>

No. But roads are shared with other road users. I drive, but being alone in your own metal box (that costs a lot more to fuel and maintain), often in traffic and congestion. Isn't exactly great either. But I live somewhere (the UK) with mostly usable public transport and only got my first car last year at 30. As it just wasn't necessary and even now is mostly for going where our buses and trains don't.
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

Trains are really cool and efficient. No traffic, no driving, fewer emissions, and cheaper too!
I wish we had more trains here. The autistic kids had the right idea obsessing over trains tbh. >

Trains themselves are alright, but what’s even cooler are huge train networks that help facilitate massive economic growth. >

Someone's been playing Victoria 3. >

Never heard of it, just find interesting the extreme value that trains provide for nation building >

Well I didn't say it was you lol. But yeah train networks and their impact on economic development are a feature of the game. >

Sounds cool may have to check it out >

I'm still waiting for flying cars. We were supposed to have them eight years ago. >

Have you seen how people drive cars that move in a two dimensional axis?  Add another dimension and watch chaos unfold. >

Just a few days ago wasn't there almost a collision between two planes? >

Yea but it was Texas, where their entire power grid collapses because it's cold and they prefer embezzlement to investing in infrastructure. >

AAAHHHH ... that makes sense. 
I feel like "but it was Texas" could be a new meme. its an explanation all in itself. >

The state apparatus version of "Florida man" >

I love our local passenger trains, I think they are going to build an offshoot 1/4 mile from my house, it should be pretty cool. >

Well it’s not just about the environment in terms of reducing emissions
Trains are more efficient so they end up increasing walking space which means the urban environment look more pleasant.
There’s videos about this comparing European cities vs average North American suburbs >

To say nothing of the economic benefits!  Not everybody can afford to own, fuel, and maintain a personal car, but train tickets are dirt cheap (and easy as balls to subsidize.)  Trains provide transportation for those who might not have it otherwise, they make it easier to travel for work and give people a much larger geographical patch in which they can look for employment.  
Edit: They make it easier to transport goods, which can help reduce raw material costs, while this would be minuscule at the retail level, the overall savings could add up significantly; if those savings are too presumptuous, there's also the undeniable economic savings to the average [checksnotes] human to be gained from reducing carbon emissions.  
Trains are the rare win/win/win: They're good for the environment, they're good for businesses, and they're good for workers.  Don't even get me started on national security, I'll talk your ear off, the civil war proved that trains are mandatory for a strong national defense itellyouwhat.  
Now if only so many Americans didn't believe in austerity politics.  /sigh >

Great. Now get me a ride to the train. The nearest city to me is 50 miles away. The nearest passenger train is... well, more than that. >

You can thank your government for that ! Thats not a thing in the rest of the world. You're the only country to take out tracks for trams in cities to make more room for cars. How stupid ! >

The vast majority of the States doesn't have the population density to make trains practical. We build out instead of building up. Thank local zoning for that. >

Is the east coast megalopolis dense enough ? Or what about California HSR. Or that other project in Florida. You have the Acela ""high speed"" line ( that averages 70mph by the way, which is just pitiful for a high speed clasification ) for over 50 million people. There are countries, with less than 50 million people, that have better rail, and those countries, bigger than the north east corridor, and with less population, still have good rail. Just start there, improve the Acela line, finish California HSR and I think you would have a great start. Nobody's saying that starting tomorrow every city has to have a station, clearly you cant do that. But you gotta start somewhere... . And also connect these systems between them. You dont have to have service every 10 minutes from Chattenoga to Earth, Texas, but something frpm New York to the west coast, that would be fantastic. And if you say thats not possible, Id like to draw your attention to the Trans-siberian, that is fully electrified, much longer than coast-to-coast service would be, and was built many years ago, by the Soviet Union. So peoe saying it cant be done admit not being able to do spmething the soviet union did decades ago. >

Umm, isn’t a plane kind of a flying train? Just got the one carriage mind you. >

It's more of a flying bus. And a Bus is not a "train on the road" It lacks any of the reasons trains are more efficient, though then Buses are still a lot efficient than cars. >

“Airbus” makes a lot more sense now >

I’m still waiting for a train. Idk what you guys are on about >

Flying cars are called "helicopters". They're even more dangerous, noisy, and expensive than cars, and no middle class person will ever be able to afford one.
But yes. TRAINS. >

It also doesn't help that more cars actually means less freedom. 
Before you could walk, bike, bus, train, car. Today (at least in many places in the US) you can take the car or go fuck yourself. >

I wish i got to experience flying pre 2000s todays security is stressful and adds so much time to the overall journey imagine how quick short haul flights were pre 9/11 >

I would be willing to bet if all the rail lines in Ontario Canada didn't get ripped up (and instead replaced/upgraded for passenger trains), the province would look vastly different today and a lot less people would choose to live in Toronto. >

I live in canada and if i want to get on a passenger train i need to drive 2 hours then stand on the tracks at 3 in the morning and pay $900 for a ticket >

Our quality of life has peaked, the next few decades we will see many basic things we take for granted become luxuries. >

might be right.   eventually it's going to be right.
i remember my parents telling me that in the early 1970s.
heck that was before we even had center a/c in our house. >

TBF we already have hover trains, we just want all the hover trains connected from africa to south America.
We also still want self driving drone-cars. >

Huh? I don't think that's the case at all, regarding the kids in 2020s part. >

I really wish we go back to trains and bikes, I refuse to learn to drive or buy a car >

I don’t understand this obsession with trains. I prefer the privacy and convince of my own car
Eating less meat would do much more for the environment than switching to trains >

Or here's a great idea - more trains AND eat less meat >

But trains suck >

So does eating less meat imo, but we need to do what we need to do >

We can barely drive cars when they are stuck on the ground and have to follow clearly painted lines >

I love trains too. They are and have always been my favourite mode of transport. Not just environment-wise, but theyre genuinely more enjoyable than anything else i ever tried. >

r/fuckcars for anybody who’s just now hopping on the trainwagon >

Trains increase freedom because they increase accessibility, not everyone can afford a card so making it essential to participate in society is ridiculous. >

Nah,  its just we make less than 50 years ago and the lure of cheap travel/commuting is a rail system and should have been in place by now. >

Cars are expensive. Roads are expensive to provide. The idea that cars give you freedom only exists if you assume that these things are free. A comprehensive frequent and reasonably fast public transport system gives freedom. Freedom from the cost of owning and running a car. Freedom to travel when you are not in a fit state to drive (too tired, had some drinks, medically unfit etc). >

Citation needed. It sounds like you've been smoking a lot of green ideas. >


Citation needed. It sounds like you've been smoking a lot of green ideas.

I'm just a humble neoliberal shill for easy, affordable, environmentally friendly  transportation for goods and individuals that allows business development and reduces barriers to entry for employment.  
Environmentalism 🤝 Capitalism
Loving trains  
But also yes I do smoke weed, thank you for noticing! >

I’d also add the need for community. Trains allow us to talk to different people. >

Maybe this would be good in urban centers, but as someone who lives in a suburban place, car-centrism is absolutely what I want. >


Maybe this would be good in urban centers, but as someone who lives in a suburban place, car-centrism is absolutely what I want.

Well if we had flying cars....  
Okay, but more seriously now, the real world is going to require a shades of gray answer.  If you live in the United States then there are places that a train just isn't convenient or necessarily helpful, like, when someone is out in East Bumblefuck Arkansas they don't need a high speed bullet train to get out to the corner store, if you live five minutes away from civilization in suburbia then a tram is overkill.  
But there are still middle grounds to be had.  Here in Maryland a lot of people live in the suburbs but commute to Washington, DC every day, they spend an hour in traffic in the morning and an hour in traffic at night; it's not ideal.  They live in the suburbs, they're still going to be driving their car to get groceries on the weekend, but a centralized rail system could shave a massive leg off their commute and let them ride share from there, get them out from behind the wheel, save them gas money, save them time in traffic, and get cars off the road.  
Just because trains won't replace your car doesn't mean there aren't benefits that you can still cash in on.  Trains can widen the scope of possible employment for you, they can widen the scope of recreation, they can pick up some of the slack for commuters and people who travel for work, and there are second order benefits too, but I worry that I'm overselling the point.  
Plus, I mean, what's the insurance cost gonna' be like on a flying car? >

Yeah, but trains also limit your freedom and force you to submit to a time schedule. >

This is the dumbest argument I see people keep making.
People who advocate for walkability, bike infrastructure, and public transit are not advocating for any of those to be the only transportation mode. They are advocating for them as viable options in a broader transportation network.
Maybe you need to drive a car to work. That’s fine. But maybe you don’t need a car to go everywhere else. I lived for awhile in a dense urban area and I was able to walk to the grocery store, park, and gym; take a train to the airport; and drive my car to visit family in the next town. If I had lived in a suburb, I’d have had no option but to drive everywhere, for everything, every time.
Limiting my transportation choices to “own a car or get fucked” does not strike me as particularly liberating. Yes, I can choose when I want to go somewhere, but I don’t get to choose how I get there. That is, more or less by definition, a limitation of my freedom. >

I think what informs our perspectives is our exposure to these concepts. I have never lived somewhere where mass public trans. was ever viable or popular.
For me, the idea of choosing anything other than a car seems irrelevant. Of course, that doesn't mean it actually is, but we just have different ingrained understandings. >

I was born in a car centric country but where I live now trains are twice as fast as cars for long distances while being cheaper. Having these possibilities definitely makes you rethink mobility >

I've never heard anyone say "I can't wait to have a train" or anything like that.
Ever. >

I'm 23 and live in the US and public transit, high-speed trains, and a general shift away from car-centricism are very popular topics among all of my friends, and younger people I've seen on the internet >

I'll keep my 1974 vw bug bc I know I'll die before her. I trust it. >

Sir, this is an entrance line for monorails to Disney's Magic Kingdom >

Trains never went away, its a daily occurance, so I can't feel the same as you. Theyre very good and practical. Flying cars arent, so they never became a thing. Meanwhile trains persisted throuought the decades. >

I'm confused, what do you mean "people look forward to having trains"? Trains exist and pretty widely used, am I missing something? >

Trains as the preferred transport. >

Ah I see. I guess living in a densely populated area makes me forget that trains aren't as frequently used as it feels. >

Eh, I kind of think all kids love trains. My son was a mid 2000s kid, and he was obsessed with trains. >

What kids are you talking to?  I've never heard this opinion of current youth.  My 16 year old is fixing up his Lancer GTS with plans to upgrade to an EVO in the next couple years. >

Not exactly in the 50s you could take a train a Greyhound bus driver right in a car and plane fares are very expensive most kids in the 50s never ever thought of a flying car 1960 had the Jetsons it was like the year 2050, in the '50s and 60s and '70s there are no cell phones mostly and nobody was texting while driving they had a radio am an FM the fancy ones that fax it fancier FM radios I'm from that era. Kids in the 2020s is you imply are not looking forward to taking a train they want to get in their car and text and drive then you want to walk only like 20 feet from their house to take a train and sort of a big involved process for for commuting and or for traveling I can meet in the Burlington Northern Santa Fe since about 1987 mostly all those years look until it hit it's like a three and a half hour daily commute round trip to go to downtown Chicago.
I'm retired now I think I need a nap >

Trains are nice and all but I think most kids still look forward to having a dream car. >


Trains are nice and all but I think most kids still look forward to having a dream car.

Does their dream car fly?  If not, my premise stands. >

It looks pretty fly >

Yes, the ultimate goal of the leftist loonies is the abolition of private transportation in the name of the environment >


Yes, the ultimate goal of the leftist loonies is the abolition of private transportation in the name of the environment

You're kind of burying the lede there; the ultimate goal of a lot of leftist loonies isn't the abolition of private transportation, it's protecting the environment. 
I don't know your specific definition of leftist, most of the time I don't even know what leftist's definitions of leftist is, but I call myself a liberal.  My biggest gripes with cars are the pollution they create, when the day comes that we transition to EVs or something else it won't be as big a deal, and when we transition to cleaner electricity it'll be an even smaller deal.  It's not the car that I care about, I fucking love driving, it's the climate I care about.  
There are a lot of reasons to like trains, there are a lot of reasons to dislike cars, but caring about the environment is usually the precursor to caring about public and private transportation.   
Right now, in the present moment, one of the best things we can do to reduce carbon emissions is to get as many cars off the road as possible.  Public transportation like rail lines give people an alternative, an additional option, it allows them to reduce their carbon footprint if they choose to, but it doesn't prohibit them from driving if they want to.  The other way to change a behavior, besides giving people an equal or better alternative, is to make it untenable; in this case we could also dramatically raise gas taxes to prevent people from driving, outlaw cars that don't meet minimum mileage requirements, and maybe create new taxes specifically for people who drive internal combustion engines.  Public transportation is better. >

Technically the ultimate goal of the leftist loonies is the death of most of humanity in the name of protecting the environment >

I mean, the ultimate goal of every conservative is the death of most of humanity in the name of not having to mildly inconvenience themselves, so... >

Global warming is a hoax, so... >

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You'll convince yourself that the entire scientific community is lying to you just because the alternative would mean admitting you aren't perfect. Truly there is no creature more narcissistic than the conservative. >

Lol >

Tell me, what's it like being such a petulant manchild that "owning the libs" is your entire personality? >

Haha it's not I actually understand that people have been brainwashed for generations and just want to wake people up to the truth >

Well, the truth is that change is inevitable. It doesn't matter how hard you stamp your feet or how loud you scream, you will never be able to keep things the same forever. Either we adapt, or we die. >

I HATE trains…
In fact scratch that. I hate all shared modes of transportation, tf do I wanna be stuck in a box with a bunch of strangers for lmao. 
And then it doesn’t even go directly to your destination, you have to get off at a stop and then find ANOTHER mode of transportation to get to your destination. Waste of time 😂 >


I hate all shared modes of transportation

Planet Earth had never heard such bullshit before. >

My opinion on public transport is a lie? 😂