966
Anon likes trains
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
966 points (100.0% liked)
Greentext
7037 readers
193 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rail doesn't work to solve most transit issues. I say this as someone in the area of NJTransit. I know why SEPTA is able to cut 45% of their train service - it doesn't do the job.We just need a lot more buses, nationwide.
I really don't think you should use a neglected regional US train system as a measure of the potential of trains.
(I edited this comment for brevity)
Trains are faster and more efficient than buses.
You don't need buses outside of low traffic areas.
Wow, I disagree with everything you said, that's amazing!
Buses suck, nobody wants to ride them because they're slow. Buses work well as last mile transit to get to and from trains, but they're poor as a transit backbone. If you only have buses, only the poor will take them since most vastly prefer driving to riding the bus, whereas trains actually attract people who would otherwise drive.
The ideal is to have a good commuter rail line, a few light rail lines that connects to the commuter line, and bus lines that go wherever the light rail doesn't. If the city is designed well, cut out a lot of the buses and put the main destinations near the rail lines, connected by good walking infrastructure.