Search Results
7/17/2025, 4:50:27 PM
>>510631336
I'm not really against rail, but the fact is that our infrastructure system over the last 100 years has largely developed without it and adding it into our infrastructure system at this juncture requires such major changes (including to ensure compatibility with existing infrastructure, unlike a lot of developing nations which are heavily using rail) that it wouldn't be worth it, mainly because of the infrastructure related to the stations. At this point, Amtrak has (rail) cars that carry (road) cars so the customers can drive to their actual destination from the train station, because that's how our national transportation infrastructure system works now. An average wait on a foreign train stop is only a couple minutes. Can you imagine, if Amtrak actually became substantially popular, how long waits would need to be to deal with automotive traffic jams exiting the station?
To update our existing railways to high-speed rail for the transport of freight (industrial rail) would be a very good thing despite the fact that it would be expensive. On the other hand, passenger rail is honestly a waste of money. It's not like I dislike passenger rail; I have railway autism and would definitely prefer if we could ride high-speed railways that don't take forever like current ones. The only advantage of our current railways that take 7 days to make a 16 hour drive is that the motel is included in the ticket: There's a guy who watches everyone in their sleep to make sure nobody gets robbed on Amtrak. You could say this is a huge leap above usual public rail transit like the NYC subways, but have you ever rode Amtrak? Almost nobody rides Amtrak, lol. If it were as heavily used as the NYC subways as an alternative to road travel, we'd be dealing with bad passengers sharing them with us until we go back to roadways. The best outcome would be less nons on the road causing accidents.
I'm not really against rail, but the fact is that our infrastructure system over the last 100 years has largely developed without it and adding it into our infrastructure system at this juncture requires such major changes (including to ensure compatibility with existing infrastructure, unlike a lot of developing nations which are heavily using rail) that it wouldn't be worth it, mainly because of the infrastructure related to the stations. At this point, Amtrak has (rail) cars that carry (road) cars so the customers can drive to their actual destination from the train station, because that's how our national transportation infrastructure system works now. An average wait on a foreign train stop is only a couple minutes. Can you imagine, if Amtrak actually became substantially popular, how long waits would need to be to deal with automotive traffic jams exiting the station?
To update our existing railways to high-speed rail for the transport of freight (industrial rail) would be a very good thing despite the fact that it would be expensive. On the other hand, passenger rail is honestly a waste of money. It's not like I dislike passenger rail; I have railway autism and would definitely prefer if we could ride high-speed railways that don't take forever like current ones. The only advantage of our current railways that take 7 days to make a 16 hour drive is that the motel is included in the ticket: There's a guy who watches everyone in their sleep to make sure nobody gets robbed on Amtrak. You could say this is a huge leap above usual public rail transit like the NYC subways, but have you ever rode Amtrak? Almost nobody rides Amtrak, lol. If it were as heavily used as the NYC subways as an alternative to road travel, we'd be dealing with bad passengers sharing them with us until we go back to roadways. The best outcome would be less nons on the road causing accidents.
Page 1