regional areas to visit by train. Going from MSP to CHI this weekend. Family of 4 was $330 total and will take 7 1/2 hours. No TSA as well.

41

Banes_Addiction Mar 27, 2026 +34

Or you could build a good system that doesn't take 7.5 hours.

34

Rivent Mar 27, 2026 +12

Something tells me that guy isn't in charge of building out all US infrastructure, but who knows.

12

DressedSpring1 Mar 27, 2026 +21

I mean it's a 6 hour drive without traffic according to maps, 7.5 hours is not at all unreasonable.

21

Kiyohara Mar 27, 2026 +20

It *is* unreasonable. A Commuter Train should not take longer than highway unless it's short distance. In any other country on Earth with a reasonable train it should *still* be like half the time because you should be able to go 120mph before hitting high speed rail.

20

FreedomBread Mar 27, 2026 +3

Our state put a lot of effort into upgrading rail ties and crossings for high speed trains. Trains are still slow as hell.

3

Kiyohara Mar 27, 2026 +1

Cool. Guess what? Federal regulations still limit speed in many areas, so the best rails ever won't change shit until the regulations are changed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail\_speed\_limits\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_United_States) We force trains in the US carrying passengers to go Edit: 60-80 miles an hour in many regions and train lines.

1

Banes_Addiction Mar 27, 2026 +25

This is the tyranny of low expectations. "With no traffic" you can go at 70mph ish. Modern high speed train systems should go 200mph.

25

DressedSpring1 Mar 27, 2026 +15

Not every route is appropriate for a high speed train, you have to factor in things like ridership, frequency of stops and return on investment. The vast majority of trains across the developed world are not 200mph high speed trains like the Sinkansen, expecting that a train connecting MSP and Chicago should be of the most expensive type is the tyranny of being completely disconnected from reality. Any argument that people should reasonably expect a 650km train line that currently serves 600 people daily ought to be rebuilt as high speed rail at a cost of 100-300 million dollars per mile is not a serious argument.

15

cv-boardgamer Mar 27, 2026 +3

Several universities and transportation agencies have come up with a ratio, (if I find it, I'll add it to this post), which is a graph showing that there's a point where the travel distance becomes so long, that train travel is no longer convenient, and flying is the way to go. I think it's at about 250 miles. Anything less than 250 miles should be easily covered by train. Trips in SoCal, NorCal, PNW, Eastern seaboard, etc, should all be easily done by train. There is no reason why you should have to fly or drive between NYC and DC, or San Diego to LA, etc. You should be able to hop a high-speed rail which has 15 minute headways during rush hour, etc., and get to your destination super quick. But a trip from SF to Seattle, or Boston to Pittsburgh, well, then it's no longer cost-effective or convenient (unless it's like a leisure trip and you wanna go long distances by train, for fun), so that's when toy book a flight instead. We just need more options!

3

Kiyohara Mar 27, 2026 +6

Even if we limit it to below "High Speed Rail" speeds, you should still be able to get 100-120mph for the majority of the run. Just make sure you take the express with limited stops. Unless you're in the US where there's a lot of mandated low speed areas.

6

Lol-I-Wear-Hats Mar 27, 2026 +2

Chicago-Minneapolis had some of the fastest scheduled intercity services *in the world* back in the day in part because the corridor is actually fairly suitable for HSR

2

Sashimifiend69 Mar 27, 2026

It doesn’t need to be Shinkansen speed, but I’d argue it should be pretty close. Honestly if Western Europe can do it, then we can too. For a country of immense resources both natural and economic, having a 70 mph train between two of the most important cities in the Midwest is a joke. This is a classic example of “build it and they will come.”

0

Patsanon1212 Mar 27, 2026 +6

Western Europe has 5x the population density of the US and generally milder climates. I don't mean this as a hard, absolute rebuttal, but the comp to Western Europe is severely flawed. Also, many more people in western Europe live in walkable/bikable/transit cities and don't need to be weened off cars in the same way that Americans would.

6

HowDoIEvenEnglish Mar 27, 2026 +3

European population density isn’t higher where people want high speed rail put in. It’s dragged down by large low population mostly rural states. Boston to DC could hit 3 other major cities in the same time between Chicago and Minneapolis.

3

Sashimifiend69 Mar 27, 2026 +2

I’m not arguing for HSR to be everywhere. Just in the population centers. Midwest metros, the PNW, California metros, East coast metros. Maybe have one or two links connecting the systems.

2

Patsanon1212 Mar 27, 2026 +1

Yes, that generally makes a lot more sense.

1

lukes2ndhandemporium Mar 27, 2026 +2

Let me get my time machine and build high-speed rail. Seriuosly we are talking about what we can do now. Sure high speed rail would be great. We dont have that now. So i spend 2 hours at airport for 90 minute flight. Then add another 45 minutes for deplane and baggage. So great I can be more stressed and pay $1000 more to save a total of 7 hours roundtrip.

2

Banes_Addiction Mar 27, 2026 +3

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today.

3

Ok-Bit-3100 Mar 27, 2026 +3

I'll get started pulling the funding, political will, and ideological inclination out of my ass.

3

Banes_Addiction Mar 27, 2026 +1

Yep, that's what's missing. The only way to get it is pushing for it not just whining that's impossible.

1

DressedSpring1 Mar 27, 2026 +4

\> The only way to get it is pushing for it not just whining that's impossible. I would argue that the only way to get it is also going to involve reasonable expectations. I've ridden train systems extensively in Europe, a place that does really well as far as rail travel goes and I've never been on any trains that go 200mph because that's not how most of the world does rail. Nobody anywhere in the world would build high speed rail between the twin cities and Chicago because there is no scenario where the volume of ridership makes sense. Reliable train travel is awesome, I travel long trips by rail multiple times per month. Setting your expectations at completely unreasonable and fiscally impossible levels is not going to bring you any closer to "get it" and you should be pushing for good reliable train service with frequent schedules and affordable fares like most of the world enjoys, not asking why your current route with 600 daily riders can't have the same investment as a Japanese route with a million daily riders on it.

4

Sashimifiend69 Mar 27, 2026 -1

You must have not been on trains in Netherlands, France, or Spain then. Oh I’m sorry they only go 175 mph. Still pretty fast. The US is so big, that HSR is the only solution. Conventional slow rail is not the answer. Because it’s slow. If we had a HSR network that connected the Midwest cities, and another one that connected the northeast, and so on, people would absolutely 100% use them. The pseudo HSR that we have from DC to Boston, the Acela, is insanely packed and expensive (because of demand). But the auto & oil industry brainwashing is thick. People like yourself always having this myopic view of the world. Edit: German HSR is also around 175 mph. I suspect most of the HSR in Europe is that speed.

-1

lukes2ndhandemporium Mar 27, 2026 +1

Totally agree.

1

Canofmeat Mar 27, 2026 +1

Well it took less than 7 hours in 1935, so 7.5 hours in 2026 is disappointing.

1

DukeofVermont Mar 28, 2026 +1

Biggest issue for US trains are all the regular people who sue to stop any trains from going anywhere near them. That's the biggest issue California is having with their HSR. People in the cities that the HSR will connect love them. All the people living in between fight tooth and nail to stop rail. Them and all the Republicans who rather add a lane to the interstate. Either they think it'll be loud, annoying, etc. Or they want a 200 mph train going from LA to San Fran to stop in their city of 50,000. *"It's not fair that the train passes through and doesn't even stop!"*

1

Helicase21 Mar 27, 2026 +3

Really pretty route too.

3

rivertpostie Mar 28, 2026 +1

I went from PDX to MSP this week and it was $330 and was supposed to take 40 hours each way (total of 80). This was after a 24 hour delay in leaving Instead. The train got stopped along the way for 14 hours before it was cancelled and sent back to where it came. I hopped off and completed the trip at an additional cost of $300 for a car rental and 22 hours of driving. So, all told, the trip both ways (including delays) was 117 hours or 58 hours each way.

1

ken-davis Mar 27, 2026 +6

Keep voting for the people who hate public transportation and everything else.

6

Th3FinalStarman Mar 27, 2026 +5

Traveling internationally is a very quick way to recognize the United States is a second world country with respect to infrastructure. It's truly embarrassing the depths to which Republican and DINO rule has plunged this country.

5

Canofmeat Mar 27, 2026 +6

>>even if travelers were willing to take a slow train, riding Amtrak in the Northeast This take is always annoying since the Northeast (specifically between NYC-DC) is the one part of the country where the train is already faster than driving or flying. I don’t disagree with the overall point that intercity rail needs to be improved substantially in the US. But constant nonsense that just decreases public perception of the one decent rail corridor we have is counterproductive.

6

RIP_Greedo Mar 27, 2026 +11

I flew this past weekend and somehow had no problems. But that's beside my point. On the plane I watched last year's remake of The Running Man, which was generally quite bad and had the ridiculous detail that in this future world where things are so degraded, the US has clean and reliable rail transport seemingly even better than anything we have now. What about this world suggests any sustained or increased investment in public transportation!?!?

11

appropriate_pangolin Mar 27, 2026 +3

I love trains. Wanted to be a railroad engineer when I was a kid. When I lived in Philadelphia I had a work conference in DC and I was able to take a train there and back same day, pretty nice. But some years back I had train trips from Philly to Virginia (woke up in the middle of the night with no idea where I was, because the train was stopped in the middle of nowhere for a few hours waiting for freight trains to go by) and Atlanta (my train home had a ten-hour delay getting to Atlanta, so I had a very long time just hanging around the station, nothing else I could do). You can’t run a train system on “You’ll get there eventually… probably.”

3

FreedomBread Mar 27, 2026 +3

I tried to book a train trip across the country for fun for our family, yeah I gave up. I was not going to be able to navigate the interchanges or whatever confidently and it would've been more expensive than air travel.

3

Soft-Development-491 Mar 27, 2026 +7

Slowest trains on the planet. China and Japan move millions of people weekly at 5x the speed of Amtrack. But hooray for fossil fuels I guess...

7

DukeofVermont Mar 28, 2026 +1

Blame the NIMBYs who sue and/or don't want to move so the new track can bulldoze their neighborhood. To have HSR you need dedicated tracks that are straight and level. Everywhere that makes sense to have HSR in the US would require you to demolish a lot of homes and cut across a bunch of towns/suburbs. It's not like there are just empty tracks of land between the largest cities in the US.

1

ClassyWizardCheese Mar 27, 2026 +2

Congress fixed it because they want to go on vacation.

2

nerdshowandtell Mar 27, 2026 +2

Well yeah, they don't want the plebs to travel to other places and see the c*** they lie about, and want them to hate, really doesn't exist..

2

fluffysmaster Mar 27, 2026 +2

Not as much horrible as non existent

2

evasandor Mar 27, 2026 +2

Now, now. America does NOT have horrible trains. It has horrible passenger train service. The freight trains are top notch, being the country's actual priority.

2

flatearthconspiracy Mar 28, 2026 +2

America is large. If we can build a trans Continental bullet train, it would take even longer than a bad airport line to get places.

2

Libinky Mar 27, 2026 +3

Are their lobbyists for Amtrak? Not like for airlines. Capitalists will object to socialized trains.

3

Chemical-Fault-7331 Mar 27, 2026 +2

What did japans economic system do different that allowed them to have high speed rail? Same for Korea.

2

nachosmind Mar 27, 2026 +3

Be geographically smaller and closer together

3

peepeebutt1234 Mar 27, 2026 +3

they are pretty small, which helps a ton. Japan is smaller than montana in total area. south korea is like the size of kentucky.

3

SanctimoniousVegoon Mar 27, 2026 +2

and most european countries...

2

NewWindow7980 Mar 27, 2026 +3

**Greyhound** still exists but I dont know how the service is these days. [https://www.greyhound.com/](https://www.greyhound.com/)

3

ChaserNeverRests Mar 27, 2026 +3

A year or two ago I checked to see what kind of an option it would be. Busses are surprisingly quite expensive! And (less surprisingly) really slow travel too. Turned out it wasn't a good option at all.

3

a-i-sa-san Mar 27, 2026 +2

They basically price match themselves to whatever the airline would charge for the same trip. Of course greyhound is way slower and only leaves once or twice a day. I wish it was better but tbh I cannot see a reason to take greyhound or amtrak unless you plain and simple cannot fly for some reason

2

AcanthisittaNo6653 Mar 27, 2026 +3

It's all about destroying mass transit nationwide.. People will drive more and spend their trump bucks on gas!

3

Ebisu_2023 Mar 27, 2026 +3

Yeah you do. Stay home.

3

TimeProfessional7120 Mar 27, 2026 +4

You do have an alternative. Several, actually. You can drive, ride a bus, or take a train. Just because you don't like the alternatives doesn't mean they have ceased to exist. As for me, I'm heading out on a cross-country Amtrak trip in a few weeks.

4

-Knockabout Mar 27, 2026 +10

It IS notable though that if for example you do not have a lot of vacation time, travel by train in the US can easily take days where for flights it will take hours. So if you only have so much vacation time...you do plane or nothing. And then in many other countries, the time difference between train and plane is not nearly so drastic. It's not a given, is what I mean, and the time difference does give a big leg-up for airlines when we live in a country with no guaranteed minimum vacation days.

10

TimeProfessional7120 Mar 27, 2026 +2

That is true. If you have the time, though, I recommend slow travel by train. It's such a pleasurable experience compared to flying.

2

-Knockabout Mar 27, 2026 +5

I have, and really enjoyed it! I've also been on fast Japanese trains and enjoyed those too, haha. Everything about air travel is terrible, but it is unfortunately still significantly faster and cheaper than rail right now (at least for my local options). Just wanted to point out one reason why it's not an easy replacement for a flight atm.

5

Creative-Package6213 Mar 27, 2026 +7

Same! I love using Amtrak, and I'm doing a summer trip on the Lake Shore Limited and California Zephyr.

7

nowhereman136 Mar 27, 2026 +4

Even the fastest trains in the world won't beat the speed of a plane. Not to mention the cost. Trains are great for relatively short distances but the US is pretty big

4

ViciousKnids Mar 27, 2026 +1

Check out a rail map of the USA in 1916. "Too big," my ass, trains were everywhere. And yeah, trains can beat planes. You don't need to go through baggage checks or security. You don't need to taxi. You don't need to go-aound if the runway isn't clear. On-boarding and off-boarding takes no time - you need to show up to an airport 2 hours in advance *at least* to deal with all the bullshit. Train? Just hop on that b****. And because you can put them underground, you get off right in the heart of wherever you're trying to go instead of needing to call a cab or catch a bus from the airport 15 miles outside the city to keep noise pollution down. Oh, and you have leg room instead of being crammed in a pressurized tube like sardines. Even if it added 3-4 hours for a far longer trip, I'd still take a train. My last flight was Philly to Chicago. It was a 5 hour ordeal. If there were a high speed rail connection? Between 3 and 4 hours - if we had an advanced system that could book it at 220mph.

1

DukeofVermont Mar 28, 2026 +1

>My last flight was Philly to Chicago. It was a 5 hour ordeal. If there were a high speed rail connection? Between 3 and 4 hours - if we had an advanced system that could book it at 220mph. This is a great example of a line that should exist. I have gotten in arguments with people who want HSR through the rockies connecting Denver to San Fran. Somehow that line will be c**** to build, c**** to maintain, and the tickets will cost $20. I want US HSR, but it really should just be connecting cities that make sense.

1

nowhereman136 Mar 27, 2026 +1

Trains in 1916 were everywhere because that was the only viable option to get everywhere. Commercial planes weren't a thing yet and most people didn't have a car, let alone highways to drive them on. A high speed line between Philly and Chicago would probably be the limit as to how far a high speed rail could go before it becomes faster to fly. Like even right now without high speed rail, if I were going from NYC to Boston I would just take the Amtrak because that's faster than flying.

1

ViciousKnids Mar 27, 2026 +3

Then why did China spend all that labor and money to build a high speed rail network across the entire country in the past two decades? They've got highways and planes, too. Could it be that it's cheaper to maintain rail infrastructure over roads and airports? Could it be the energy demand for trains is lower than cars and planes? Could it be that it saves the people who use them tons of money to still get around the country quickly? How come we don't have that? Could it be the airline lobby? The auto lobby? The insurance lobby? Could it be our previous rail network was privately owned instead of a public utility and fell apart after the Great Depression? Could interests aligned with the auto and airline industry be making up these same talking points and spouting them to discourage advocacy for public transit? Like, dude. We need options. We destroy our roads with trucking, which means we spend a ton of money trying to maintain them - roads are more expensive than rail (and more dangerous) and that maintenance time cuts into travel times. People need to buy a car, fuel for a car, insurance for a car, maintenance for a car - and then we pave over acres of land for parking that could be used for things like housing. We expend sooo much money and land use on fueling and accommodating planes. Airlines are *barely* solvent. They operate on like a 2% margin. Any disruption of passengers (like a pandemic) or fuel shortages (like a blockate on a trade bottleneck) and they feel it immediately. Our transit system as it is now is entirely unsustainable both financially and physically. Gee. If only there were a space and fuel efficient way to move lots of people great distances. So what if it takes a bit longer if the ticket is like $100 to get halfway across the country compared to a flight that could easily wxceed $300?

3

rkb70 Mar 27, 2026 +5

Travel by train is almost nonexistent in large portions of the country.

5

TimeProfessional7120 Mar 27, 2026

I did not state that all three were available everywhere or that they were the best option for every person in every situation. Even high-speed rail, were it ever to become a reality, would be limited in the regions it serves. Airports are limited, too.

0

rkb70 Mar 27, 2026 +2

Yeah, there aren’t buses lots of places, either. Which leaves driving. Which is expensive to own and maintain, and some people cannot drive and become unable to be independent. And while yes, many people must travel some distance to get to an airport, it’s typically far closer than to a train station, when it should be the opposite.

2

espinaustin Mar 27, 2026 +2

You can go by zike-bike if you like.

2

Present-Perception77 Mar 27, 2026 +1

Please please please make more trains!

1

CrustyTh3Punk Mar 27, 2026 +1

That has been the case since after 9/11.

1

Iluvablondemexican Mar 27, 2026 +1

The private jet traffic from the private jet airport near me has really picked up.

1

admiraltarkin Mar 27, 2026 +1

A train from Houston to Dallas to Austin to San Antonio and back to Houston would be amazing. Too bad it'll never be built

1

stickybond009 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Thank Mr Ford

1

Dangerous_Job_8013 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Leaving out numerous stops between, say from 2005-2018 I jet trained in no particular order Shanghai, Beijing, Xian, Chengdu, Shenzhen. Map those cities sgainst a US map. Pitiful how behind the US is.

1

Zephod03 Mar 28, 2026 +1

The people who had the money to travel were living in a fantasy anyway. Welcome to the Desert of the real.

1

CatProgrammer Mar 27, 2026 +2

Sucks for business travelers and the like but I encourage more staycations. Those can be quite nice and you can save up for an even bigger trip down the line.

2

kissmebadz Mar 27, 2026 +2

Yeah, it’s a rough trade off bad rail leaves you stuck with long airport lines. It shouldn’t have to be that way.

2

noforgayjesus Mar 27, 2026 +1

I like those better than vacationing out of town honestly unless I can drive to it. Honestly vacations feel like work now long Airport lines. Long flights and everything in between

1

rkb70 Mar 27, 2026 +1

She me of us are traveling to visit family - including family weddings, graduations, etc., never mind just getting kids back and forth to college.

1

SanctimoniousVegoon Mar 27, 2026 +1

this is the real story. oligarchs want to keep us stuck in cars and planes, guzzling oil and gas with no alternatives. not having the opportunity to travel abroad and see for themselves, many americans struggle to grasp just how transformative pedestrian/bike-friendly urban planning and a usable rail system really are. awareness of the issue has grown a lot among younger people, but this deserves so much more public attention and outrage than it's historically received.

1

Vilehaust Mar 27, 2026

I might sound like an ass with this, but I'm glad I have a hybrid truck. I'd gladly drive across the country for travel well before flying or taking a train.

0

Cephandriussy Mar 27, 2026 -2

Not saying that we don't need better public transit, but do people really realize how large this country is?

-2

ViciousKnids Mar 27, 2026 +5

[Here's a map](https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D5622AQHNLt6sL6GHIA/feedshare-shrink_800/B56ZYa6zlvH0Ag-/0/1744208346843?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=SczpLzgBv2c0w6WPQ8_CjJXrvjbRadal4WAckSMdtL8) of US rail in 1916, when our rail network was at it's largest. Did the continent get bigger since then? Genuinely asking because this map makes it look like the country used to have a pretty goddamn big rail network. [Here's China NOW](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSohBvrRFz2G-SM3pkxFlrgbBvY7nIj8AfAFEbyfv3IiQ&s=10), which in case you didn't know is roughly the same size as the continental US. God, I'm so sick of this braindead argument.

5

SanctimoniousVegoon Mar 27, 2026 +2

go have a look at china's high speed rail network

2

DaddyBison Mar 27, 2026 +1

The issue isnt size, its the private ownership of land, and the meddling of special interest groups and lobbyists for the oil and airline industries, and Elon Musk. Texas was ready to break ground on high speed rail and musk killed it because it wouldnt make HIM money

1

ByteBaron Mar 27, 2026

So basically, USA is working as intended

0

erishun Mar 28, 2026 +1

Few people realize that, even today, the US has the world’s longest and most technologically advanced rail system in the world. It’s renowned and other countries send experts to the US to try and help improve their own country’s rail systems. But it’s not passenger rail… it’s for freight trains. The US really doesn’t have high speed rail because the US doesn't lend itself well to passenger lines. The US railway grid is spectacular and exceedingly efficient when transporting cargo from hub to hub. But when you haul freight, it's often better to go to a hub out of the way to load/unload. It's a bit slower, but far more cost efficient overall. But passenger lines are different, passengers want to get to their destination as fast as possible. People usually don't want to spend an extra 4 days on the train because it's more cost effective to swing by Atlanta and pick up one more load. Passenger lines need to go directly from city to city, but that's incredibly inefficient and doesn’t work with the way the US is laid out. This is primarily because the United States is absolutely f****** massive. Uninformed people say the US should emulate passenger train focused countries like Japan and Germany. Well, to put it in comparison, neither the entire country of Japan nor Germany is even as big as the state of Montana by itself. To explain it another way, let's compare the US to countries who effectively use passenger trains: ## * Germany's 2 biggest cities are Berlin and Hamburg and they're 158 miles apart. * Japan's 2 biggest cities are Tokyo and Yokohama and they're 23 miles apart. * Italy's 2 biggest cities are Rome and Milan and they're 350 miles apart. * United States' 2 biggest cities are New York and Los Angeles and they're 2,800 miles apart. ## It's just not feasible to use trains to travel directly such long distances. Rail is excellent for “slow” moving freight, but it makes way more sense to use air travel for passenger transport when you need to travel such massively long distances.

1

MartyrOfTheJungle Mar 27, 2026 -5

No alternative? Personally, I have a car. That can get me pretty much anywhere a train goes

-5

oneseason2000 Mar 27, 2026 -1

Online meetings. Stay(home)cations. Travel like it's 2020. A cratering of air travel, hotel, and rental car revenue seems likely to get more notice than traveler misery imo.

-1

SurroundTiny Mar 27, 2026 -21

thanks for that - Mr.?ms. writer - what makes you think there wouldn't be TSA at train stations you idiot?

-21

BeeFaerie Mar 27, 2026 +10

Well, there aren't any now. For the few, slow, often-late train routes we do have.

10

blazesquall Mar 27, 2026 +12

I just get on a train and show my ticket to the guy when they come through.. it's great. Practically frictionless.

12

boyyouvedoneitnow Mar 27, 2026 +10

Because the creation of the TSA was 9/11 reactionism and there hasn’t been a train 9/11?

10

Excellent-Berry-2331 Mar 27, 2026

\*yet

0

Banes_Addiction Mar 27, 2026 +11

It's very difficult to hijack and divert a train.

11

random_cartoonist Mar 27, 2026 +15

You never been to a railway station? It's a lot simpler than airports.

15

rkb70 Mar 27, 2026 +1

A lot of the country barely has passenger rail at all.

1

random_cartoonist Mar 27, 2026 +1

It's mostly a US thing. It's time for them to get with the time and get rid of that car centric method of transit.

1

rkb70 Mar 27, 2026 +2

You’re not wrong. But **random_cartoonist** seemed shocked that a someone hadn’t been to a railway station - when in reality, many Americans have not.

2

hgwelz Mar 27, 2026 +5

TSA isn't at boat or cruise terminals.

5

Double-Mouse-407 Mar 27, 2026 +5

What makes you think there would be? There ain’t no security getting on to an Amtrak besides the conductor checking your ticket. I don’t even think my local station has a metal detector, let alone the staff to operate one and manage the line.

5

rkb70 Mar 27, 2026

Amtrak honestly only serves a small portion of the country - most people have never had the opportunity to use Amtrak.

0

TimeProfessional7120 Mar 27, 2026 +3

They think it because it's true. There aren't any TSA agents at Amtrak stations. I ride frequently and not once have my bags been inspected by anyone, much less TSA. I walk to the platform, have my ticket scanned, receive my car and seating assignment, and then board the train.

3

musical_bear Mar 27, 2026 +3

TSA exists for planes because a loaded jumbo jet in the wrong hands is essentially a guided missile that can’t be shot down and can strike literally any target inside the entire country. See: 9/11. There is no equivalent danger with trains, because they are locked to rails and too many control and safety systems exist for a rogue operator to cause targeted damage to anything…

3

Mnoonsnocket Mar 27, 2026 +2

Have you ever been to a train station? TSA is not there.

2

RaccoonChaos Mar 27, 2026 +3

Granted Im in Canada, but I've never gone through security for a train 💀 There's still some obvious prohibited items, but theres no metal detectors or anyone searching bags Is that a thing in the US?

3

SurroundTiny Mar 27, 2026

I am afraid I have great faith in our bureaucracy moving to fill that void. All it will take is one incident at a train station. I don't know what would happen if ( God forbid) someone detonated a device in a security line at the airport. They would probably start processing passengers by appointment

0

America’s horrible trains mean you have no alternative to hourslong airport lines

💬 Send a Message

147 Comments