You must log in or register to comment.
Very true. A modernised, cheap train system would be wonderful… I live in Europe so I can’t complain that much but still, better collaboration across European borders would be amazing.
lmao ‘better collaboration across european borders’
I mean we should always be working towards more progress but the EU has been collaborating in a peaceful manner never seen before in human history, and to hold EU citizenship gives you privilege over pretty much the entire rest of the world. Public infrastructure is super advanced compared to shitholes like the US.
I mostly agree with your points, but improvements are always good, no? You sound weirdly aggressive about this. I’m also European btw.
I have a feeling they mean regarding rail specifically.
European rail sucks - but not nearly as much as rail elsewhere in the world. Better doesn’t mean good.
this is just the train version of the “you can’t criticize x because children are starving in Africa”
Username fits
Currently live in Portugal and the rail network sucks. Talk of a high speed link through Spain but Spain doesn’t want to play ball. Central Europe has great rail but move to the edges and it’s absolute ass. (Have lived in Germany and France where the situation is much better)
I like this because it paints us as the victims we are. Americans are not car-dependent by choice. We’re forced into it by the infrastructure designed by our corporate overlords.
I’m not a victim of car infrastructure, I’m a beneficiary of it. I’m glad we have roads I can drive on to get to stores and work and interesting venues for entertainment. I live in a nice rural area with woods surrounding my house. All this discussion about “car centric” everything seemingly assumes that city life is the only life from the start, and that’s not the case. I would never want to give up my awesome rural life for a stifling crowded city.
No one is really suggesting we get rid of cars for fully rural areas; it’s completely impractical, and the cost-benefit ratio is abysmal. It’s more about allowing people in cities and suburbs to experience what you already do; being able to go and walk around the area in which they live, have easily accessible green spaces, and unpolluted air to breathe.
This is something that can easily be accomplished without removing your ability to drive around your rural area; interfacing at railway stations or park and rides still allows access to urban spaces for car users.
Transit between distant rural areas could also be accommodated under a public transport system with car share schemes like co-wheels at either end.
It’s not about taking away people’s cars; it’s about making it so the majority of people don’t have to own one, so that we can have a more efficient, less polluting transport network.
no one is asking you to. at least I’m not, but the fact of the matter is people in cities are just that, people. people who deserve and are entitled to clean air and the ability to travel within their homes. obviously rural areas require a car because the infrastructure isn’t there for public transit and that’s okay. look at other countries with robust public transit, people in rural areas still have cars and roads to accommodate whereas people in cities can get anywhere they need to without the use of a private vehicle
Based and trainpilled
I loved when I lived in Japan. There was really no need for a car for the three years I lived there. I really wish we had a train system in the US
Fuck cars
I’m a simple man. I see Shinkansen, I upvote.
Back of the napkin math says 11 teslas are worse than a single diesel locomotive
I wonder if it’s worth it to build electric trains.
Most if not almost all trains are electric. At least in Europe.
I did not know that. That’s cool.
The German far distance trains (DB Fernverkehr) have 100% eco energy.
I know that because I have a job interview there tomorrow.
Care to explain? Is that based on electricity average generation, or manufacturing, or something else? Tesla chargers are often powered by renewables even if the surrounding grid is not
One of the most frustrating parts of this all being, of course, that buying a new electric car is still much worse for the environment than buying a used fuel vehicle.
It’s not that clear-cut. It is instantly worse for the environment but over the lifetime of the vehicle likely won’t be, especially considering the low price of wind and solar are making energy refills more environmentally friendly every day.
I charge my car at work. My work has nearly 1500 solar panels on the roof so I think my charging is about as friendly to the planet as I can get.
@mycatiskai @admiralteal yeah but electric vehicles still require the mining of rare metals to build their batteries and wide roads to accommodate all the traffic. Taking a bus or light rail would be better. #FuckCars
I absolutely agree electric cars are a band-aid on a seeping wound. Public transit is the answer, the highways should have to give over a lane to rail traffic. The routes and customers for the train are already there.
If you saw a train full of people blowing past the traffic you were stuck in, you would be on the train the next day.
Shoutout to Notjustbikes on YouTube for the fantastic content about transit systems.
@mycatiskai “f you saw a train full of people blowing past the traffic you were stuck in, you would be on the train the next day.”
You would think so, but the SF Bay Area proves that’s not how it works in the US. Even though the light rail is much faster at rush hour, many people still drive
Absolutely. Most (~70%)of the emissions over a combustion car’s lifetime are from operating it, with the remaining anount being from production and disposal.
As a counterpoint I’ll add that the greenness of an EV is totally dependent on the greenness of the energy grid that charges it. If you live somewhere were power generation is decarbonized, emissions from an EV will be an order of magnitude lower than a combustion car per mile. If you live somewhere with dirty power, for example much of the American midwest which is mostly coal powered, an EV can actually produce as much emissions as a gas vehicle, just because of the dirty energy source.
Overall though, grids are decarbonizing around the world (with few exceptions). So more EVs are better than fewer. Of course the best solution to a litany of problems (emissions, congestion, inequality, poor land use) is fewer cars overall.
No it’s not EVs are 60% less polluting than fuel vehicles, it’s irrelevant if you buy it used because it’s history is part of its impact.
The over arching problem is there’s too many vehicles on the road, most people including Americans when they drive only drive up to 3 miles.
The emissions are less for an ev within half a year to a year depending on your local energy mix https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM
I like trains.
I’m all for trains, but it’ll take decades to build out the infrastructure even if everyone was on board.
then we’d better get started!
That’s why we should start today.
✊ 🔥🚙🔥
I can’t say I agree. I could get by on public transportation but it would be a massive loss to my quality of life. Why would I support that?
I think the goal is to have public transport (where needed) to improve quality of life and to design cities/towns for people rather than cars. 15 minute cities, accessibility, walking paths, bike paths, etc. and public transport would be supplementary or for longer distances. There are some really good YouTube channels about urban design like Not Just Bikes and City Beautiful to name a couple that have some really great vids on the topic.
As someone who lives in a rural place with allergies I fully agree.
Yo you know of any good communities/magazines to subscribe to?
I wish lol. I just got here a few days ago, so I’m still trying to discover them.
I think it’s kind of foolish to assume humans will ever orginize in a fashion that makes 15 minute cities practical. Does your version of 15 minute cities include taxing people for leaving their areas?
Did you know humans live outside the USA?
That is literally the issue. “While they suppress our medicine” refers to how lots of cities are designed car centric now.
Because its a net benefit for the vast majority of daily use cases.
Why would literally anyone not support that.
And i dont mean nobody can ever drive anything again, its just silly to day “i dont support the extension of public transport”
Yeah I guess I just started to stop caring about socialism when I realized my country can’t even supply people with affordable housing. If public transport is such a net benefit, fund it privately.
What I find silly is thinking you’re owed something from your peers.
I think you’re failing to take into account that literally everyone who works and takes part in our society pays taxes.
Paying taxes and asking municipalities for infrastructure to be built with those taxes ≠ “thinking you’re owed something from your peers”
I think you’re failing to take into account that literally everyone who works and takes part in our society pays taxes.
No I’m aware people pay taxes.
Paying taxes and asking municipalities for infrastructure to be built with those taxes ≠ “thinking you’re owed something from your peers”
So let’s split the taxes! Boom.
Some questions (some are a bit polemic but I kinda wanna find common ground in the end):
Do you drive on roads that you didn’t pave yourself?
Do you maintain them yourself - if not, do you expect them to be generally connecting you to other places?
Do you use the public power grid?
Do you depend on water lines?
Have you ever taken a flight from a city’s main airport?
Have you served, or support the military?Do you consider any of these being publicly funded “socialism” or “demanding something of your peers”?
In general, the way things work in my home country - the district / city / county / state / federal government have funds to maintain things on their corresponding scale (ascending local to federal) that are deemed either publicly beneficial or even essential.
None of that is socialism, but in our case a “social democracy” i.e. making sure the bare, liveable minimum of life in this society functions through tax money and the federal budget in general.So to me it looks… weirdly disconnected to call any of these things “thinking you’re owed something from your peers”, just because one of these individual pieces might not be immediately relevant to your day to day routine.
Do you consider any of these being publicly funded “socialism” or “demanding something of your peers”?
Yes.
So to me it looks… weirdly disconnected to call any of these things “thinking you’re owed something from your peers”, just because one of these individual pieces might not be immediately relevant to your day to day routine.
I wouldn’t consider my position “weirdly disconnected”. You could use your argument for anything. “What do you mean you don’t support public strip clubs? You use public roads don’t you?”
I have never in my life seen a publicly owned strip club or heard of governmental strip club subsidisations.
Is that a US thing?
A national or international rail network makes long distance travel safer, faster, more affordable, more sustainable and by those factors incredibly more accessible to lower income citizens.
You pay taxes regardless, wouldn’t you want them to go towards something that benefits you and your peers?
I have never in my life seen a publicly owned strip club or heard of governmental strip club subsidisations.
You don’t get the point of what I’m saying? You don’t understand analogies?
A national or international rail network makes long distance travel safer, faster, more affordable, more sustainable and by those factors incredibly more accessible to lower income citizens.
Is this a commerical or a reply?
You pay taxes regardless, wouldn’t you want them to go towards something that benefits you and your peers?
Not in this circumstance.
Analogies usually relate to the topic i guess.
Not a commercial, didn’t know stating facts relevant to the discussion is frowned upon in your circles.
Guess we’re done here, if you don’t like to discuss anything, maybe just don’t reply next time.
what if you lived in a place that was designed right, such that it wouldn’t be a massive loss to your quality of life if you went car-free or car-lite?
what if the place you live right now was designed right, such that it wouldn’t be a massive loss to your quality of life if you went car-free or car-lite?
I think these are pipe dreams. Cars give a level of freedom that can’t be replicated. Like Saturday I’m going skydiving and that’s a 50 minute drive both ways to the middle of nowhere. Or yesterday I hit two stores in different areas of the city on the way home from work.
I actually have a few stores a 10 minute walk away, and like a Walmart, etc… just a 15 minute walk away, and I’ve only walked to those places a handful of times over 9 years.
You can’t beat walking outside your door to a vehicle.
There’s plenty of places where you don’t need a car so it’s not exactly a pipe dream. I’ve never owned a car, just get everywhere by bike and public transit.
Cars give a level of freedom that can’t be replicated.
Rollercoasters an give fun sensations that can’t be replicated. That doesn’t mean everyone has to own a rollercoaster.
High speed trains aren’t practical for local transport. In my imaginary utopia we’d put poles down the middle of roads and suspend tram carts to them. People could own them, they’d drive themselves and even have drive ways. However by being suspended in the air, and driven by electrified rails itd be clean and safe and give us space on the ground to sit, play and have large shared spaces and gardens. Plus kids and coaches could be transported without a driver and stuff. In my own imagine the possibilities are endless.
I think the cost of engineering a suspended tram network would be undercut by simply having them underground!
But I think the fact you’ve gone for effectively a car network, just with different infrastructure, highlights something interesting about the way we think about how we need to get around. We prize autonomy very highly, and so for people that do there’s a few ideas (that have in a few places been implemented already!) that you might find interesting.
The key problem with cars is that, once you’ve invested in owning one, it’s just very efficient to use for everything. So if we want to move away from cars, we need to address every type of trip, rather than just some. High speed rail and timetabled buses address those long distance, city-city journeys, or commuting from suburbs to the city centre. What isn’t addressed are those ‘short hops’ that people want to make, e.g. within suburbs
For example, in some places we’re starting to see the proliferation of demand-responsive public transport. The idea is you have what is effectively a minibus with an attached app, and people book the route they want to take on the app. An optimal route is then calculated for the day to pick people up and drop them where they need to go. This is ideal for certain trips people couldn’t take on a car – for example, going to the hospital and undergoing anaesthetic that prevents driving after – or for allowing people in suburban areas to get rid of cars entirely if they only need them for irregular, one-off trips.
Another example is e-cargo bike rental. In the suburbs it’s often sensible to do a weekly shop as the supermarket is a fair distance away, and it’s impractical to do so by bus. So what we’re starting to see in some places is e-cargo bikes (basically an electric bike with a big trailer) scattered around suburbs to allow people to rent them for a short time to do their weekly shop.
Finally, there’s car share services like co-wheels, that allow for short term use of cars for trips like holidays or visiting rural areas that would otherwise require a car.
Each of these addresses different types of journey that aren’t well addressed by traditional types of public transport, and with the emphasis on efficient networks to deal with climate change and air pollution we may well start to see more of these in the long term.
I think it’s all about what people will accept and autonomy exactly as you say. I don’t think people want to request or share buses/taxis, they want to jump into their tram car in a hurry without compromise.
For so many professions like builders etc, they’re going to want to keep tools in their trams or have other specialised trams. Repairmen can’t commute on shared buses with all their tools. You almost never see this at the moment.
I also think people don’t want to travel underground and that making those tunnels will be too expensive. For every on/off stop there needs to be a hole in the ground and air circulation. Alternatively the overground tram network suspended from an overhead rail can allows for paths to cross, bend and can be installed over the existing roads infrastructure before it is decommissioned. In places where it’s high enough pedestrians can ignore it or at ground level there can be an open bike/eScooter system like you suggest. It just requires steel poles like lamp posts to be put in down the middle of the road. Many busy roads already have lamp posts down the central partition.
This is what’s led me to my idea that a tram network full of people’s own trams. Poor and middle class people have cars already so owning your own tram feels like it will be too engrained across all levels of society. It’s also higher quality as people can choose their products. It creates competition between manufacturers. It makes delivering the whole solution cheaper and puts more costs on individuals rather than the government. In my mind a tram is a metal cage with an electric motorbikes engine and wheel at the top and some electronics to communicate with a central routing computer.
Anyway just interesting thoughts of a world that will likely never exist. It’s impossible to know what would and wouldn’t be necessary to make a better transport network.
