[bmismyname]

This is a tired old argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The majority of people live in cities, not rural homesteads.

Once upon a time we didn't have the interstate system, but FDR created the New Deal, and with that the federal government created the interstate highway system we have today. We can do the same for rail, but the automobile lobbyists won't allow it.

I'd argue that the interstate highway system is probably the USA's greatest accomplishment, and one of the greatest public works projects. FDR sold it by framing it as a national defense initiative.

Maybe we need to use some of that national defense budget for public transit? Sadly, I don't think we'll ever have a politician with the kind of gumption necessary to save ourselves from ourselves.

[treeman79]

Low density cities. Few places are like Chicago or New York.

The interstate highway system was actually for defense. Moving things from coast to coast was far to difficult.

FDR saw the German Highway system during the war and was rightfully jealous.

[bmismyname]

Let's say you're right, and cities are low density. So what? What precludes them from having good public transit? Roads exist, why can't they be rail lines instead?

Roads are quite expensive, and there are many internet resources with tons of evidence and arguments about this: strong towns, not just bikes, climate town, etc.

[toast0]

Roads are much easier to interconnect than rails because road vehicles can make much sharper turns and handle steeper grades.

Point to point navigation has high utility and is difficult to acheive with rail.

Minimum viable roads are actually quite inexpensive: clear large vegetation from the path and there's a usable road. You can incrementally improve with path markers, grading, gravel, pavement, etc. Minimum viable rail is a much higher standard, which needs grading, railbed preparation, laying the rail, signalling and operations.

[stouset]

If only FDR had seen the Swiss system of streetcars…