you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

I completely agree that "major cities" should have trains, but look at Alaska and tell me how many places would be remotely hospitable to trains or their tracks?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Switzerland and Japan too. Some places trains just can't work. You got a point I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    both of those places have way too many people so overcoming the geographic challenge makes sense

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    No, dude, I said you were right. Like THE mountains, just entirely in THE mountains. Or the mountainy islands? Doing trains there is silly and stupid And impractical. Just doesn't make sense some places.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Alaska has a really interesting rail system that was built during the gold rush specifically to get people into remote parts of the state that were otherwise almost completely inaccessible at the time.

    There's tons of remote villages that don't have trains still mind you, but my point is that if there's a will there's a way. Right now airlines and fuel are subsidized and encouraged by the govt to keep costs down, which relieves development demand for rail. Flip the incentives and rail could theoretically take off in the USA; but that requires politicians with stones and a will to do good instead of... Whatever they are right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Ironically, parts of Alaska have pretty decent passenger train access. It’s mostly for tourists, but still. Better than most of the USA.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Railroad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment