Hacker News Reader

Comment by int_19h | Hacker News Reader

The general antipathy towards rail seems to be an American cultural thing, mostly. And a relatively recent (2nd half of 20th century?) at that.

What I find especially amusing is when US size is brought up as a counter-point. It had the same size back in the day when it had the most vibrant railway industry in the world.

View on HN

Seems more likely Americans prefer the fastest way to get from point A to B regardless of the technology.

But they seem to prefer slow driving over the idea of trains, for shorter distances?

How so? I can drive to NYC from Boston, that's a little slower then the acela, but then I am not bound to the train schedule. It's more convenient to me.

I'd like to see high speed trains, but it's never going to happen in the US without massive investments. Too many special interests.

But that’s what I said. You prefer the slow driving option. You said Americans prefer the fastest option then contradicted yourself and said you take the slower one. You said it yourself. Why are you asking me ‘how so?’

It's like 10-20 minutes slower. That's not even including travelling to the station.

I get that it’s slower. You said people pick the faster option rather than the slower less convenient option, then you said actually you pick the slower more convenient option. You contradicted yourself.

> You prefer the slow driving option

Trains are the slowest option for 99% of routes in America. It’s a diffuse population that built diffuse cities. By the time rail makes sense here, I suspect we’ll have leapfrogged to regional electric air travel.

Sure, but they could be the fastest. In terms of speed, I-80's got nothing on a 200mph TGV. So "trains are slow" doesn't seem to explain antipathy towards new rail projects.

> they could be the fastest. In terms of speed, I-80's got nothing on a 200mph TGV

From station to station, sure. From door to door, it's more complicated.

Driving in that case is only slower if the train schedule matches more or less perfectly with your trip AND your destination is very close to a train station.

That's not the reality of train travel. You often wait for pretty long lengths of time for the train to arrive and then have to deal with transit on the other end.

The in-transit time for a train (just like a plane) must be MUCH faster than driving for it to ever really be worth it from an efficiency point of view. That's why we prefer planes to go long distances and trains in cities where driving times are very high (like NYC).

There are a lot of issues with cars (traffic, sprawl, environmental concerns, etc..) but Americans don't prefer cars in general because Americans are stupid, cars solve the last mile in a way that trains/planes just can't.

> but then I am not bound to the train schedule

Trains from Tokyo to Osaka leave about every 10 mins. You can generally find a seat on a train if you just show up to the station 30 mins before the departure. And if that train is full, just wait 10 minutes more. It's just so much better.

You're also not price-gouged by making last minute travel arrangements as happens with airlines.

The US has a great freight rail network that is highly used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...

The US still has one of the most vibrant freight rail networks in the world.

Sure, but we're talking about passenger transportation. That was thriving in US as well, but it doesn't anymore.

Bit off-topic: is this why Tesla is building a Giga-factory in the middle of a desert? I've always wondered how that is possible. No one in Europe would ever build a factory so far from a sea or navigable river.

I guess Americans are simply used to the idea of transporting everything over rail?

They're building it there because they got a great deal from the Nevada government, and because Nevada is basically empty desert so there's no real impediments to building a giant factory.

Americans prefer the most convenient transportation method available to them, sometimes that's a train, sometimes it's not - and the US has a very vibrant rail system, one of the most efficient in the world.

In the 1st half of the 20th century flying was a lot less safe and much more expensive than it became in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

I could be wrong but I believe even at the height of rail, for the most part, it served industry to transport raw materials or finished goods from where they were made or extracted to where they were needed or sold.

There's always more goods to move around than people, so if a transportation method is cheap enough, goods will dominate tonnage.

Almost always when Americans say "too big" they have a point. However, the point usually is lack of density and not size.

It’s not just a “cultural thing” that high-speed rail projects have a tendency to be overbudget boondoggle failures.

The article actually makes the opposite point: That exactly this really is a US cultural thing. And that overseas experts who know how to do it properly could be asked to handle the project for you.

The country is the same size, but a lot of new tech has been invented, like airplanes and cars.

That tech is not US-exclusive. The attitude towards passenger rail seems to be, though.

You don't even have to look to regional rail to see the complaints here - even in discussions like "should we expand subways or heavy commuter rail from the suburbs?" the loudest voices are often those of someone who has arthritis and doesn't think they could walk from a train to their office, or someone who has kids and doesn't think they want to deal with the hassles of a train, or, or, or...

...and yet somehow none of these people seem to be able to internalize the idea that better mass transit systems (and transit options in general) means less traffic for them to drive in, should they choose for whatever combination of personal or professional reasons to continue driving a personal vehicle on routes served by transit.

One side argues in favor of options to expand access and efficiency for society at large, the other side argues against options because they don't think the new options would benefit them personally. Even when you're talking about trains or bike lanes, classic American political problems are omnipresent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com