The funny part is large parts of the east coast have had rail for 150 years used for both passengers and freight, and now it's only used for freight because people would rather use cars. It wasn't some retarded conspiracy, it was basic human desire. As always it's a bunch of Europe obsessed Urbanist retards who have no idea about anything just taking romantic views of how they want life to be. No one would give a shit about trains in the slightest if they rolled back post 9/11 airport security measures. Not realizing if you replace airports with trains the exact same thing will happen to train travel as security increased with the increased rider user ship.
The other thing about train travel is that it was always more expensive. I think it was some pages back that someone pointed out a train ride isn't that much more expensive than it was 100 years ago accounting for inflation (well, there's also cost of living and other stuff to control for but...) and even in old movies, if someone was taking a train anywhere, the idea is that it's such a major event that they're functionally going to be gone-gone after that. It's not like a normal person could plunk down a nominal fee and catch the next one.
Also "but trains don't have TSA" is a bad argument because once it gains any sort of ground and someone snackbars on a crowded line, say hello to TSA agents on trains.
They have two compounding factors they don’t like to talk about - one is that as (especially) rail transit takes up, the roads clear up. There are tons of people who would drive to work if the drive was traffic-free but take the train because it’s easier than sitting in traffic.
The other is that transfers are a transit killer. Unless you have a new-York style subway system with absolute insane train density, everyone consciously or subconsciously realizes that each transfer is a chance to miss it and be delayed further. And unless you have an absolute simcity level of trains everywhere, busses almost always win in reducing the number of transfers, because they can go all over the place.
The general point isn’t terribly far off - the cost of ass transit is the smaller part of it. People have a hard time working out billions and trillions, so spend a bit more to make your transit not look like Fagass 9000™ if at all possible. And no, peppering your shit with George Floyd statues doesn’t count. (For example, the federal highway budget is about $110 per American, I’d gladly spend twice that a year to reduce nigger interactions.)
As far as the New York subway goes, most of that goes into
the payroll and benefits of the vast bureaucracy.
Furthermore, in most cities, from Los Angeles to Dallas, a lot of the train lines, especially in more urban areas and on roadways, tend to replace bus lines, which means that as far as reducing traffic goes is a zero-sum gain since buses already go everywhere. Now admittedly, all the information I'm about to share is pre-COVID, but DART (Dallas)'s most successful line is the original Red Line, which is built on a former freight railway and takes suburbanites to downtown/"city" destinations, and suburban stations feature parking lots. Despite promoting rail travel for people who wouldn't ordinarily take trains and creating a positive experience for trains, /r/fuckcars doesn't like this sort of set-up because of "muh suburbanites" and "muh parking lots".
Also, bringing up Moscow stations is a bad example because the far better example would be Washington DC. Washington DC has some great looking stations, and
formerly, some great-looking rolling stock but costs have ballooned upwards as conditions have deteriorated.
Besides, if they're going to go with the Moscow subway as an example, why not show some pictures inside the trains and compare that with the New York subway...