Yes, a lot of images and thumbnails have been lost. They are not recoverable. More notices likely in coming weeks.


[42 / 5 / ?]

Buses are a better option than trains for the USA

No.1737386 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Inspired by a recent Grayhound thread.

Facts:
1. The US has a very well funded interstate highway system.
2. It also has rail, but in most of the country, this infrastructure isn't set up for use by passenger trains.
3. For passenger trains, the demand on most routes is fairly low (though it was rising pre-COVID). This partly explains why most lines outside the N.E.C. run at a deficit.
4. The US wants to increase access to public transportation.

Being that these things are all true, since public funds are limited, I posit that those funds currently aimed at passenger trains should instead be spent on buses.

The spending of funds on buses would offer a lot of benefits over trains:
1. Near immediate results. Buses and bus depots could be set up in under a year.
3. No need to aquire new and expensive ROWs.
4. The cost performance value is higher; buses are cheaper than trains since the highway system is overbuilt.
5. More services provided to more individuals. Because the cost performance value is higher and there is no need to aquire new ROWs, service could exist between more locations than what is possible with even a well-funded train system.
6. More competition than with trains. Most passenger rail lines are run by only Amtrak. Buses, if subsidized, could be run by multiple operators on different classes (economy to luxury).

I am posting this because I am living in Taiwan, and although we have a robust train system here, the bus system is also badass. Americans are afraid of Grayhound because it sucks. Buses do not need to suck and can and should be a viable form of mass transportation, especially in a country like America which has absolutely abysmal train service.