> Poor argument for underfunded and purposefully stymied train development in the early to mid 20th century.
If I had a working time machine, plus a magic want to make people do what I want, that might be a good argument. I don't have either, though. The world (or at least country) we live in didn't do that, and the mid-20th century was quite a while ago. Now what? Even if funding for rail magically cranked up today, we won't have ride-able lines for a decade, at best. Meanwhile, I've got places to go tomorrow, and rail isn't a realistic option.
> Just look to Europe for what a large swath of the US could have if it invested in train infrastructure.
Out in my part of the country, we don't have anything like Europe's population density. Your "could have had" would be very uneconomical out here.
> Train good, car bad.
Spare us the thought-terminating cliches, especially when they're wrong. Your post isn't convincing, but this parting shot doesn't make it any better. It just makes you sound like you're a propagandist.
If I had a working time machine, plus a magic want to make people do what I want, that might be a good argument. I don't have either, though. The world (or at least country) we live in didn't do that, and the mid-20th century was quite a while ago. Now what? Even if funding for rail magically cranked up today, we won't have ride-able lines for a decade, at best. Meanwhile, I've got places to go tomorrow, and rail isn't a realistic option.
> Just look to Europe for what a large swath of the US could have if it invested in train infrastructure.
Out in my part of the country, we don't have anything like Europe's population density. Your "could have had" would be very uneconomical out here.
> Train good, car bad.
Spare us the thought-terminating cliches, especially when they're wrong. Your post isn't convincing, but this parting shot doesn't make it any better. It just makes you sound like you're a propagandist.