ajsadauskas, 9 months ago

@betwixthewires Cars faster than trains? If that's the case in your country, then you have a serious underinvestment in rail.

(Seriously, even V/Line trains in Victoria go faster than the 100 KP/h speed limit, and by world standards V/Line ain't a great train service.)

What happened in the US, Australia, and Canada was a massive investment in rural highway infrastructure by national and state/provincial governments after World War 2.

In the US, that was Eisenhower's Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

In Australia, it was Gough Whitlam's National Roads Act of 1974: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_(Australia)

Many towns in the rural western US were railway towns. They were quite literally built around a train station.

But after WW2, the US spent the equivalent of US$193 billion (adjusted for inflation) in just 10 years building new interstate highways.

At the same time, the extensive already-existing network of rural railways saw service cuts, was run down, and had privately-owned lines become freight-only.

Again, similar story in the other former British colonies.

That was a choice by government. And the result of that choice is many people in those railway towns responded by buying a car.

It didn't have to be that way.

In many parts of Europe and Asia, where leaders have invested in rail, you can live quite comfortably in many small towns without a car.