The cost of dedicated passenger rail lines is staggering, and the US has a LOT of ground to cover.
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
968 points (100.0% liked)
Greentext
6535 readers
684 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:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
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
Something like 30% of the US lives in the strip between Washington DC and Boston. It's absolutely achievable for the richest country on Earth to provide high speed rail in that section.
There's already a lot of passenger rail options in that part of the country. I've used it, and it works great.
This post is specifically about using it in place of airlines, which is used for longer-distance travel.
If you want to use it in place of airlines, you need high-speed rail. Something that the US has basically none of
Which goes back to the issue of the difficulty of building high-speed rail across long distances.
Higj-speed rail can't be built at grade like freight rail. You can't risk a cow getting through a fence or a crossing signal failure leading to a high-speed train collision.
As someone from Russia, we have even larger territory, and going by rail is almost twice as cheap as by plane.
High speed rail from Saint Petersburg to Moscow will cost you ~$45, going by plane will set you back ~$75 on the cheapest flight with hand luggage only. Considering the time losses associated with airports, you'll be at your destination almost as fast for way cheaper, so this option is widely preferred.
Same story with long distance trips - I plan on going for a 1000km trip in July, and train ticket costed me the same $45, while cheapest plane tickets go around $100. It's also a night train with beds and all, so I have one night accommodation for free while on my way. Depart - have a nice sleep - be on your destination in the morning and have a full day to yourself, fully rested.
If you're feeling adventurous, you can go all the way from Moscow to Vladivostok by single train for $250. This will take almost a week, but it will get you around half the planet for that money.
load more comments
(16 replies)
Meanwhile, right wing parties in Quebec are fighting against a tramway project in Quebec city, that the entire country agreed to pay for, for which we have already invested half a billion, build stations, etc. They call it "War on cars".
load more comments
(4 replies)
Rail is hard if it's from one country to another (I think Europe is the exception)
In my case, I have to take rail from Ankara to Edirne, Edirne to Bucharest, Bucharest to Vienna, and after Vienna I can access anywhere in Europe
The problem is, going from Edirne to Bucharest requires two visas
load more comments
(2 replies)
Is there any parody porn about TSA? I want to masturbate to it. As long as it's not too noncon (like TSA in real life), I don't really care about the details (I'm ok with any gender, large insertions/fisting, etc.).
TSA exists, therefore...
load more comments
(1 replies)
Cheaper? come to the UK, where flying can be less expensive than rail
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why would Americans care about trains when they're gonna be a billionaire any day now and have their own private jet?
/s
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah i got used to TSA sexually assulting me just to get to the to my plane
load more comments
(1 replies)
As someone who boycotted the TSA for like 5 years and only took Amtrak, the tickets are not always cheaper. I mean sure, you can get across the country for like $100.
Even when I was doing Boston-Baltimore on the Acela, it was routinely slightly cheaper to fly.
Amtrak is not cheaper, but trains in other countries are. Because Amtrak, specifically, sucks.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The monkey paw grants your wish but all the trains are built by Boeing.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The only national passenger train service I know of is Amtrak, which shares its tracks with freight carriers. So the current infrastructure isn't designed for high-speed rail and freight carriers usually get priority.
Also, The US is really big, so everything isn't a short train ride away from everything else. If I wanted to visit the Grand Canyon from where I live, it's over 2,000 miles away. That's 30 hours of driving just by car.
Also, The US is really big
There's absolutely no good reason why you shouldn't be able to take a train from LA to Seattle or Miami to El Paso. The US coastline is plenty dense, with highway exits every five or ten miles state after state after state.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
Doesn't Europe have an extensive passenger train network?
Also, I recently rode on Amtrak for a long trip from Columbia, SC to Baltimore, MD. This was my first time on any kind of train other than a subway or metro line. It had its drawbacks (incredibly long travel time and delays), but I always felt safe, and I had a lot more room than I would have had on any flight. The major drawbacks where the seats were somewhat uncomfortable and things like that are largely due to the fact that the cars were pretty old, and not inherent to train travel if it was properly maintained. The cost was much less, and the free parking was such a great bonus.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Not to shit on your perfectly reasonable parade, but in Germany there is high speed rail through the whole . takes about 6 hours from top to bottom.
Now look at the scale of the US versus Germany and then the density of people living there. High speed rail makes alot of sense where it's difficult to build (bosnywash) and does not scale well in terms of time spent traveling.
Its better than car, but won't replace air travel anytime soon. Sadly.
France has nearly the same population density as Ohio, and it has the TGV, which covers more than 5 times the land area of Ohio. So where's the Ohio high speed rail network?
This is the scale of Japan compared to the US east coast:
So why aren't there high speed lines that cover that same distance in the US?
Americans complain about US politicians and US policy on a near constant basis, and yet when comparing the US to other nations its apparently impossible for anyone to have made a stupid or self-serving decision. The US apparently is always operating at the absolute limit of what's physically possible, and if there's any deficiency compared to its peers its never because something was done wrong. Its always because "the US is too big" or "we're too diverse" (what does that even mean? You can't have nice things because black people exist?).
To be clear there are actual answers to the questions I posed above, but its not either of those moronic excuses.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
tickets are cheaper? if you want to travel the same distance it is far from cheap to travel by train, in Europe at least
load more comments
(10 replies)
Train infrastructure is so underfunded (thx oil) that you can still get the fingering at most train stations for a really reasonable fee.