The Brightline in Florida exists, as does the Acela on the East Coast. These things are entirely possible in the US, we just don't seem to want them enough.
Suppose in some hypothetical future, we can take the (expensive) train to our destination in Somewhere, USA, and it drops us off.
So there we are, at a train station in Somewhere, USA.
What happens next? A bus? Light rail? Uber/Lyft/taxi? A friend who has time to show up? Renting a car? What's our next move? (Lots of destinations don't have much for local public transport.)
For contrast: When I drive myself to Somewhere, I've still got my car to use after I get there. I can go anywhere I want to go, at any time I choose to do so, and I can bring as much stuff and as many people as suits me without much additional cost.
I don't have to wait around for a train. I don't have to deal with checking luggage, or retrieving luggage. I can just pop into town -- with my car -- and set forth to do whatever I want. The bags can ride along with me until I get to wherever it is that I'm crashing for the night and until then, they don't present any particular burden at all.
I might have been better-rested if I took the hypothetical train, but getting dropped off at a train station isn't a very complete solution.
Those places are comfortable with subpar transit conditions. There's nothing actually individually desirable about taking the train compared to having a private car take you directly between points A and B, people just seem to shy away from admitting that in favor of pro-social signaling in support of public transit.
Ah yeah, the subpar conditions of ... not being dependent on the car for 100% of your life. The subpar conditions of ... not having to spend hours driving on the highway. The subpar conditions of ... having a choice.
I wonder if there are psychological studies on why Americans en masse cannot even perceive the idea of there being other transportation options than cars and (to a lesser extent) planes. Even though in the rare cases when someone manages to provide a well-planned alternative Americans do use it, see Northeast Corridor (2200 trains a day, 15 million passengers a year, 14% of intercity traffic, replacing most air travel between some of the cities).
---
Note: it's both funny and sad reading about the state of anything in the US that keeps pretending it's not a third-world country.
For example, Empire Corridor, passenger rail corridor in New York State running between Penn Station in New York and Niagara Falls: "In the 1890s, the Empire State Express between New York City and Buffalo was about 1 hour faster than Amtrak's service in 2013." (Wikipedia)
This is in a thread about self-driving cars - spending hours on a highway vs a train makes no difference to me if I'm not steering, except that I'm not packed in with the public, which I don't want.
I wonder if there are psychological studies on why non-Americans cannot perceive why trains are genuinely an undesirable solution in the US looking forward in 2026. America could have trains if it wanted to; we don't because they aren't actually a forward-looking solution to transit in the US given all other constraints, such as having spacious homes instead of being packed in like sardines like all the "first-world" examples of public mass transit.
I guess you've never ridden on the Shinkansen or anywhere in Switzerland. I'd much rather take those trains than do the equivalent drives, especially if I'm the one behind the wheel.
In this thread I'm assuming I'm not behind the wheel. I don't own a car and I don't like driving, I take taxis and rideshare everywhere that a plane can't.
> What happens next? A bus? Light rail? Uber/Lyft/taxi? A friend who has time to show up? Renting a car? What's our next move? (Lots of destinations don't have much for local public transport.)
You're saying all this as if this exact scenario isn't solved in plenty of places across the world? You take the bus or tram or metro or cycle or just walk if it's close enough. If the city is actually built with public transport in mind, not just a single bus line that runs every 2 hours bolted on as an afterthought, those options can be easier and faster than finding a parking spot, unless you feel entitled to park your vehicle anywhere you please to the detriment of everyone who isn't you.
Where I live in the Netherlands it's faster to bike most places than driving, because we don't solely cater to drivers and don't devote half the city to letting people store their cars. Even up North in the villages you can still get around by bike, since cycling lanes are dead cheap to build and maintain and can go down in the middle of a swamp if you needed to.
> When I drive myself to Somewhere, I've still got my car to use after I get there.
Sure, and when I cycle to Somewhere, I've still got my bike. Same logic, except I can lock it to a post and forget about it rather than needing to find a dedicated slab of real estate specifically reserved for my vehicle's existence. And if I took the train, I can rent a bike when I get there, which is a thing that exists in basically every city that actually invested in making it work.
> I can go anywhere I want to go, at any time I choose
That only holds true because decades of car-centric design have made it so. In the Netherlands you couldn't just go anywhere you wanted by car, because there are plenty of streets and whole areas where cars flat out aren't allowed, because we actually prioritize the people who have to live with those infrastructural choices over random passersby who don't want to be "inconvenienced" by having to walk 5 minutes or share the road with someone who isn't also in a car.
If the US bothered to build out the infrastructure, you could go anywhere you wanted to go via public transport as well.
What happens in your scenario if you can't find parking anywhere near your destination and the only option is lugging your bags along roads that weren't built for pedestrians? I know I've been in similar situations in the past where I had to drive around for fucking ages trying to find a single spot, I definitely would've preferred walking than that whole circus.
> I might have been better-rested if I took the hypothetical train, but getting dropped off at a train station isn't a very complete solution.
Right, in a country that gutted its public transit and zoned everything to be car-dependent, a train station by itself isn't a complete solution. That's a policy failure, not an argument against trains.
> If the US bothered to build out the infrastructure, you could go anywhere you wanted to go via public transport as well.
Public transit != mass transit. There's no reason that self-driving vehicle fleets can't be municipally subsidized and provide a dramatically better private experience than any mass transit anywhere in the world, and we already have the infrastructure for it.
See above comment, why does the number of vehicles matter? I've left stadium events via taxi and ride-share, often there is a queueing area where cars pull up, you get in and leave. It's like a train that takes you home.
Let's say you go to a concert or similar event where there's potentially thousands of people leaving at the same time. How many robotaxis do you need to carry the same amount of people as a single train carriage is capable of carrying? 200? 300? What about what an entire train, with multiple carriages, could carry?
Also why on earth would I want the gov't paying fucking Google for their robotaxis, rather than having them put that money into public transport which serves everyone else and not just the pockets of some silicone valley douchebags?
Sure, 200 or 300, why not? I've been to events of this size and left them in taxis or rideshare. Automatic demand allocation + wage surging systems at companies like Uber funnel drivers to the events and people leave. Presumably that allocation only gets smarter when the cars all drive themselves. Trains would still have the last mile problem here, the main difference would be spacing out the congestion potentially to different remote hubs.
This misses a couple things:
- As an individual going between destinations, my mind is on my travel and not focused on the externalities of how optimal or efficient the transport is for other people. The fact that a train can fit more people is a downside, because being packed in with the public while trying to travel is not actually desirable. This is why even trains charge for expensive private rooms.
- Whether a private company or Google provides it is immaterial to this as well: I'm not chasing after Google trying to pay them, it is just literally more desirable to travel alone and privately whoever is providing it. I have no problem if the government wants to build its own robotaxi fleet, maybe it'd be better, maybe worse, let God sort them out. I'd use the one that has better service and fits my budget.
Seemingly very rare that anyone argues for public transit expansion based on any of the following:
- They like being in a box with strangers for a long duration, where bad behavior of just one individual becomes stressful and inescapable. You can increase funding for social services to reduce the number of homeless people responsible for this disruption, but you can't stop strangers from farting.
- They prefer the lesser convenience of having to plan 3+ legs of a trip instead of 1, e.g. having to walk to/from a transit station at both ends of the track.
Trains do some things better that matter to me as a rider: they are faster. They have food service and bathrooms. But "look how packed in we could be" is not an argument that's going to convince anyone who has a choice.