Why Trains Suck in America

Trains in the US are widely prevalent! It's just that they're used for freight rather than passenger travel. The main driver behind this is the population density of the USA, cities are spaced too far apart to make passenger travel by train viable. Not coincidentally, the only area that does have significant passenger rail networks, the DC - Boston corridor, has population density similar to Western Europe. An interesting video on this topic: ▶ this video

I might be wrong but this seems like a very US-centric idea. For most of the developed world trains fill this need very well, while the US has had problems with their rail network for reasons partially based on geography, partially based on population density, and partially based on their own fault. I think this explains it pretty well: ▶ this video The solution is not aircraft, the solution is more and better trains. Or perhaps autonomous buses/trucks depending on how far out you look.

This is worth your 8 minutes of time. ▶ this video I love trains, but the economics of rail travel in the USA can't be overcome. Until robot trains.

Wendover Productions has a good video that explains this and many other reasons why trains suck in the US ▶ this video Spoiler: freight companies own most of the track

They have trains but all track is owned by freight train providers. Here's a good overview why. ▶ this video

High speed passenger rail doesn't work in the US because freight is prioritized over moving people. That's the short version at least. I found this video to be a pretty good walkthrough - ▶ this video

Wendover did a video on this a couple years ago. Basically saying why trains suck in America. And the reason is the same: freight gets priority because Amtrak does not own the track, freight companies do. ▶ this video

> This alone tells me you've never lived in a rural area in the US or relied on Amtrak. ad hominem You know absolutely nothing about me. I have lived in rural areas. I've never relied on Amtrak, but I've used it quite a bit. Most of what I was saying comes from facts out of people like Wenover Productions: ▶ this video This video doesn't go into the rural -> plane connection; can't find that one at the moment. But he has another video on it. But yes, people do use Amtrak for connecting to major airports from rural areas. > I'm sure it does. Now shift your gaze westwards, to North Dakota, Wyoming, eastern Montana .... I was not addressing any of those areas. At all. You built some argument I wasn't making. I never said trains would be good for those regions. I think if we did build good rails, those areas would get some service eventually. Australia has a similar situation (a region I have lived in btw). They only over 30M ~ 40M people. I have taken trains intercity and they are very touristy and not meant for general transport. But each capital city: Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne, Sydney ... they have train systems that would make any US capital be ashamed of itself. The only capitals without any rail are Hobart, ACT and Darwin. Australia has the infrastructure to accommodate high-speed intercity if they ever got around to implementing it. The United States does not and it has a much higher population density and much larger cities. American cities, CITIES (which I've been saying a l