[radicalbyte]

The Netherlands is a similar shape to the continental contiguous United States yet we have an excellent public transport system. Very good trains and every population has awesome cycling infrastructure.

The US could have all of this and more in their populated areas. They're the richest country in the world. Why is the infrastructure so neglected? It's clearly a choice.

[izacus]

US army can deploy air force, tankers, soldiers and all the logistics together with Burger King anywhere in the world within days and somehow people that pay for it still think a simple rail in their home turf is impossible.

[Conan_Kudo]

The question to ask is "who owns the rail lines?". That matters for having a good rail system. It's basically the same problem for why the US doesn't have fiber internet available everywhere, too.

[hirako2000]

Good parallel. An article recently explained how Switzerland has the fastest fibre optical network: all companies share the same cabling. Dig once. No need to hook the property or do anything when switching provider.

[mitthrowaway2]

For new rail at least, whoever wants to build them gets to own them, right?

I think what it comes down to is that if automobile companies had to build and maintain the roads, we certainly wouldn't have so many cars. But railway companies need to build the train lines, while competing with taxpayer funded automobile infrastructure. It's not impossible (see Japan) but also not easy.

[Conan_Kudo]

It's rarely that simple. The question has to be asked "who owns the land?" because usually the rail lines get to belong to who owns the land, even if someone else builds them.

The interstate automobile road system got built through judicious use of eminent domain. That avoided all of these issues. Amtrak doesn't have the ability to do that.

[DeathArrow]

Isn't Netherlands trying to deter from car use by laws and taxes and at the same time funneling public money into railroads and bike infrastructure?

>The US could have all of this and more in their populated areas.

Probably people in US have other priorities and that means there are other public policies.

[CalRobert]

I dunno, centre right national governments in recent years have been pretty car friendly. Driving can be cheaper for family outings. For two adults and two teens to go from Utrecht to Amsterdam and back (26 minutes each way) is €48 (with discount if you buy a flex pass monthly) or €80 without a discount. Suddenly driving is pretty competitive

[kelnos]

That ignores the ongoing costs of car ownership: parking/storage, maintenance, and the purchase price itself. Driving costs a lot more than just fuel and tolls.

[CalRobert]

Oh I know, and that's part of why this family doesn't own a car, but 1) a lot of people are not great at calculating those costs and 2) some of the costs are sunk costs.

Even so, the sticker shock of some trips on Dutch trains is unsettling. Utrecht to Rotterdam is €27.60 round trip (if using undiscounted fare). It's ~112 km (again, round trip). So for the same family you're looking at over €100 to go on a pretty minor journey.

I just want the Dutch government to fund trains more and roads less. It's kinda bizarre how there's no motorway tolls here, at least that I've encountered.

[radicalbyte]

Our car infrastructure receives more subsidy than our train and cycling infrastructure combined. There has actually been some discussion of this in some circles because, given the large environmental and social costs we shouldn't be subsidising cars at all and should be putting it all into public transport.

(we have two cars and five bikes, not counting the kids, and rarely use public transport, but I'd be behind that - as maybe then my town would get a tram system)