[doctorwho42]

Poor argument for underfunded and purposefully stymied train development in the early to mid 20th century.

Just look to Europe for what a large swath of the US could have if it invested in train infrastructure.

Train good, car bad.

[TheChaplain]

I live in Europe and commute by train. I need to order tickets 10 days ahead to get the cheapest price, and they're non-refundable as well as non-changeable.

That means I have fixed times, there is no flexibility if I wish to leave earlier or need to stay longer. If I do, I lose the initial charge plus a new 3 times more expensive ticket.

Ticket prices also varies depending on time, which means I have to leave really early and come back 13.5 hours later. And I'm exhausted.

1 out of 8 trains are cancelled or have severe delays, passengers are often rude or are being annoying in someway that makes it difficult to relax.

Trains are not the blessing you think they are.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I am lucky to live 10min away from the station. If I would live where I would like, it would mean 30-40min.

[panick21_]

Trains in Europe are not magical and the best they could ever be.

They could be a lot better in a lot of ways. In Europe there is still a huge investment in car infrastructure. And while land use wasnt as bad as in the US its still far from optimal.

I do dislike the selling of these specific tickets. I much prefer a system where you can just take the train.

When I used the ICE in Germany I would never get a reservation, just a general ticket. So if I missed one it didnt matter.

[Toutouxc]

Sounds annoying, which country?

Where I live the national railway carrier lets you refund or exchange your tickets and seat reservations freely up until 15 minutes before the departure time, most ticket types are valid for a day (so you don’t have to buy one for a specific connection) and the prices are, I believe, more or less fixed. The delays are inevitable I guess in most larger networks.

I don’t take the train that often, but my experience is generally pretty good, especially as I’m starting to hate driving.

[brewdad]

You have options that would give you more flexibility on travel times you simply value the lower cost over the convenience. That’s not a train problem that’s a choice you have made.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Poor argument for underfunded and purposefully stymied train development in the early to mid 20th century.

If I had a working time machine, plus a magic want to make people do what I want, that might be a good argument. I don't have either, though. The world (or at least country) we live in didn't do that, and the mid-20th century was quite a while ago. Now what? Even if funding for rail magically cranked up today, we won't have ride-able lines for a decade, at best. Meanwhile, I've got places to go tomorrow, and rail isn't a realistic option.

> Just look to Europe for what a large swath of the US could have if it invested in train infrastructure.

Out in my part of the country, we don't have anything like Europe's population density. Your "could have had" would be very uneconomical out here.

> Train good, car bad.

Spare us the thought-terminating cliches, especially when they're wrong. Your post isn't convincing, but this parting shot doesn't make it any better. It just makes you sound like you're a propagandist.

[dantheman]

Europe has cars and highways.

[ckolkey]

Sure, we do, but taking the train into copenhagen for work is a far better option for most here. Thing is, when you invest in rails instead of parking, you change the math more than "europe has cars and highways" could describe.