God damnit I hate cars bro
I feel you bro. Especially the endless stroads and parking lots. We lost a lot to make a suburbia we can’t even take ownership of.
all rails lead to chicago.
thats what you get when you put car and oil billionaires in charge
that’s part of it, but also the continental US is massive and divided by two pretty impactful mountain ranges. Not defending our lack of train infrastructure but we came of age pretty much in line with the rise of the Jet era along with our culture of individualism and the massive expansion of public interstate hiways due to one specific president’s expierence as them being useful tools for self powered land based military vehicles so obviously that was prioritized over investing in new rail infrastructure in the interceding years.
Point being, there’s a lot of spinning plates involved with why we are where we are in regards our national rail network—would be nice to hop on an hourly train and zoop from Boston to LA in 6 hrs for like $50 but we also just elected Trump again for incomprehensible reasons so in all likelihood there will be a nuclear wasteland in between those two cities, which will need additional plates to be spun up to deal with.
The USA is a lot older than 70 years, so no the USA did not come of age in the jet era. It would be a lot more accurate to say that the modern USA came together in the age of trains, because it was trains that connected east + west together (+the bits in the middle). There used to be passenger trains between all major cities + many towns literally grew around the railways. That train infrastructure is still there, but now there are just very few passenger lines running on them.
Even worse some were repurposed to trails. I mean, I love having trails too and these days use them more than trains, but once rail loses a right of way, the cost to build service skyrockets.
Why can’t I have a trail made from closed down stroads instead of closed down rails?
I was just reading something advocating for restoring useful passenger rail to Cape Cod. I should have made the connection years ago but somehow never did - there’s an amazing rail trail through the national seashore area …… but it used to be passenger rail the length of the Cape. And many of these towns, including P-Town all the way out, already have nice walkable centers that would do well with trains.
We desperately need rail service here. Not only is Cape Cod environmentally sensitive but the bridges are way overloaded. Even if we were to expand the bridges, there’s nowhere for the cars to go. There’s just too many. All too often I’ve sat in traffic for hours listening to the radio blather on about “43 mile backup to the Cape” just to finally get there and be stuck in traffic. We need a train (and no, the Cape Codder is really not especially useful)
Isn’t the USA about the same size as Europe? I think Europe might actually be bigger. We also have a bunch of mountain range dividing up our continent too.
(Not denying the rest of your comment, just pointing out)
Isn’t the USA about the same size as Europe?
if you include eastern, and western europe, they’re comparable. The problem here is that most of the US population is centered on the coasts, and in the midwest, and a bit of the south, so most rail infrastructure would be useful there, everything between about illinois, and nevada is a wasteland of like, 12 people living there.
The problem here is that most of the US population is centered on the coasts, and in the midwest, and a bit of the south, so most rail infrastructure would be useful there
So that’s why there are those four hyper-dense rail networks on the coasts, the midwest and the south and the US’s only problem is that these aren’t properly interconnected?
So that’s why there are those four hyper-dense rail networks on the coasts
yeah pretty much.
the US’s only problem is that these aren’t properly interconnected?
i mean, if you wanted to take a multi day train ride, i guess so? But going from coast to coast is never really going to be a popular route, although likely to be available on some time frames. You’re a lot more likely to see 1-4 hour routes popping up in between cities and population centers, rather than across all of the US, granted im sure longer routes will inevitably follow shorter routes given time.
It’s probably going to be more annoying, but if you want to do long distance travel, i.e. coast to coast, it’s going to be a better experience flying. More cramped, but much, much faster.
There are also issues with freight priority rail, and just freight rail in general. It’s a mess right now.
the US’s only problem is that these aren’t properly interconnected?
Oh no, that’s only the start of our rail problem. It’s not just the sparseness of active lines and the lack of places to go, but slow, unreliable, expensive
I frequently use Acela, which some claim is our only high speed rail. It is a great choice ahead of either car or flying, Boston to nyc or nyc to dc. The thing is, while it meets the definition of high speed rail, that’s only about 50 miles of the line. Average speed Boston to nyc is like 70 mph.
Conditions go wwwaaaayyyyyyy downhill from there. When we were first dating, my ex tried to take a train out. However there was one a day and it took 7 hours, vs 3.5 hours to drive. That’s more typical service for way too much of the track, assuming you’re in one of the few places with rail service
this (mind you, single country made of disparate states) was only contentiously “settled” about 300 years ago—Europe has had a pretty consistent and coherent cultural thrust for thousands of years, regardless of various clan-based spats, and a consistent build up of infrastructure to match. The US is the product of stolen land, a whole lot of racism and slavery and then being thrust into the center of the world stage right at the point when means of conveyance drastically shifted from ships and trains to planes and cars. the end result is the completely horrific infrastructure of the modern US landscape.
The United States (9,826,630 km2 / 3,794,080 sq mi) is larger than the European Union (4,233,262 km2 / 1,634,472 sq mi)
Continental Europe is not that same thing as the EU. There are quite a few countries in continental Europe that are not part of the European Economic Union.
I guess you missed the reply already pointing this out.
China, about 9.7M km2
Edit: is your size source right? I found somewhere that says China is 9.7M km2 vs US which is 9.3M km2
https://www.worldometers.info/geography/largest-countries-in-the-world/
Learn something every day. China ≈ Europe ≈ US as far as area.
Neither the post nor the comment limited themselves to the EU. Europe as a whole (10,014,000 km²) is in fact very slightly larger than the US. In this context you could argue that neither USA’s Alaska nor all the barren tundra in Europe should really count, then the contiguous 48 could be bigger depending on how how much of Russia you leave out.
So roughly the same size. I then wondered about population and saw that Europe has over twice the population. Which surprised my immediate expectations. Then again, I live in a pretty densely part of the US, so I think it twisted my thinking. In my past, I spent most of a decade living in Europe. I also spent a couple of years after living in Europe working as a long haul trucker in the US. Reflecting on those memories, it shouldn’t have surprised me.
Not that this has too much to do with the original point, that the US has a shitty train system. Which is true. But check out our military!! Ra-ra, or some shit.
deleted by creator
It really is crazy how bad the US rail system is. The last time I was taking a trip of about 1000 miles, I looked into taking amtrak. Not only was it more expensive than driving or flying, but it would take significantly longer as well, at 3 days. I know the train themselves are moving faster, and it’s due to stops, but that’s like 15mh average speed. What year is it?!?
Actually, the trains aren’t moving faster. I don’t think there’s a single significant span of passenger rail rated for more than 60mph in the US.
The NEC (Acela) is for most of its track, however it’s the same deal only at a higher level.
In theory it’s high speed rail, but only about 50 miles is actually rated at 150 mph, the rest is various speeds lower. There’s some century+ old infrastructure taking it down to like 25 mph in spots. Average speeds end up more like 70 mph.
Plus commuter trains get delayed frequently to make way for cargo trains.
That’s because Amtrak only owns their own rails in the NEC (North East Corridor) Boston-NYC-Philly-DC. Everywhere else they are riding on privately owned freight railroad tracks, and the Amtrak trains are often shunted for freight to have priority.
Actually the law states that passenger rail has priority.
It’s just unenforced so freight ignores it
Correct.
Which is illegal, but unenforced
If the government owns the lines, it’s a different story, but most of the rail lines in the US are privately owned. So in most of the US commuter rail is using freight tracks on contract, with one of the stipulations being that the freight trains get priority.
Other way around. Amtrak does have priority on all tracks per the 1973 Amtrak Improvement Act. However, this isn’t enforced, and the rail companies are kicking and screaming to keep it from being enforced.
Interesting. I had heard that many of the rail lines are used under contract because they’re privately owned by the freight companies and that the freight trains having priority was a stipulation of those contracts. Not the lines marked on this map, as those are Amtrak lines, but all the other ones across the country. It might be a local commuter rail thing or something.
Oh no, that’s not owned by Amtrak. Amtrak owns the NEC Boston to DC, but very little of the rest
The map is Amtrak service, which commonly runs on track owned by freight carriers
NY to DC is solid, it’s the one inter-metro train I’ve taken that’s faster than driving or flying (when accounting for security and travel to/from the airport).
Using it really makes you realize how much better the train system could be. Not even bullet trains, and they’re so much better than cars.
Absolutely agree. It’s so much less frustrating too
Brightline from Orlando to Miami. It’s not fast by international standards but certainly more than 60mph
It’s also super expensive so…
It really is crazy how bad the US rail system is.
It’s also crazy to think that at some point in history, it used to be one of the best in the world. And then it got screwed by oil barons.
As far as I know, Amtrak doesn’t own any of its own rails. It leases access from freight hauling railroads. Because of this relationship, the freight lines always prioritize their own trains over Amtrak. So Amtrak will always suffer until this changes.
As bad as it is, when it does work out, it’s way, way better than flying.
Took a trip to Minneapolis on Amtrak from Columbus, WI (closest station to my house in Madison). Everything is so much more low key than air travel. Seats are fairly comfy, and have legroom that might even beat first class air travel. Food is . . . no worse than airlines.
Most of all, I didn’t feel tired at the end of the trip. Air travel always makes me want to spend the rest of the day in bed.
We’d probably go out of Wisconsin Dells next time. It takes the train an hour to go between the Dells and Columbus, and the extra drive time is less than that. But we also found this wonderful pizzeria not far from the station in Columbus, so idk.
I just don’t have the leave to spend 6 of my leave days simply riding a train or waiting at stations.
Another failure of US rail. Slow as hell.
It might mayyyybe make sense if you just happen to find an overnight route so you can sleep instead of having to drive. But that’s incredibly rare.
That’s only like a 4 hr drive though. I drive farther than that for quick overnight trips all the time.
On a train, your holiday starts the moment you board it.
You can watch movies, play board games, even do cartwheels if you so wished. With a view that is constantly changing.
Have you never had sardine cargo class seats on a train? Or standing? I’ve experienced both what you described, and also what I described. Most Americans have never experienced either. One thing about a car though, I can blast my tunes with my subs kicking and not piss off the strangers riding next to me. I’ve had a bunch of nice train trips, but I have had hundreds if not thousands of amazing road trips in a car or on a motorcycle.
It’s way more pleasant than a drive. We also have an EV, and while we can make that range, charging infrastructure isn’t good in northwest Wisconsin, and the Twin Cities are falling behind there, too. Southeast Wisconsin and Chicagoland are much better.
Trains are generally a better environmental option than EVs, anyway, and they can be a more practical option if we fucking try.
Even as it is, I prefer taking the train on this route if possible.
I probably enjoy driving way more than you do, and that’s an understandable difference. But I do spend 90% of my free time where there are no charging stations, which is why I don’t have an EV yet. I also never have to drive in traffic because of where I spend my free time and the fact that I live on the outskirts of town. So driving is pretty pleasant. Honestly, sometimes it’s amazing. I’ve had a couple of great train experiences, but nothing that ever touched a great road trip in a car or on a motorcycle. I think another factor for me is time. I’ve never had more than a week off at once in my life, and I’ve been working for 40 years. When I do have a vacation, I want to get there quickly, enjoy the drive, enjoy the time there, and enjoy the drive back quickly with the music bumping the whole way. I sometimes fly but if it’s under a 24 hr drive away I just drive it straight thru only stopping for fuel. It’s amazing watching the landscape change so much in just one day.
If you have the time, Amtrak is a pleasant way to go. You are right about the seats. They are very comfortable and it is nice to walk around on the train and stretch your legs.
My most recent trip on Amtrak was from Effingham IL to Chicago. They only bad part about the trip was the last couple of miles in Chicago. The train stops just a mile or two away from Union Station and we had to wait quite a bit until it was our turn to move into the station.
Edit: I have been corrected by another commenter below. Amtrak owns rails in the NE corridor. Which explains why it operates so much better there.
I’m about to board a 12 hour Amtrak ride from Boston to Richmond. It’s a miserable trip (I’ve done it once before) but for two people round trip it cost us $300 less than any flights we could find when we were looking for tickets a month ago.
I was going from ind to den. The cheapest was $600 round trip. A flight is $150-300 and driving would have cost about $450 in gas. Flight and drive would have me arriving the same day.
Plus adding a passenger doubles that while not much affecting the car price.
Northeast coordinator is where Amtrak is at its best. Their coverage of the rest of the country is only barely worthwhile on cost and time.
That’s not any better in Europe. This is just a random map of some rail tracks. Trying getting from Porto to Rome by train. On this map it would appear as there should be multiple routes. In reality you’ll be lucky to get it done in 3 days.
It’s probably as good as it is in the UK. It would cost me roughly £20k+ a year to travel 90 mins to work if I were to stay at my job in London. On the bright side, the trains are so unreliable that I would claw some of that back through delay repay…
That’s a 2500km journey across 4 countries, taking about 43h by train including an overnight layover in Madrid.
And most of the journey is beelining it straight toward the destination, from Porto to Madrid, Barcelona, Narbonne, Marseille, Nice, Genova, Rome (plus minor stops along the way).
Flying is more reasonable at that distance (and likely cheaper), but I don’t see how the train network is at fault here.
On google maps its 40h while with car its 24. That means its faster with train because with cars you have to stop to rest so thats 2 or 3 days. At that point airplanes make much more sense.
with cars you have to stop to rest
Depends. Two people can drive in shifts to move continuously. I’ve done this a few times over here in the US. Not the greatest experience, but if you have to haul something there fast…
It’s funny how you see American movies about the old times and there’s always a train around, but in fact it was the people being around the train.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a documentary. Not the toon town stuff. The part about the judge buying the trolley so he could shut it down to build a highway. We used to have a better rail system than anywhere else. Then the car and oil companies bought the tracks and paved over them in the 1920s to 1950s
“Who needs a car in LA? We got the best public transportation system in the world!”
A perfect example of this is the Boston T. It’s half the size it was 100 years ago and is still considered the 3rd best transportation network in the country, with a full 50% of all daily commutes to Boston happening on the T.
Although honestly the feuding between the various tram/rail/bus companies contributed to their demise.
Actually, every American town founded before 1950 had a train line going through it. Aside from people living on homesteads, and maybe some small antebellum towns, everybody lived in close distance to a train station before they were shut down and torn up.
Worth noting that this map is for passenger rail only. The cargo rail network is much bigger. Basically, this map shows whereever Amtrak runs, where as before the introduction of massively subsidized interstates in the US in 1956, every cargo rail company also ran profitable passenger rail traffic on a massive network that became today’s cargo lines.
The cargo companies dumped their traffic onto the federal government in the 70s and have also ran massive cost cutting programs since, tearing up hundreds of thousands of miles of rail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transportation_in_the_United_States
Another major event in the decline of passenger rail was the elimination of railway post office contracts in 1968 which heavily subsidized passenger transport by also transporting mail
Then the failed merger of the New York Central and the Pennsylvania Railroad(second largest bankruptcy in the country to date, only eclipsed by Enron who simply moved numbers in spreadsheets so do they even count?) created a true crisis as suddenly a significant portion of the eastern US could cease to have rail service
On a related but unrelated note, watching Miles in Transit videos where they take intercity buses, its clear that intercity buses are in danger of ceasing to exist, and he advocates for nationalization. Its hard to imagine such a national bus network as anything but an incredible expansion for Amtrak, greatly improving throughway services and likely improving the quality of bus service. Links here and here(timestamp to the retrospective where he advocates for nationalization)
What the US has that Europe doesn’t is protected former trackbeds - European governments go around salting the earth after closing a railway so when they want to reopen it in 30 years they either can’t or have to spend billions. The US can just reopen it.
There’s an Amtrak station served by two trains a day within walking distance of my house. I’ve never once taken that train because according to Amtrak it can’t be done. I’ve tried several times. I’m planning a trip across country, maybe to go visit someone. Hey let’s try taking the train. Raleigh NC to Altoona PA…can’t be done. Those stations aren’t on the same route, and the trip planner on their website can’t say “Take the Silver Star to Grand Central in New York then wait around 7 hours then take the Pennsylvanian to Altoona.” Neither of these trains will spend much time at 70 miles per hour, both will end up sitting on sidings waiting for freight trains to go by, you’ve got to catch the train when it goes by at 6 AM or 10 PM, you’re going to spend two days on a journey you can do by highway in 8 hours, and it actually costs a little more.
at that point, might as well take greyhound.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Greyhound bus in person. Do they serve the Eastern Seaboard?
Yeah, I took them a few times in NY/PA when on vacation, was around 2019 or so. Not as good as busses here, but it was good enough.
I’ve seen an Amtrak passenger train on the rails where I live once. It was like seeing a unicorn. Can see freight trains pretty much every day (most of the rails here are through granaries and other farm shit where they load the cars).
Two a day through here, entirely unlike clockwork but they do show up. There’s a station downtown that is basically a concrete pad with some benches and an empty little room that is used for nothing and if you buy a ticket online the train will stop to pick you up. I’m told that’s ever happened.
Can you drive 120km/h in those areas if you don’t take the train?
I don’t take the train here even though I have one because it takes too long. A 3-4 hr car trip takes all day with the train having to makes its stops.
The closest large city is 50 miles (80km) away. I can be there in 45min to an hour depending on traffic. The train takes almost three hours.
Also, there is no public transportation to get to the train stop which is on the bad side of town and there’s no station to wait inside.
You know the difference? I don’t have to actually drive when I take the train. I can do literally anything else, especially if wireless is available.
It’s like people who say, “I don’t need a dishwasher, I can wash them in half the time!”. Yeah, sure, but I don’t have to fucking wash them. Not to mention the environmental and health benefits which, incidentally, works for trains too.
Do what? Listen to music, a podcast or watch a show? Things I already do driving. I hate travelling. I just want to be there. Anything more than 500 miles it’s better to fly anyway. The price difference is negligible.
Not to mention trains are subsidised by the government yet still cost more than gas even driving a huge SUV.
Ironically I have a dishwasher but don’t use it. I stick to takeout and paper plates/ platicware. Because it’s faster and easier than doing dishes. You’re right, not only do I not have to do dishes, I don’t have to cook or clean up either.
I hope you aren’t watching a show while driving?
I’m usually with someone else switching out or just listening to something I’ve already seen that’s dialogue heavy. And I always have a 5G signal in the car. You have to pay for wifi on the train and it’s slow af
Paying for WiFi sucks. At least in my country pretty much all trains have WiFi. Though if you have 5g in the car you should be able to get it on the train too (at least everywhere the car would). They’re also faster for all but the longest journeys (wish they were cheaper though)
And my point is here they’re more expensive and slower so that’s why people don’t take them.
Does Eurpose use busses, because we have many more travellers take greyhound than Amtrak.
I can go to Paris (500 km) by train in about three hours. That train is musch faster thatn you’d be allowed to drive.
Hungary where you can basically go 140 legally 💀. Now i live in sweden and its 100 most places but the train connections are shit where i live.
Veiny ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Iberia needs to keep up, damn it!
Spain has the second largest high speed rail network in the world. They’re doing alright.
High speed rail is worthless if you don’t have the local rail to support it. That’s where the most traffic occurs by far, with millions of passengers per day. Compare that with the capacity of a few dozen high speed trains and they’re a mere drop in the bucket when it comes to mass transit.
Be that as it may, Spain is highly urban and are quite good at building things like Metros within their cities as well.
So, then explain to me how long would it take by train from Bilbao to Vigo.
On that map above we can clearly see a train route. Can I take a train on it?
They make up for what they don’t have in volume by having crazy cheap and fast trains instead.
They also build them remarkably cheap as well. We should all be envious of Spain.
Portugal not included on account of being an Eastern European country
>Iberia >Portugal not includedTheir trains quite simply are not as good as the ones in Spain.
Because they are actually an undercover Eastern European country
Seriously what are they even doing, Siesta?
I’m curious about this map because I definitely live near passenger rail and it’s not showing here.
Non-Amtrak line? I think this is Amtrak specific. There are a few bits of passenger service in the US outside Amtrak, but it wouldn’t add much to this map.
The US map are all Amtrak services and the European map all mainline railways.
I’m more worried about all the lightning bolts Chicago can shoot out to the rest of the country.
He pulls out a knife, you pull out lightning powers. That’s the Chicago way.
And it’s crazy to think that Europe would fit into North America many times. I would like to see the NA city subways/trains added then compare them to Asia
???
North America is more than the continental USA.
Canadian passenger service isn’t much better than the US. Mexico isn’t too bad.
Train companies have to pay property tax on the lines
And the trucking unions fight against using rail because “jobs”
Those are the two main reasons rail sucks in Canada
Most of the euro side of that map, fits into texas alone. The USA has shit rails but acting like Europe has even half the distance that’s needed to cover the usa like it looks in this map is dishonest.
I miss spoke, but the size of the EU vs the usa is no where near the same.
https://www.newgeography.com/content/005313-which-countries-would-fit-inside-texas
EU 1.7m sq miles USA 3.8m sq miles
Not even in the same ballpark.
What the fuck are you on about
Just France covers most of Texas.
No, you don’t get to add russia into that. That area is 1.7m sq miles while the USA is 3.8m sq miles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_United_States
You don’t get to super impose the usa as a map image to this image and go “see told you”
You don’t get to spout bullshit like “Most of the euro side of that map, fits into texas alone” then try and defend yourself using area measurements that are completely irrelevant to the point I was refuting.
Besides, the map above doesn’t show a map of the EU’s rails. That’s a political grouping. Better try the geography of Europe (3.9m sq mi) if we’re going that route. Of course then you’d rightfully point out that’s a map of North America not the US.
In any case area is not very relevant. It’s very obvious that US rail is lacking far behind. That’s understandable in much less sparsely populated areas the US has. But look at the highly populous northeast corridor. Hardly compares to EU rails.
I edited my post, but my point still stands. You %100 do use land mass for size, and you absolutely do not use russian land which is basically empty.
US rails are lacking, but it’s because the US is massive compared to the EU…again, stop adding russia which you keep doing.
Give me a reason to?
Western US has huge chunks of empty land. Drop those then. It’s only fair according to that logic.
Parts of Russia are shown ON THE POST. And maybe they are sparse - but they still have much better rail in those areas than most of the US! Furthering the point!
But even if we go with your completely flawed usage of land area and only the EU for some bizarre unexplained reason - The US is only twice as large. But our rail system is many many times worse. Even in areas with similar population density to Europe.
The size has nothing to do with it.
Texas is about the size of France, with The Netherlands tacked on. Europe would fit east of the Mississippi, not in the second largest state.
Alaska, however, is bigger than Europe
you need to familiarize yourself with how Map projections distort the shape and size of land masses, because that’s the only way i can imagine you got this idea.
it’s not even close, Alaska is way smaller than Europe. go look to some actual statistics. with all of its landmass combined the United States is 0.98x the size of Europe. it’s smaller, but barely. they are nearly exactly the same size if you made them both into a circle.
If you added in russia…russia doesn’t count because 95% of it is baren wasteland with no rails.
please look things up to confirm before you comment.
this is not true. Russia is not included in this stat. Russia is way bigger than America on its own.
why does everyone on this website have wild misconceptions about the size of America and Europe. it goes both ways, I’ve had to fight Europeans that thought America was “nearly as big as eastern Europe” on here before too. why are so many people so confidently incorrect about such an easily confirmed fact???
Europe land mass absolutely includes a large chunk of russia. The land mass of the EU does not and is much smaller than the USA. When you include russias chunk it’s roughly the same size of the USA.
Alaska is 1 477 300 km2
Europe is 10 180 000 km²
Alaska is smaller then Europe by quite a bit.
Alaska is huge sure but definitely NOT larger than Europe
Where we’re going, we won’t need roads!
From station to station and to Dusseldorf city. Meet Iggy Pop and David Bowie.
This needs to be higher. The US has the most rail in the world, at over 224,000 miles. Europe, by comparison, has 94,000 miles. That’s one country having more rail than the total of a whole continent.
The map down in the meme appears to only be Amtrak.
Amtrak service.
Amtrak owns the Northeast Corridor (Boston to DC) track and not much else
