this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
185 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
68772 readers
3798 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When you talk about maintaining the current infrastructure, you're talking about completely replacing it anyway at a higher cost since it's falling apart must be meticulously replaced with crappier materials. Why replace the same slow, century old infrastructure when you can replace it with high speed trains and rail that costs far less?
There are so many obvious reasons to catch up with the rest of the world in terms of transportation.
Because the current infrastructure doesn't connect the country.
Because that inadequate infrastructure is literally falling apart.
Because poor Americans can't easily move to places with better opportunity.
Because rail can be enacted extremely quickly and positively impact the lives of 300 plus million people.
Also, you're completely wrong about the concentration of US population, which is very much concentrated on the east and west coasts.
Affordable transportation benefits a country nationally and individuals immeasurably at a very low cost.
Every country with trains has proven that, even the ones as large as the US.
Can you provide a citation here?
Not nationally, only for a Denver metro track some council person told me about that they ended up spending more money and extra years refurbishing one line than it would have cost to replace multiple lines.
Refurbishing lines in the US, where the tracks are so old we're replacing them anyway works too, however we can expand and modernize our ancient, prohibitively expensive transportation infrastructure is not as important as doing it.
I have no problem whatsoever with rail expansion.
I just think "cars bad trains good tear it all up" to be a gross oversimplification that isn't helpful discourse.
Like I've said elsewhere in this chain, I am extremely pro-mass-transit - whatever form it takes. Any increase in mass transit is better than not, imo.