Anonymous #1 10w

Mostly just no respect for nature and supporting A LOT of displacement of low income people

-3

Anonymous OP 10w

I’m sorry the *anti-car* people are doing this?

11

Anonymous #1 10w

“The national park protection ends there just put up a rail right there” type of shit

-4

Anonymous OP 10w

I mean…it would take up far less space than a highway

11

Anonymous #1 10w

No There’s a reason why speed limits only go up to 45 near national parks And why there are emission and power use and noise pollution limits near them We are not risking damage to our natural beauty just so a couple of people can get between a couple cities faster and shit on the poor easier

-3

Anonymous OP 10w

Oh I actually wasn’t aware of that tbh. That’s pretty cool. In general though, highways have definitely displaced low income people much more than trains have. Most sane people aren’t arguing for putting them up right next to national parks. Just to expand public transit between major cities. The fact that in 2025 people still prefer to drive than take Amtrak on the northeast corridor baffles me

3

Anonymous #1 10w

I mean to be fair in most cases u need to drive to get to a train station if u don’t live in the middle of a major city anyways so at that point its a case of might as well drive

-3

Anonymous OP 10w

Are you insane. It is not the same at all. That’s like saying why fly when you have to drive to the airport anyway

5

Anonymous OP 10w

As someone that lives like 10 min from a train station, ik people who make every excuse to not take the train. If it was over an hour away it would be a different story

7

Anonymous #2 10w

How short of a flight are u taking… If im flying it’s to save multiple days travel I can’t think of a case where im willing to drive an hour to the train station to sit in a train for 7 hours when I could just drive for 6 hours to get to the same spot

-3

Anonymous OP 10w

The second busiest flight path in the world is LAX-SFO. Which is about 6 hours. Currently you can get there via train/bus in like 10. Once CAs high speed rail is finished it’ll take 3. No TSA, plus stops in between, plus it gets you to a place more accessible to public transit

6

Anonymous OP 10w

As an example

1

Anonymous #2 10w

WAS-BOS gets millions of train riders a year, imagine them clogging up highways and airports instead. As another example

5

Anonymous #2 10w

Well yeah that’s west coast which is largely defined on their culture of spending money and their government trying to make their lives shit at every turn

-2

Anonymous OP 10w

lol a literal inb4 with my east coast example

4

Anonymous #2 10w

East coast example is an example of a hyper coastal thing working perfectly becuase it’s on the east coast and doesn’t fuck over swathes of national parks like a shocking amount of people want

-1

Anonymous OP 10w

Isn’t California’s regulatory hurdles all because of protecting the environment?

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Naw I mean California just sucks as a place to live because their government just hates the people I do like their environmental protections(at times (sometimes they do just FUCK up like crazy for no reason))

-2

Anonymous OP 10w

Nobody is building railroads through national parks lol. Here’s a Midwest example then too for you: the borealis route from Chicago to Milwaukee to the Twin Cities. Recently expanded service and ridership is up: 20,000 people take it every month. Definitely lessens congestion on the 50 flights a day end to end and also offers intermediate stops

3

Anonymous #2 10w

This post was inspired by people on Twitter getting so hyped about how much better the us would be if we just built a rail through the blue ridge mountains

-1

Anonymous #1 10w

Not necessarily, things like the California Environmental Quality Act are more likely to be used to block things like dense affordable housing than landfills

2

Anonymous OP 10w

Are you talking about a vintage tourist train because lol

4

Anonymous OP 10w

I have a feeling that was bait. Probably something like this

4

Anonymous #2 10w

No people were proposing a new high speed rail that would speed up travel between cities

-1

Anonymous OP 10w

Also trains over mountains aren’t that hard. Switzerland has plenty

4

Anonymous #1 10w

DIFFICULTY IS NOT AT ALL THE PROBLEM

0

Anonymous #2 10w

Ah ok, I thought the environmental laws were holding up CA rail construction too

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Yeah they are but not necessarily in a good way

1

Anonymous OP 10w

I’d love to see that proposal

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Wanted a straight line rail right here

-1

Anonymous OP 10w

I said I wanted to see a proposal, not your random scribble on google maps

3

Anonymous #2 10w

This is the proposal This image was their entire argument

-1

Anonymous OP 10w

Lmao yes high speed rail across an arbitrary 400 mile wide, 1000 mile long section area that includes the Appalachians, Chesapeake bay, New York harbor, Long Island sound. Very serious proposal

3

Anonymous OP 10w

There are two national parks in that whole area you circled but sure they’ll ram it right through both

4

Anonymous #2 10w

35k likes on the post… Thousands of comments defending it saying it’s a failure of the government that we don’t have a rail here yet

-2

Anonymous OP 10w

According to your scribble they are going to end the high speed rail line 100 miles of the coast of Massachusetts

4

Anonymous OP 10w

Fuck maybe even Maine it’s so lacking in any sort of detail or planning

3

Anonymous #2 10w

I’m more so complaining about said thousands of people in the comments taking it fully seriously and saying that we should just build a rail through national parks since it’s better than cars Op seems to have just forgot out of not caring and ignorance

-1

Anonymous OP 10w

A lack of high speed rail is a failure of government. More would be better for people and planet

1

Anonymous OP 10w

But once again where’s the link to the proposal

1

Anonymous #2 10w

https://x.com/nastrondscourge/status/1943426546863345948?s=46&t=fZZkjbbyVEOG2usBwVrKYQ

0

Anonymous OP 10w

Is there a username so I can find this tweet? There’s literally a major rail line along the top half of the area you circled 😭 just can’t go fast through some of those areas

2

Anonymous OP 10w

A rail in National parks like the blue ridge railway is absolutely better than cars. Nobody is proposing putting high speed rail through the middle of smoky mountains and Shenandoah

1

Anonymous OP 10w

A random Twitter post is not a proposal. And you still haven’t mentioned the borealis’ success

1

Anonymous #2 10w

SOOO many people in the comments are That’s most of my beef I am very pro public transport but the type of people the anti car movement breeds are just insufferable and ignorant

-1

Anonymous OP 10w

They clarified

5

Anonymous OP 10w

So the problem is your feelings got hurt by a random Twitter post?

5

Anonymous #1 10w

meanwhile 💀

6

Anonymous #1 10w

Easy answer, expand MARTA

5

Anonymous #1 10w

Also good responses to the OP

2

Anonymous #2 10w

Yeah I’m gonna be pissed people wanna destroy Appalachia Those mountains were my home for months and the people there just trying to live without the government forcefully relocating them and leaving a massive scar across their land

-2

Anonymous #2 10w

I think this would have to be an Amtrak-type thing, those cities are 144 mi apart. I doubt the Atlanta gov wants to be responsible for that whole thing. Or they could do it at the state level

5

Anonymous OP 10w

My guy this was a rough sketch and they even clarified it for you 😭

5

Anonymous OP 10w

Yes that is the evil liberal plan, to destroy Appalachia, you found us out

6

Anonymous OP 10w

Even if they ran it right through all of your cultural treasures, a few feet of ROW would have less impact than the strip mines and endless highways we build now

3

Anonymous #2 10w

Who tf said I wasn’t liberal When was the last time an at hiker was violently republican I don’t even think u can survive the trail if ur even mildly homophobic

-2

Anonymous OP 10w

Bro I have backpacked and camped all over this country high speed rail is not a threat to our natural areas it is a barrier against further development into it

5

Anonymous OP 10w

And where tf did homophobia come from lol I’m bi

2

Anonymous #2 10w

Because if I was worried about “the liberals” I probably wouldn’t like living in a million places labeled “homophobia and transphobia not allowed in this house”

-2

Anonymous #1 10w

Amtrak usually partners with states. So the very successful borealis line that OP will not comment on is paid partly by the federal government and partly by Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota

4

Anonymous #2 10w

All dem governors I should mention

4

Anonymous #2 10w

I did comment on it I said that was a good thing because it was in a less populated non national park or mountainous area on the east coast that was able to greatly reduce pollution

0

Anonymous #2 10w

Pretty sure OP is baiting atp, bro thinks a tweet from a random person of a scribble over a map is a proposal to destroy people’s homes 😭

4

Anonymous OP 10w

And high speed rail is the reason I’ve been homophobically attacked multiple times? lol

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I’m sure too lol I’m just autistic and love trains. And want to provide a perspective that refutes OP

3

Anonymous #1 10w

The lack of further comments proves your point

2

Anonymous OP 10w

you are the one arguing it would have to go through the parks. like others have said, the area you circled is hundreds of miles wide, it can very easily avoid the Blue Ridge Mountains.

7

Anonymous OP 10w

dude… one rail line is not going to destroy the thousands of square miles of Appalachia. and i hate to break it to you… but past and present coal mining is infinitely more a scar on the land in Appalachia. “were my home for months” lmao

5