[davidgay]

This is an extremely simplistic view. For instance, the US moves more of its freight (by percentage) than all western European countries except Switzerland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...

[troupo]

Passengers are not freight. And freight is one of the reasons US railways suck for passengers.

[xnx]

Moving people by train in the US makes about as much sense as delivering pizzas by barge.

[troupo]

Because the US is soooooo exceptional, right? And yet the moment you provide actual proper train connections the lines are successful and profitable (see e.g. Northeast Corridor.

[llbbdd]

Is that profitability calculated before or after billions in federal funding?

[troupo]

Have you calculated profitability of vehicles after government has funded all the infrastructure for them?

[llbbdd]

No, but I was pointing out that profitability isn't a very useful metric for selling the benefits of either mode. Otherwise the counterargument would be that transit in the rest of the US outside the Northeast Corridor makes it the exception to the rule.

In any case, what vehicle infrastructure does the government fund today that goes away if you expand rail service? I still need to get to my house, and I don't want to live anywhere near a public transit station. Is the pitch that we get rid of the highway system entirely and make all intercity travel rail or plane?

[Der_Einzige]

Freight is better. Passengers don’t belong on trains.

[troupo]

Tell it to Northeast Corridor. Or Japan.

[insane_dreamer]

We're talking here about passenger rail, not freight rail. And when it comes to passenger rail, the US is terrible by the standards of other developed countries.