this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
198 points (96.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

13430 readers
1015 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Serious question, why doesn't Amtrak just build its own tracks so they don't have to deal with the freight companies?

[–] Defectus@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Prohibitive cost?

[–] socsa@piefed.social 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There isn't space on their "high speed" routes for proper high speed tracks. They could do it on other lines besides NE corridor but none of them are actually well traveled enough to warrant it. Other places which have good high speed rail either just seized land as needed (China) or have much more compact transportation routes between proper urban centers (Japan, France).

[–] MellowYellow13@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They literally said new tracks, not existing tracks

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The problem isn't the tracks, it's the right-of-way. The agency just doesn't have the budget to acquire the necessary land.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

As long as certain people expect Amtrak to be profitable, and we’re not willing to invest in fixing a century of deferred maintenance, how can we possible dig out of this hole?

My hope is in state supported routes, although they’re too limited won’t be fast or comprehensive. For example New Hampshire is not a place you’d find enough people to build profitable high speed rail. However they own control some existing track given up by freight rail. In particular I understand there’s a track to Manchester that connects to a track in use by MBTA commuter rail, and they’re considering rail service between Boston and the capital, including the airport. I don’t know if it will happen, but it would only be because of the state.

A lot of investments from the infrastructure act were to study state supported routes and how to add them to the Amtrak network. This is a big deal, because rail is so much more useful when added to a network. We’re stuck at the beginning where each project is considered for only its own merits, and need to build to the point where they can also be considered for the overall network