Sleeper trains are making a comeback in Europe, allowing existing infrastructure to be put to good use. So why hasn’t North America made any progress on slee...
The opposing argument is pretty logical too though. The US being so spread out could make sleeper train rides much more attractive compared to extensive long-haul drives where you must be attentive.
It’s a complicated issue that goes beyond the geographical differences.
Car centric cities vs walkable ones. Lower fuels costs and bigger cars vs more expensive fuel and smaller cars. And in this specific comparison, an utterly terrible passenger train experience with minimal usage vs a competitive and robust system utilized by many. A bit of a chicken/egg issue there too.
Yes, but the major factor invoked by think-tanks (which admittedly only care about aviation and car industries) is always that the low-population-density makes track-laying and maintenance unprofitable outside freight, unlike in Europe or Asia, I can get you one example of such a report.
These cost calculations probably aim for optimising cost and not for CO2 emissions :/ anyway, good explanation with the decentralised and public-private mesh rail network
Valid point, especially as rail is more expensive compared to highway and air. At least on its face without emissions and other hard-to-quantify factors.
Many moving parts would have to come together for it to be more viable in the US, and there’s still no guarantee it’ll ever be cheaper. Or popular.
I used to be in a rare situation where I could actually use a light rail to commute and avoid a terrible 45 minute to hour-long drive. I really enjoyed the free time in the train compared to stress in the car. But nearly every one of my coworkers refused the train because it wasn’t massively cheaper and for other relatively-minor reasons. It was eye opening for me.
It was a half-assed 0th order attempt (also before watching the video), yes :) looking at dimensions and population centre distribution.
The opposing argument is pretty logical too though. The US being so spread out could make sleeper train rides much more attractive compared to extensive long-haul drives where you must be attentive.
It’s a complicated issue that goes beyond the geographical differences.
Car centric cities vs walkable ones. Lower fuels costs and bigger cars vs more expensive fuel and smaller cars. And in this specific comparison, an utterly terrible passenger train experience with minimal usage vs a competitive and robust system utilized by many. A bit of a chicken/egg issue there too.
Yes, but the major factor invoked by think-tanks (which admittedly only care about aviation and car industries) is always that the low-population-density makes track-laying and maintenance unprofitable outside freight, unlike in Europe or Asia, I can get you one example of such a report.
These cost calculations probably aim for optimising cost and not for CO2 emissions :/ anyway, good explanation with the decentralised and public-private mesh rail network
Valid point, especially as rail is more expensive compared to highway and air. At least on its face without emissions and other hard-to-quantify factors.
Many moving parts would have to come together for it to be more viable in the US, and there’s still no guarantee it’ll ever be cheaper. Or popular.
I used to be in a rare situation where I could actually use a light rail to commute and avoid a terrible 45 minute to hour-long drive. I really enjoyed the free time in the train compared to stress in the car. But nearly every one of my coworkers refused the train because it wasn’t massively cheaper and for other relatively-minor reasons. It was eye opening for me.
Yet no one cares how much municipalities have to keep going into debt to subsidize the creation of those low population areas in the first place.