this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
962 points (98.1% liked)

Greentext

6566 readers
870 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] happydoors@lemmy.world 28 points 5 days ago (1 children)

To be honest, I haven’t seen anyone else mention the real reason: America allowed private companies to buy and own the lands under the rails in the 1800s in order to deal with the massive distances across the US to connect the West and East. 150 years later and just a few companies own almost all the track and rail across America. Almost all private, not public land. Public citizens and communities have very little control over the railways going through their communities. These companies lobby against and make it difficult to introduce new, public rail lines for a multitude of reasons. This is one of very many examples of how corporations abuse law, monopolistic practices, and media to lessen the power of American citizens.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago

That doesn't even take into account that a lot of rails in the US are owned by Canadian companies.

[–] TheSlad@sh.itjust.works 65 points 6 days ago (4 children)

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

[–] kieron115@startrek.website 31 points 6 days ago (6 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.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 22 points 6 days ago

Anybody who is making money off existing transportation is going to be against public transportation. Cab companies lobby against rail everywhere, from city to burbs or airport to downtown. Trucking, for obvious reasons. Passenger rail can carry cargo at night. And of course anybody selling fuel to the mass of cars, the petro industry.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 14 points 6 days ago (10 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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

that is such an absurd and pointless reality

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dmention7@lemm.ee 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)

That is so odd... I've only ridden Amtrak a few times, but I was amazed at how many stops were just some small town that happened to lie on the rail line.

Most small towns that lie on a major highway and are supported by commuter traffic are only going to support a truck stop and a few fast food restaurants at best. Sure, a true high speed rail line would likely only stop in larger metropolitan areas, so those meager income sources may dwindle. But on the other hand if I were a rail commuter in one of those rural/suburban areas, I'd be much more likely to spend some time doing a bit of shopping or lingering in a restaurant during that transition from the train to my car after work, than if I were just passing through in my car.

If i had a 24/7 high speed line to the big city from fuvkoffnowhere, i might choose to live in fuvkoffnowhere

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Soapbox@lemmy.zip 34 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Americans can't do high speed rail because we have aircraft, automobile, and petroleum industries who don't want us to.

[–] callyral@pawb.social 10 points 6 days ago

ah, the free market

Exactly!

In the words of someone who decided to not stop 9/11:

You dont fuck with billion dollar corporations.

[–] epicstove@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 days ago

I was in Switzerland and the trains there are incredible. Even the tiniest village in buttfucksburg, nowhere has a train connecting it to the rest of the country.

[–] Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 28 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

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".

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 9 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Honest fuck this.

So you love driving and more people on the road will get off the road and take the train. It means you can drive even more! Why wouldn't you want that.

[–] shads@lemy.lol 8 points 6 days ago

Because they don't give a shit about driving? They care a lot more about their family members that own car dealerships, or are involved with the petrochemical industry.

Or they saw that American rightwing grifters talk like this so they are cargo culting the fuck out?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] InfiniteHench@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I’m a huge train and transit advocate and I try to take Amtrak every chance I get. But “tickets are cheaper” does not feel like a blanket statement we can make. Maybe on very specific, usually short legs, like Chicago to Milwaukee. Someone correct me if I’m wrong or there’s more nuance but once a trip goes past 3 or 5+ hour mark, the price seems to skyrocket past airfare.

[–] AlreadyDefederated@midwest.social 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Oh, that is definitely true in the U.S.

Also, I've found that rail travel is inconvenient in the U.S. I can't confirm, but it seems like the Amtrak only comes through my (Midwest) area once a week, on Wednesdays or something like that. So, if I plan a trip, I need to plan around.

Midwest to the East Coast is so much cheaper and faster by air. I want to travel by rail - and you'd think it should be cheaper - but it's totally not.

Part of it, I believe, is that Amtrak leases the usage of the rail lines from the shipping companies, so it must adhere to their schedules of shipping freight. The USA spends so much on upgrading its highway system; if they used a fraction of that money towards rail travel we would be set. But certain companies keep lobbying Congress to keep us locked in a model where we are totally reliant on cars and gasoline.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 20 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Honestly I think it's just sticker shock. I would say that as soon as we get some people would be more willing to get more, but no, because people are hesitant to expand existing rail. MARTA please expand, I beg you. Oh great spirits of public transit, I pray that you soften the NIMBYs' hearts.

It's so upsetting that every small town in my state has an old historic train stop but none of them are actually passenger train stops anymore. Once you see it you can't unsee it. I am 15 minutes from my town's historic train stop which is a steak house now. My parents are about the same distance from theirs, probably even closer, but it's a museum or something. Can I just take a walk to the train, ride down, and see them? Nope. Gotta deal with the hellscape that is metro Atlanta traffic.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 6 days ago (19 children)

soften nimby hearts

They can soften the nimbys' hearts, but ill take them cooked to charcoal if that's what it takes.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 6 days ago

This again? The answer is no one knows. We heard legends about it but the prophecy says line go up!

[–] frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world 17 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Cheaper? come to the UK, where flying can be less expensive than rail

[–] serenissi@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You guys pay to get railed in UK?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.).

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 6 days ago

Is there any parody porn about [a thing]?

Yes. The answer is always yes.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 13 points 6 days ago

TSA exists, therefore...

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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)
[–] Cattail@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah i got used to TSA sexually assulting me just to get to the to my plane

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I really really wish I wasn't American

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hzl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Trains not planes is a much more reasonable and practical way to get people behind building more railways than planes not cars. We can talk planes not cars once some of the initial infrastructure is in place, but I think focusing on replacing something people hate (flying) rather than replacing something they like (driving) is probably a good place to start.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

Yeah, I'd much rather take a train than plane. However, where I live, I seriously need my car and I enjoy the freedom of driving. I am not in a huge city with rush hour traffic though.

[–] slingstone@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (9 children)

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)
[–] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 13 points 6 days ago (10 children)

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)
[–] daellat@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

I recently went on a holiday using high speed rail in Europe (1100km). Flying was cheaper and faster. Sadly I have feeling of empathy and principles so I went with the train anyway. Wasn't too bad though just did a lot of reading.

[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

And for one more added bonus we wouldn’t have to fix the problems with air traffic control

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (7 children)

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)
[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

freight carriers usually get priority.

They're not supposed to. Passenger traffic on Amtrak should be getting priority but the rail lines basically say "fuck it" and do what they want.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 10 points 6 days ago

Train infrastructure is so underfunded (thx oil) that you can still get the fingering at most train stations for a really reasonable fee.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

The US public transportation, especially the passenger rail network is fucking pathetic.

[–] napkin2020@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I live in South Korea and HSRs are pretty much the only mode of (intercity) transportation that is relevant. Buses take too long, planes are expensive, while HSR(KTX)s are marginally cheaper than buses and take about ⅔ of a time.

Of course, our country's much much smaller than US/Canada so even the farthest lane takes only about 2.5 hours. It's pretty cool.

load more comments
view more: next ›