Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bowsmountainer t1_j09vfqa wrote

Reply to comment by OnyxPhoenix in [OC] Cost of Carbon Zero - Historical Look At U.S. Funding of Fusion Energy by Metalytiq

Think about how much cheaper it would have been to spend that money on trains instead.

5

40for60 t1_j0cpndx wrote

We do, but its for freight because passenger trains in the US are dumb outside of light rail. The US is not Western Europe.

1

bowsmountainer t1_j0dcsj0 wrote

I disagree, the USA is ideal to be mainly based around train infrastructure for people. I would argue the USA has far better conditions to be mainly train based, than western Europe does.

The size means that it takes incredibly long to travel by car. Trains can be much faster, and are much less of a waste of time. You can literally do anything else when riding a train. If you want to travel long distances without a plane, you could spend several days in a car, doing nothing else but focussing on driving. Or you could travel in a train for a day, in which time you could do anything you wanted.

If you want to see an example of how well trains work in a large country, look at China.

0

40for60 t1_j0ecjlk wrote

Chinas average train trip is 300km in Germany its 30km, people in Europe are not taking trains from Lisbon to Moscow which is the same distance as LA to NY (4500 km). Western Europe and China don't have to move freight from one coast to another like we do in the US. So either we build an entire second set of rail lines and then hope people would rather sit in a train for extend periods of time (which they won't) versus just flying or we agree that the price of all goods will need to go up because we will prioritize passenger service on rail which means we need to drastically change the safety standards (as example freight trains in Europe can't be over 700m so they can stop fast while in the US 3000m is normal) and hope people will want to sit in a train all day (which they won't). The funny thing is that people on Reddit think they know better then all the people in the US who work in transportation, how fucking arrogant can people be? Europe and China can prioritize passenger service because the don't need the rail for freight due to single coasts, they use water and small trucks to transport goods, the US can't do that.

BTW I like trains but the distances are to great and even in China there are not typical routes that are like San Fran/LA to NYC/Washington DC. Beijing to Hong Kong is only 2000km, half the distance.

1

bowsmountainer t1_j0el8hs wrote

Let's make something very clear. At the moment, if you want to travel thousands of km, the best option is planes. If you want to travel tens to hundreds of km, the best option is trains. I'm not saying that All travel from LA to NY has to be via train. I'm not saying that every single journey, no matter how long should be via train. But it is ridiculous how hard it is to travel from e.g. Chicago to NY, which is a journey that should definitely be easily possible by train, but isn't.

And no, this isn't because of freight (which, other countries have too!). The reason the train infrastructure in most of North America (because Canada is just as guilty) is so bad, is because of the car industry. They tried their very best to hinder trains at every turn. they demolished trains, and paid politicians to ensure trains would be defunded, in favour of cars. You can see the result very clearly. They made countless billions by forcing everyone to drive a car, rather than the obvious best option of using trains. There are fewer trains lines now than there were 100 years ago. Just think about how ridiculous that is.

Trains are far more efficient in terms of energy, time, how many people need to focus on driving, space required etc. They are also far safer, and don't destroy the environment.

Yes, the USA needs more rail lines. But even without new rail lines, notice that rails are not used most of the time. The temporal separation of subsequent trains is often many hours in the US. Just think of how many more trains you can fit on the same line. And compare that to how roads are used all the time, not just once briefly every few hours.

You want to talk freight? Sure. Consider how many drivers are needed to drive trucks across the country. Now consider how many train drivers would be needed instead to deliver the same freight. Also consider that trains can go much faster than trucks., are much more efficient. Sure, you might need trucks for the final few km. But apart from that, trains are obviously the best answer for delivery.

You brought up the topic of safety. Yes, trains can't stop easily. But trucks can't stop easily either. Look at the statistics of how many people are killed by cars each year. Now look up how many people are killed by trains each year. Trains are orders of magnitude safer. It's not even hard to see why. Trains are on tracks. Cars aren't. Trains have a single driver. Every car has their own driver. People drive trains for work. People drive cars because they have to. Trains are self driving. Cars aren't. Trains have existing infrastructure to keep people away from where they drive. Cars don't.

0

40for60 t1_j0exciw wrote

You got me, you're so fucking smart. Good look bringing passenger trains back.

1

KyleAg06 t1_j0gu6ju wrote

We need high speed trains, but I don’t think the cost will allow it.

1

bowsmountainer t1_j0iero2 wrote

It’s far cheaper to build trains, than to continue massively subsidizing the car industry, and maintaining car based infrastructure. Countries far poorer than the USA manage to build more trains, so I really don’t understand why there should be any problem whatsoever in the USA. If the politicians weren’t owned by the car industry.

1

KyleAg06 t1_j0ivvzn wrote

I should have been more clear. I 100% agree with you, but the idiots who run and vote in this country won’t stand for the price tag.

2