As someone who lives in the Bay Area we already have trains, and they're literally past the point of bankruptcy because they (1) don't actually charge enough maintain the variable cost of operations, (2) don't actually make people pay at all, and (3) don't actually enforce any quality of life concerns short of breaking up literal fights. All of this creates negative synergies that pushes a huge, mostly silent segment of the potential ridership away from these systems.
So many people advocate for public transit, but are unwilling to deal with the current market tradeoffs and decisions people are making on the ground. As long as that keeps happening, expect modes of transit -- like Waymo -- that deliver the level of service that they promise to keep exceeding expectations.
I've spent my entire adult life advocating for transportation alternatives, and at every turn in America, the vast majority of other transit advocates just expect people to be okay with anti-social behavior going completely unenforced, and expecting "good citizens" to keep paying when the expected value for any rational person is to engage in freeloading. Then they point to "enforcing the fare box" as a tradeoff between money to collect vs cost of enforcement, when the actually tradeoff is the signalling to every anti-social actor in the system that they can do whatever they want without any consequences.
I currently only see a future in bike-share, because it's the only system that actually delivers on what it promises.
> they (1) don't actually charge enough maintain the variable cost of operations
Why do you expect them to make money? Roads don't make money and no one thinks to complain about that. One of the purposes of government is to make investment in things that have more nebulous returns. Moving more people to public transit makes better cities, healthier and happier citizens, stronger communities, and lets us save money on road infrastructure.
If a system doesn't generate enough revenue to cover the variable costs of operation, then every single new passenger drives the system closer to bankruptcy. The more "successful" the system is -- the more people depend on it -- the more likely it is to fail if anything happens to the underlying funding source, like a regular old local recession. This simple policy decision can create a downward economic spiral when a recession leads to service cuts, which leads to people unable to get to work reliably, which creates more economic pain, which leads to a bigger recession... rinse/repeat. This is why a public transit system should cover variable costs so that a successful system can grow -- and shrink -- sustainably.
When you aren't growing sustainably, you open yourself up to the whims of the business cycle literally destroying your transit system. It's literally happening right now with SF MUNI, where we've had so many funding problems, that they've consolidated bus lines. I use the 38R, and it's become extremely busy. These busses are getting so packed that people don't want to use them, but the point is they can't expand service because each expansion loses them more money, again, because the system doesn't actually cover those variable costs.
The public should be 100% completely covering the fixed capital costs of the system. Ideally, while there is a bit of wiggle room, the ridership should be 100% be covering the variable capital costs. That way the system can expand when it's successful, and contract when it's less popular. Right now in the Bay Area, you have the worst of both worlds, you have an underutilized system with absolutely spiraling costs, simply because there is zero connection between "people actually wanting to use the system" and "where the money comes from."
This gets repeated a lot, but is unpersuasive. How much money should a transit system lose? $20 per trip? $40 per trip? There might be mass transit systems that make sense (e.g buses), but most mass transit in the US is terrible quality and a terrible value. One argument is that it's a jobs program for the disadvantaged, but even there we could find a lot of things more useful than moving around empty seats most of the day.
Roads are used and essential to every single person whether they use a car or not. Every single product you consume was transported over roads.
Drivers are the problem, not roads. Drivers kill, maim, pollute, and disturb the peace in ways AVs do not.
As a fellow public transit fan, you're on the money. Even the shining stars of transit in the US --- NYC MTA subway and CTA --- have huge qualuty of life issues. I can't fault someone for not wanting to ride trains ever again when someone who hasn't showered in 41 years pulls up with a cart full of whatever the fuck and decides to squat the corner seat closest to the car door and be a living biological weapon during rush hour. Or "showtime."
That's before you consider how it takes 2-4x as long to get somewhere by public transit outside of peak hours and/or well-covered areas. A 20 minute trip from a bar in Queens to Brooklyn by car takes an hour by train after 2300, not including walking time. I made that trip many, many times, and hated it each time.
You're definitely right on (2) and (3). I've used many transit systems across the world (including TransMilenio in Bogota and other latam countries "renowned" for crime) and I have never felt as unsafe as I have using transit in the SFBA. Even standing at bus stops draws a lot of attention from people suffering with serious addiction/mental health problems.
1) is a bit simplistic though. I don't know of any European system that would cover even operating costs out of fare/commercial revenue. Potentially the London Underground - but not London buses. UK National Rail had higher success rates
The better way to look at it imo is looking at the economic loss as well of congestion/abandoned commutes. To do a ridiculous hypothetical, London would collapse entirely if it didn't have transit. Perhaps 30-40% of inner london could commute by car (or walk/bike), so the economic benefit of that variable transit cost is in the hundreds of billions a year (compared to a small subsidy).
It's not the same in SFBA so I guess it's far easier to just "write off" transit like that, it is theoretically possible (though you'd probably get some quite extreme additional congestion on the freeways as even that small % moving to cars would have an outsized impact on additional congestion).
>The better way to look at it imo is looking at the economic loss as well of congestion/abandoned commutes. To do a ridiculous hypothetical, London would collapse entirely if it didn't have transit.
You're making my argument for me. Again, my concern isn't the day-to-day conveniences of funding, my point is that building a fragile system (a system where the funding is unrelated to the usability of the service) is a system that can fail catastrophically... for systems where there are obviously alternatives (say, National Rail which can be substituted for automobile, bus, and airplane service) are less to worry about, because their failure will likely not cause cascading failures. When an entire local economy is dependent on that system -- when there are not viable substitutes -- then you're really looking at a sudden economic collapse if the funding source runs dry, or if the system is ever mismanaged.
This is a big deal. When funding really actually does run out and the system fails, then if the result is an economic cascade into a full blown depression, then you would have been much better off just building the robust system in the long term. I just really don't think people appreciate how systems can just fail. Whether it's Detroit or Caracas, when the economic tides turn in a fragile system people can lose everything in a matter of a few years.
Lighting money on fire by funding an extremely expensive system that most people don't want to use is not an "investment." It's just a good way to make everyone much poorer and worse off than if we'd done nothing. The only way to change things is to convince the electorate that we actually do need rules and enforcement and a sustainable transportation system.
This isn't just happening in America. Train systems are in rough shape in the UK and Germany too.
Ebike shares are a much more sustainable system with a much lower cost, and achieve about 90% of the level of service in temperate regions of the country. Even the ski-lift guy in this thread has a much more reasonable approach to public transit, because they actually have extremely low cost for the level of service they provide. Their only real shortcoming is they they don't handle peak demand well, and are not flexible enough to handle their own success.
It's worth noting that, at least for bart, the reason that it is facing bankruptcy is precisely because it was mostly rider supported and profitable, and not government supported.
When ridership plummeted by >50% during the pandemic, fixed costs stayed the same, but income dropped. Last time I checked, if Bart ridership returned to 2019 levels, with no other changes, it would be profitable again.
You can't say that BART "is facing bankruptcy is precisely because it was mostly rider supported and profitable, and not government supported" when it is very obvious that BART would be in a much worse situation if it had had more government support... because all those governments are facing massive budget deficits right now.
BART has already been bailed out by the state, twice. It has already failed, twice. It very much needs to reduce the level service it provides if it wants to be sustainable, or seek other forms of revenues while we wait to see if ridership returns. Many have suggested BART explore the SE Asian model of generating revenues by developing residential housing, which seems fairly straightforward.
If ridership never returns, then we ought not continue throwing good money after bad, and we ought to adjust the level of service to meet the level of revenues. Obviously the main problem here is that it's literally illegal to just build high density corridors directly adjacent to the transit stations... which is what we ultimately need to prioritize.
over the long term, this is solved with a wealth tax, but undoing what rich ppl have done to society (i.e. making lots of poor people) will unfortunately take many, many years; so many years that it will never actually happen
My entire point is mostly not even about the money. It's about the system having to respond as a service to the fact that people don't want to use that service and are willing to pay a huge premium for alternatives like Waymo.
I’m not advocating that they do. Fixed costs should be fully subsidized. I’m only advocating that revenues are set so that during a median year, each additional rider on average, provides income that is proportional to the level of service needed to move that rider through the system.
Trains need well behaved people, otherwise they are shit.
I don't want to hear tiktok or full volume soap operas blasting at some deaf mouth breather.
I don't want to be near loud chewing of smelly leftovers.
I don't want to be begged for money, or interact with high or psychotic people.
The current culture doesn't allow enforcement of social behaviour: so public transport will always be a miserable containment vessel for the least functional, and everyone with sense avoids the whole thing.
Or the majority of the residents of New York City on their daily commute? I like to think I have sense, and I happily use public transport most days. I prefer it to sitting in traffic, isolated in a car. At least I can read a book. If you work too hard to insulate yourself from the world, the spaces you'll feel comfortable in will get more and more narrow. I think that's a bad thing.
NYC people uses it because the alternatives are either slower or much more expensive. I'm sure they'd rather use a waymo if it was as fast and cheap as the subway.
I quite agree with the overall point but can we leave this kind of discourse on X, please? It doesn't add much, it just feels caustic for effect and engagement farming.
The vast majority of the anti-social behavior on public transit not relevant in automobiles because (1) you can't turnstile jump the gas tank, (2) an automobile is effectively very expensive set of headphones, and (3) you can inhale whatever you want in your vehicle and your neighbor doesn't have to breath it.
Automobiles are a wildly inefficient and expensive form of transportation in urban areas. At the same time, we ought to be willing to ask why a significant amount of our urban population still prefers to pay all that extra money to sit in traffic.
No matter what, people are going to still use cars because they are an absolute advantage over public transportation for certain use cases. It is better that the existing status quo is improved to reduce death rates, than hope for a much larger scale change in infrastructure (when we have already seen that attempts at infrastructure overhaul in the US, like high-speed rail, is just an infinitely deep money pit)
Even though the train system in Japan is 10x better than the US as a whole, the per-capita vehicle ownership rate in Japan is not much lower than the US (779 per 1000 vs 670 per 1000). It would be a pipe dream for American trains/subways to be as good as Japan, but even a change that significant would lead to a vehicle ownership share reduced by only about 13%.
I don't think individual vehicles can ever achieve the same envirnmental economies of scale as trains. Certainly they're far more convenient (especially for short-haul journeys) but I also think they're somewhat alienating, in that they're engineering humans out of the loop completely which contributes to social atomization.
Trains only require subsidies in a world where human & robot cars are subsidized.
As soon as a mode of transport actually has to compete in a market for scarce & valuable land to operate on, trains and other forms of transit (publicly or privately owned) win every time.
Source? The biggest source of environmental issues from EVs, tire wear from a heavier vehicle, absolutely applies to AVs. VC subsidizing low prices only to hike them later isn't exactly "without subsidy" - we pay for it either way
Sure but most of the world has a density low enough that cars work and trains don't really. I like trains as much as the next nerd, but you're never going to be able to take a train from your house to your local farm shop or whatever.
Where trains work they are great. Where they don't, driverless electric cars seem like a great option.
Me too but given our extensive car brain culture, Waymo is an amazing step to getting less drivers & cars off the road, and to further cement future generations not ever needing to drive or own cars
Pretty much this. Wild that you can traverse most of China in affordable high speed trains, yet the Amtrak from Seattle to Portland barely crawls along and has to regularly stop for long periods of time because the tracks get too hot in the Summer.
Enough with the trains. I’m all for trains but theyre good for in city or 1-3 hour journeys. Taking a train across the US would take a day even with high speed trains.
I’d much rather have my own vehicle than share my space with a bunch of people.
As someone who lives in the Bay Area we already have trains, and they're literally past the point of bankruptcy because they (1) don't actually charge enough maintain the variable cost of operations, (2) don't actually make people pay at all, and (3) don't actually enforce any quality of life concerns short of breaking up literal fights. All of this creates negative synergies that pushes a huge, mostly silent segment of the potential ridership away from these systems.
So many people advocate for public transit, but are unwilling to deal with the current market tradeoffs and decisions people are making on the ground. As long as that keeps happening, expect modes of transit -- like Waymo -- that deliver the level of service that they promise to keep exceeding expectations.
I've spent my entire adult life advocating for transportation alternatives, and at every turn in America, the vast majority of other transit advocates just expect people to be okay with anti-social behavior going completely unenforced, and expecting "good citizens" to keep paying when the expected value for any rational person is to engage in freeloading. Then they point to "enforcing the fare box" as a tradeoff between money to collect vs cost of enforcement, when the actually tradeoff is the signalling to every anti-social actor in the system that they can do whatever they want without any consequences.
I currently only see a future in bike-share, because it's the only system that actually delivers on what it promises.
> they (1) don't actually charge enough maintain the variable cost of operations
Why do you expect them to make money? Roads don't make money and no one thinks to complain about that. One of the purposes of government is to make investment in things that have more nebulous returns. Moving more people to public transit makes better cities, healthier and happier citizens, stronger communities, and lets us save money on road infrastructure.
>Why do you expect them to make money?
I don't.
That's why I said "variable cost of operations."
If a system doesn't generate enough revenue to cover the variable costs of operation, then every single new passenger drives the system closer to bankruptcy. The more "successful" the system is -- the more people depend on it -- the more likely it is to fail if anything happens to the underlying funding source, like a regular old local recession. This simple policy decision can create a downward economic spiral when a recession leads to service cuts, which leads to people unable to get to work reliably, which creates more economic pain, which leads to a bigger recession... rinse/repeat. This is why a public transit system should cover variable costs so that a successful system can grow -- and shrink -- sustainably.
When you aren't growing sustainably, you open yourself up to the whims of the business cycle literally destroying your transit system. It's literally happening right now with SF MUNI, where we've had so many funding problems, that they've consolidated bus lines. I use the 38R, and it's become extremely busy. These busses are getting so packed that people don't want to use them, but the point is they can't expand service because each expansion loses them more money, again, because the system doesn't actually cover those variable costs.
The public should be 100% completely covering the fixed capital costs of the system. Ideally, while there is a bit of wiggle room, the ridership should be 100% be covering the variable capital costs. That way the system can expand when it's successful, and contract when it's less popular. Right now in the Bay Area, you have the worst of both worlds, you have an underutilized system with absolutely spiraling costs, simply because there is zero connection between "people actually wanting to use the system" and "where the money comes from."
This gets repeated a lot, but is unpersuasive. How much money should a transit system lose? $20 per trip? $40 per trip? There might be mass transit systems that make sense (e.g buses), but most mass transit in the US is terrible quality and a terrible value. One argument is that it's a jobs program for the disadvantaged, but even there we could find a lot of things more useful than moving around empty seats most of the day.
Roads are used and essential to every single person whether they use a car or not. Every single product you consume was transported over roads.
Drivers are the problem, not roads. Drivers kill, maim, pollute, and disturb the peace in ways AVs do not.
They do through taxes or tolls!
1 reply →
> Roads don't make money and no one thinks to complain about that.
Between toll roads, and the toll lanes, they do?
3 replies →
As a fellow public transit fan, you're on the money. Even the shining stars of transit in the US --- NYC MTA subway and CTA --- have huge qualuty of life issues. I can't fault someone for not wanting to ride trains ever again when someone who hasn't showered in 41 years pulls up with a cart full of whatever the fuck and decides to squat the corner seat closest to the car door and be a living biological weapon during rush hour. Or "showtime."
That's before you consider how it takes 2-4x as long to get somewhere by public transit outside of peak hours and/or well-covered areas. A 20 minute trip from a bar in Queens to Brooklyn by car takes an hour by train after 2300, not including walking time. I made that trip many, many times, and hated it each time.
Waymo wouldn't dare propose it, but it would be fascinating to see about how much better train right-of-ways could be utilized by AVs.
Is that a public transit problem or a societal/homelessness problem?
1 reply →
You're definitely right on (2) and (3). I've used many transit systems across the world (including TransMilenio in Bogota and other latam countries "renowned" for crime) and I have never felt as unsafe as I have using transit in the SFBA. Even standing at bus stops draws a lot of attention from people suffering with serious addiction/mental health problems.
1) is a bit simplistic though. I don't know of any European system that would cover even operating costs out of fare/commercial revenue. Potentially the London Underground - but not London buses. UK National Rail had higher success rates
The better way to look at it imo is looking at the economic loss as well of congestion/abandoned commutes. To do a ridiculous hypothetical, London would collapse entirely if it didn't have transit. Perhaps 30-40% of inner london could commute by car (or walk/bike), so the economic benefit of that variable transit cost is in the hundreds of billions a year (compared to a small subsidy).
It's not the same in SFBA so I guess it's far easier to just "write off" transit like that, it is theoretically possible (though you'd probably get some quite extreme additional congestion on the freeways as even that small % moving to cars would have an outsized impact on additional congestion).
>The better way to look at it imo is looking at the economic loss as well of congestion/abandoned commutes. To do a ridiculous hypothetical, London would collapse entirely if it didn't have transit.
You're making my argument for me. Again, my concern isn't the day-to-day conveniences of funding, my point is that building a fragile system (a system where the funding is unrelated to the usability of the service) is a system that can fail catastrophically... for systems where there are obviously alternatives (say, National Rail which can be substituted for automobile, bus, and airplane service) are less to worry about, because their failure will likely not cause cascading failures. When an entire local economy is dependent on that system -- when there are not viable substitutes -- then you're really looking at a sudden economic collapse if the funding source runs dry, or if the system is ever mismanaged.
This is a big deal. When funding really actually does run out and the system fails, then if the result is an economic cascade into a full blown depression, then you would have been much better off just building the robust system in the long term. I just really don't think people appreciate how systems can just fail. Whether it's Detroit or Caracas, when the economic tides turn in a fragile system people can lose everything in a matter of a few years.
2 replies →
Well then invest in those things, then. It would probably cost less than the amount they're spending to make a Waymo World Model.
Probably not. Waymo has spent ~$30 billion to date. One mile of tunnel in NYC cost about $1 billion.
Lighting money on fire by funding an extremely expensive system that most people don't want to use is not an "investment." It's just a good way to make everyone much poorer and worse off than if we'd done nothing. The only way to change things is to convince the electorate that we actually do need rules and enforcement and a sustainable transportation system.
This isn't just happening in America. Train systems are in rough shape in the UK and Germany too.
Ebike shares are a much more sustainable system with a much lower cost, and achieve about 90% of the level of service in temperate regions of the country. Even the ski-lift guy in this thread has a much more reasonable approach to public transit, because they actually have extremely low cost for the level of service they provide. Their only real shortcoming is they they don't handle peak demand well, and are not flexible enough to handle their own success.
10 replies →
It's worth noting that, at least for bart, the reason that it is facing bankruptcy is precisely because it was mostly rider supported and profitable, and not government supported.
When ridership plummeted by >50% during the pandemic, fixed costs stayed the same, but income dropped. Last time I checked, if Bart ridership returned to 2019 levels, with no other changes, it would be profitable again.
You can't say that BART "is facing bankruptcy is precisely because it was mostly rider supported and profitable, and not government supported" when it is very obvious that BART would be in a much worse situation if it had had more government support... because all those governments are facing massive budget deficits right now.
BART has already been bailed out by the state, twice. It has already failed, twice. It very much needs to reduce the level service it provides if it wants to be sustainable, or seek other forms of revenues while we wait to see if ridership returns. Many have suggested BART explore the SE Asian model of generating revenues by developing residential housing, which seems fairly straightforward.
If ridership never returns, then we ought not continue throwing good money after bad, and we ought to adjust the level of service to meet the level of revenues. Obviously the main problem here is that it's literally illegal to just build high density corridors directly adjacent to the transit stations... which is what we ultimately need to prioritize.
8 replies →
Maybe not BART but the new Caltrain electrification program seems to be a success and ridership and revenue are up
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/caltrain-says-could-clos...
over the long term, this is solved with a wealth tax, but undoing what rich ppl have done to society (i.e. making lots of poor people) will unfortunately take many, many years; so many years that it will never actually happen
My entire point is mostly not even about the money. It's about the system having to respond as a service to the fact that people don't want to use that service and are willing to pay a huge premium for alternatives like Waymo.
Very few transit agencies have fares that cover services. I know others said this, but I wanted to add my take as well
I’m not advocating that they do. Fixed costs should be fully subsidized. I’m only advocating that revenues are set so that during a median year, each additional rider on average, provides income that is proportional to the level of service needed to move that rider through the system.
Trains work in every city in Europe and Asia.
Trains need well behaved people, otherwise they are shit.
I don't want to hear tiktok or full volume soap operas blasting at some deaf mouth breather.
I don't want to be near loud chewing of smelly leftovers.
I don't want to be begged for money, or interact with high or psychotic people.
The current culture doesn't allow enforcement of social behaviour: so public transport will always be a miserable containment vessel for the least functional, and everyone with sense avoids the whole thing.
> everyone with sense avoids the whole thing
Or the majority of the residents of New York City on their daily commute? I like to think I have sense, and I happily use public transport most days. I prefer it to sitting in traffic, isolated in a car. At least I can read a book. If you work too hard to insulate yourself from the world, the spaces you'll feel comfortable in will get more and more narrow. I think that's a bad thing.
The cost of avoiding public transport in NYC is massive compared to most cities...
Living there, without the means to avoid public transport is something I would also consider insane.
NYC people uses it because the alternatives are either slower or much more expensive. I'm sure they'd rather use a waymo if it was as fast and cheap as the subway.
1 reply →
> some deaf mouth breather
I quite agree with the overall point but can we leave this kind of discourse on X, please? It doesn't add much, it just feels caustic for effect and engagement farming.
Roads (cars) need well behave people too. The only way cars filter some of the out is by the price.
Price helps a whole lot, I think more than you give it credit for. Driving is also an active thing, this also helps.
We also police driving behaviour, in a way that nobody does for public behaviour.
And no matter what I don't have to hear or smell other drivers.
The vast majority of the anti-social behavior on public transit not relevant in automobiles because (1) you can't turnstile jump the gas tank, (2) an automobile is effectively very expensive set of headphones, and (3) you can inhale whatever you want in your vehicle and your neighbor doesn't have to breath it.
Automobiles are a wildly inefficient and expensive form of transportation in urban areas. At the same time, we ought to be willing to ask why a significant amount of our urban population still prefers to pay all that extra money to sit in traffic.
2 replies →
No matter what, people are going to still use cars because they are an absolute advantage over public transportation for certain use cases. It is better that the existing status quo is improved to reduce death rates, than hope for a much larger scale change in infrastructure (when we have already seen that attempts at infrastructure overhaul in the US, like high-speed rail, is just an infinitely deep money pit)
Even though the train system in Japan is 10x better than the US as a whole, the per-capita vehicle ownership rate in Japan is not much lower than the US (779 per 1000 vs 670 per 1000). It would be a pipe dream for American trains/subways to be as good as Japan, but even a change that significant would lead to a vehicle ownership share reduced by only about 13%.
Isn't a vehicle that goes from anywhere to anywhere on your own schedule, safely, privately, cleanly, and without billions in subsidies better?
I don't think individual vehicles can ever achieve the same envirnmental economies of scale as trains. Certainly they're far more convenient (especially for short-haul journeys) but I also think they're somewhat alienating, in that they're engineering humans out of the loop completely which contributes to social atomization.
> I don't think individual vehicles can ever achieve the same envirnmental economies of scale as trains.
I think you'd be surprised. Look at the difference in cost per passenger mile.
1 reply →
Trains only require subsidies in a world where human & robot cars are subsidized.
As soon as a mode of transport actually has to compete in a market for scarce & valuable land to operate on, trains and other forms of transit (publicly or privately owned) win every time.
>cleanly >without subsidies
Source? The biggest source of environmental issues from EVs, tire wear from a heavier vehicle, absolutely applies to AVs. VC subsidizing low prices only to hike them later isn't exactly "without subsidy" - we pay for it either way
Cars don't work in dense places.
Sure but most of the world has a density low enough that cars work and trains don't really. I like trains as much as the next nerd, but you're never going to be able to take a train from your house to your local farm shop or whatever.
Where trains work they are great. Where they don't, driverless electric cars seem like a great option.
2 replies →
>without billions in subsidies
Is there a magic road wand?
No, but roads are paid for by road users (i.e. everyone).
5 replies →
Not necessarily, and your premise is incorrect.
better for the person vs better for the people
sure, a private vehicle is better for me, but a train is better for the world
Billions of subsidies? Im confused you talking about cars or trains.
No major US public transportation system is fully paid for by riders.
6 replies →
[dead]
Me too but given our extensive car brain culture, Waymo is an amazing step to getting less drivers & cars off the road, and to further cement future generations not ever needing to drive or own cars
Ski lifts man, ski lifts all over the city
What a glorious utopia we could have
> Ski lifts man, ski lifts all over the city
Don't they have those somewhere in South America?
Quite a few places. Cable propelled transit (CPT) is the term to search for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondola_lift#Urban_transport
Pretty much this. Wild that you can traverse most of China in affordable high speed trains, yet the Amtrak from Seattle to Portland barely crawls along and has to regularly stop for long periods of time because the tracks get too hot in the Summer.
I think future generations will resent us for bureaucratizing our way out of the California HSR.
I'd rather be able to go wherever I want.
Enough with the trains. I’m all for trains but theyre good for in city or 1-3 hour journeys. Taking a train across the US would take a day even with high speed trains.
I’d much rather have my own vehicle than share my space with a bunch of people.