I mean, does the population density in the US support bullet trains? I know that both Japan & China for example have large population density within each city (whether you live in Osaka heading for Kobe or from Shanghai to Beijing, you get the picture) plus the governments of both countries invest heavily on the infrastructure including maintenance.

Distance is another factor between destinations, like from Nagoya to Kyoto it’s only 130km (80mi) and the commute by bullet train is 33 minutes while from New York to DC it’s 226mi taking you 4 hours by car but via bullet train, the commute time is less than it would be from driving alone. The cities in Japan are closer to each other by comparison.

China is a large country (not big as let’s say like Russia in terms of land size) alongside varying topography and climates (they can still install tracks in uneven terrain but adjusting how they are installed), although their population is larger than the US (they have about more than 1.4 billion people as a country while the US is about 348 million).

The taxes work differently across countries, like in both Japan & China: they have the funds gathered from taxation allowing them to maintain constant upkeep or make further improvements. Well, what does the US government spend their taxes on? That in itself also lies the question whether the taxes citizens are already paying are worth it.

Taxes exist in all countries regardless, as governments need funding to maintain and improve infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, etc. The real question is: how is the government using that money? For example, in Japan the reason why public transport is considered reliable is due to their government using people’s taxes for upkeep & bullet trains.

  • gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org
    6·
    1 day ago

    the situation in the US is multi-layered.

    • for one, china has bullet trains but whether they’re economical is a whole other question. china often does things just to provide jobs to people, so it doesn’t have to pay off. i’m not sure whether it actually does pay off economically but in the US these things are probably looked at more profit-oriented.
    • in the US you have a very strong car lobby which in turn is backed by fossil fuel lobby. why do you have such a strong fossil fuel lobby? because historically, it was the only significant source of power (apart nuclear which was shunned for other reasons) so obviously they’re a natural monopoly. this is changing today but only slowly.
    • cars provide individualism and more “GDP per person”. why? because it is more expensive to make 1 car for everyone than to make enough trains for the whole area. because if more people own private stuff, obviously they pay car companies more, which make car company shares go up more and also pays wages to the car factory workers. this is politically more popular than go for the less-expensive public-transport in cities+suburb option.
    • also “individual freedom” (rugged individualism) is a american core value due to the political ideology that was brought over from the english people back in 1618 (“nobody should be able to tell you what to do, and you don’t have to adhere to state-wide policies”). the consequence is, instead of everyone using 1 subway system, everyone “chooses” to own their own car.