Train travel may consume less energy than car travel, but it is still energy intensive, so I doubt this makes sense if reducing CO2 emissions is the goal.
Bostonian sounds like Boston ;), is it really so ingrained in the US that everything free or social must be bad?
Some kind of mobility is imo kind of basic right, and it wouldn't hurt us richer nations to more support it. (just to make it clear, saying as someone who likely more pays for it than having any use).
It’s not “the US” as a whole, it’s one particular ideology within the US, but yes, it’s somewhat more common of a view than in Germany.
The problem in the US is extreme waste/inefficiency and unequal access, not lack of spending.
By the way, neoliberalism is the dominant ideology in most countries now, not just the US. But neoliberalism doesn’t mean “no state spending”; that would be an exaggerated caricature.
What you’re describing is more like libertarianism (in the US sense of the term) which indeed is rather unique to the US, but not the dominant ideology.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governm...
Japan is often claimed to have the best trains and subways in the world. They are privately run for profit and the train companies own real estate and business around their stations so it gives them a positive feedback loop. more riders = more patrons for their other businesses.
conversely a public system someone is always trying to cut the budget as it's just an expense from the pov of most governments
If you don’t believe me, plot the numbers yourself: train impact will literally be the width of your pen.
Additionally I suspect trains (at least electric ones) have far less C02 emissions than cars. I'm not sure how electrified Spains rail is.
Trains on level ground have extremely low rolling resistance. This means that if you have enough train sets for peak service, running the train sets all day often makes sense, because the additional cost (in terms of CO₂) of operating a train set for an additional hour is so low. It also means that adding passengers to a half-full train is practically free (again, in CO₂).
"Spain opts for massive electricity savings by using railway tech" https://www.banenor.no/en/startpage1/News/spain-opts-for-mas...
"Percentage of the railway lines in use in Europe in 2019 which were electrified, by country"
https://www.statista.com/statistics/451522/share-of-the-rail...
Diesel trains are better than diesel cars. Carrying a 1000 kg shell for an average of 1.something persons with its own engine and air resistance, and needing to be able to stop in a few hundred meters even at top speed, is less efficient than having one engine and one front side to push air out of the way and low rolling resistance for transporting many people, if you compare equal fuel sources.
But then cars are more flexible because you can take your portable shell anywhere at any time, not like the train. Then again, I like train rides (especially the Arriva trains between Sittard and Roermond are super comfy). There's a future for both, I'd say as someone who takes the bus and train at every opportunity (including for daily commute) but still finds himself in a car regularly.
Really though, how is this an issue? A few people might not use trains anymore because they are packed full of new people? The net result is more people using trains
There are multiple aspects depending on what you're trying to accomplish.
Your list is great if the target market is upper middle class (great for voters and private interest groups). Convenient and plentiful are really the ones that matter for economic mobility (person that can't get afford car, gas,insurance)