this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
908 points (98.2% liked)

Greentext

6530 readers
760 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 day ago (22 children)

Americans can't do trains because it requires public infrastructure (rails), which apparently we are allergic to.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 day ago (18 children)

I've read articles in the past about high speed trains and/or just new train lines in general would get held up by little towns who didn't want to lose the commuter traffic since it was the only thing keeping them afloat. There are too many towns that exist literally just to serve motorists and now nobody wants to get rid of them.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

They are just very short sighted. Just lobby to have a station and a have commuter stops and people will flock to those "cheaper" areas to live bringing in tons of tax revenue and boosting the local economy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

These small towns would still be an hour+ away from large cities, even with European speed high speed rail.

Like for me, the nearest "big town" is about 100 miles from me, which is about a 2hr drive. And, at least from some quick googling, it looks like most commuter rail in France tops out at about 100mph. A train would not bring in more people haha

[–] [email protected] 2 points 17 hours ago

Yeah, while I'm a huge advocate for an American Shinkansen, there's really 4 zones of America for train speeds. East of the Appalachians its fast and easy and rail already works easy. West of them but east of the Mississippi, you're gonna need high speed rail, but it'll be somewhat similar to Europe. Between the Mississippi and the west coast, you're gonna need high speed rail and quite a bit of patience. And on the west coast, you'll hit up small cities, but honestly it'd be a great second high speed line after the New York-Chicago

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You'd be suprised how many people commute more than an hour by car. The prospect of having affordable housing with more job opportunities will certainly bring in more people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

France spends ~$15 million/mile for high speed commuter rail. Which means that line would cost $1.5 billion.

I don't think it's bringing in that many more people. Even when you amortize it across all of the little cities it would go through

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Implying the line would stop at the town and not carry on to the next. Also, how much is being spent on building and maintaining freeways?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 21 hours ago

too much, which is why I propose dirt highways with 45mph speed limits. Low initial cost, drivers drive safer, and helps the towing industry grow.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

Even when you amortize it across all of the little cities

Please read the comment in it's entirety before responding ❤️

[–] outhouseperilous 3 points 1 day ago

Okay but the auto industry isnt paying me to want that and big city people are scary.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes but that might take a few years, we need to prop up our shitty city now...

[–] outhouseperilous 2 points 1 day ago

And the construction crews wont eat at our shit hole restaurants.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)