Tell us something we don’t know.

[WinterDeere]

But Ford paid for the cup holders.

Ford didn't get free advertising, what Ford paid for was taken from them.

I assume all contracts pertaining to those cupholders were the rental variety, rather than a lifetime purchase. They may have been only agreed to rent that advertising space.

 

[orezok]

 

[orezok]

 

[orezok]

 

[orezok]

 

[orezok]

 

[WinterDeere]

View attachment 862695

I see people mentioning how much better rail travel is in Europe than the USA, or creating images like this, but it's really ignoring the basic facts:

1. USA has more miles of railroad track than any other country in the world. Period.
2. The closest European country would be Germany, who has only 18% of our track (40,625 vs. 220,044 km).
3. USA even has more miles of track per capita than major European countries. For example, Germany has 488 km of track for each million residents, whereas USA has 667 km of track per million residents.
4. All of the European Union combined, still does not have as much railroad track as the USA, roughly 202,000 km versus 220,000 km.
5. All developed countries, including Germany and the EU, are slowly dropping (not expanding) rail service. Our system has been cut in half from its peak of 440,000 km, and Germany has reduced theirs by 30% from their peak of 61,000 km. Why?

Jam 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound sack, and it looks like a lot, but it's still the same 10 pounds of crap.

 

[MossRoad]

Lay a map of the US over Europe

I see people mentioning how much better rail travel is in Europe than the USA, or creating images like this, but it's really ignoring the basic facts:

1. USA has more miles of railroad track than any other country in the world. Period.
2. The closest European country would be Germany, who has only 18% of our track (40,625 vs. 220,044 km).
3. USA even has more miles of track per capita than major European countries. For example, Germany has 488 km of track for each million residents, whereas USA has 667 km of track per million residents.
4. All of the European Union combined, still does not have as much railroad track as the USA, roughly 202,000 km versus 220,000 km.
5. All developed countries, including Germany and the EU, are slowly dropping (not expanding) rail service. Our system has been cut in half from its peak of 440,000 km, and Germany has reduced theirs by 30% from their peak of 61,000 km. Why?

Jam 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound sack, and it looks like a lot, but it's still the same 10 pounds of crap.

You're comparing two rail systems with greatly opposite goals.

1. Freight-to-Passenger Ratio​

What really sets these two rail networks apart are the shares of their respective freight and passenger transportation markets. North American railways handle about 84% freight cargo and only 16% passengers, while the European Union's railways are almost exactly the inverse at 80% passengers and 20% freight. This difference in focus is primarily due to their opposing historical priorities: American railways were built to move goods across a vast country with a sparse population, whereas European railways were mostly created to move large amounts of people between densely populated cities. To learn more, check out our recent article on the history of short line railroads in America.

Rest of article here:

6 Key Differences Between American and European Rail Systems

When it comes to American trains vs. European trains, there are 6 main factors that help make each one stand apart: their freight-to-passenger ratio, funding, rail infrastructure, train designs, operating procedures, and government regulations. In this ar

www.floridarail.com

 

[WinterDeere]

You're comparing two rail systems with greatly opposite goals.

Fair point, but also with good cause. I spent 15 years commuting via regional rail here in the USA, and have also used quite a bit of the high-speed rail for working and traveling in Europe. They have a better concentration on passenger rail, because it's a more feasible solution for their short distances between high-density population centers.

We have suburban sprawl, which has started happening in some European countries as well, but they've more historically kept better focus on zoning that prevents this. Rail works great in urban areas or for moving between urban areas across vast expanses of rural, but it does not work for suburbia.

Painting with a very broad brush, we have two costs dominated by "suburbia", with a huge swath down the middle of population density too low to make passenger rail profitable.

 

[LouNY]

Fair point, but also with good cause. I spent 15 years commuting via regional rail here in the USA, and have also used quite a bit of the high-speed rail for working and traveling in Europe. They have a better concentration on passenger rail, because it's a more feasible solution for their short distances between high-density population centers.

We have suburban sprawl, which has started happening in some European countries as well, but they've more historically kept better focus on zoning that prevents this. Rail works great in urban areas or for moving between urban areas across vast expanses of rural, but it does not work for suburbia.

Painting with a very broad brush, we have two costs dominated by "suburbia", with a huge swath down the middle of population density too low to make passenger rail profitable.

I would say that we certainly have different views on ZONING.
Keeping "better focus" that sounds more like even more government intrusion of private property rights.
We have way too much of that in this country already in most areas.
I would agree that "suburbia" has crept way to far out into the country and it continues to as it also continues to ruin the county that so many want to move to.
Then as soon as they move they have to screw it up to be more like what they left