The magic of through running

Overall reaction to the article

• Some readers found the piece pleasant but “zero‑calorie” — trivia-heavy without real insight or “magic.”
• Others, especially Londoners, related strongly to Thameslink / Crossrail examples and appreciated the historical framing.

Elon Musk and “great man” transit fantasies

• One thread imagines the impact if Musk had focused on mass transit instead of cars and tunnels.
• Multiple replies argue this is pointless speculation and that Musk’s Hyperloop/Boring efforts contributed little (or were even a distraction from real rail).
• Counterpoints stress he has successfully realized other “big ideas” (rockets, EVs), so dismissing him as incompetent is also wrong.
• Several commenters push back on the idea of relying on one billionaire at all; transit should be systemic and political, not personal.

City case studies and through-running projects

• London: Thameslink and the Elizabeth line are held up as transformative; people love the feeling of a “proper train” slicing across the entire city. Crossrail 2’s absence from the article is noted.
• Munich: Split views. Some praise the S‑Bahn concept and car‑free life; others complain about the single central trunk’s fragility and weekend disruptions. The second trunk line (Zweite Stammstrecke) should add capacity but may worsen transfers with deep vertical circulation.
• Other cities mentioned:
  • Tokyo as the “next level” of through-running with multiple private operators interlining seamlessly, especially airport links.
  • Sydney/Melbourne use central loops instead of pure through-running; Melbourne’s new tunnel will shift more lines to through service.
  • Auckland, Brussels, Boston, Prague and Kassel are cited as in-progress or historic examples, often highlighting high costs and complex geology or politics.

Cars, class, and urban form

• One strong thread argues cars enabled lower- and middle-class homeownership far from jobs by turning long distances into manageable commutes.
• Many rebut that:
  • Good rail can achieve the same or better (examples from Stockholm, Paris, French high-speed commutes).
  • Widespread car use creates congestion, so the “30 miles in 30 minutes” benefit collapses when everyone drives.
  • Externalities (pollution, road danger, sprawl) disproportionately harm poorer residents, who often own fewer cars yet live near busy roads.
• Some claim elites want the poor on transit so roads are free for the rich; others counter that in healthy systems even affluent people prefer transit if it’s clean, safe, and frequent, with anti‑social behavior enforced against.

US governance, politics, and underbuilt rail

• Commenters note many US cities became large after the 19th‑century rail boom, so adapting rights-of-way is more political than physical.
• Fragmented agencies, two‑party gridlock, and transit-as-welfare attitudes undermine robust investment and through-running (examples: NY Penn, Philly, Boston, Bay Area systems).
• In places like New York, capital spending is portrayed as patronage for unions/contractors more than rider-focused; fare enforcement is often lax, contributing to a sense of disorder.

Costs, modes, and alternatives

• One commenter proposes dedicated “transit roads” with platooned electric buses as a cheaper, flexible alternative to heavy rail.
• Others challenge their cost numbers, emphasize capacity per corridor rather than cost per mile, and argue rail’s skills gap and politics explain high US costs.
• Guided busways and similar schemes exist but are said to struggle with throughput versus rail in dense cores.

Ticketing and user experience

• Integrated ticketing is highlighted as crucial: UK cities outside London often require multiple tickets across modes, discouraging optimal multimodal trips.
• Examples like Santiago’s time-based card with cheap transfers are praised as making through‑style movement much more practical.