• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Complements. The reason we’re stuck in this auto-dystopia (are we auto-asphyxiating? ;-) is people wanting one size fits all infrastructure. Let’s apply this more intelligently this time - recognize that some areas are more built up than others and different solutions scale differently . In general that can be a good thing, but we need interconnected services for everyone. That does include cars in many areas, although I agree a worthwhile goal for cities/town centers is that people not need a car

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      The reason we’re stuck in this auto-dystopia (are we auto-asphyxiating? ;-) is people wanting one size fits all infrastructure.

      The reason the US is a car dependent dystopia is because they let the auto industry dismantle a shitton of public infrastructure.

      Just because you build public transport infrastructure doesn’t mean you can’t have your car, look at switzerland, netherlands, they have good public transport/bike infrastructure and still have cars.

      Having great public transportation actually makes it better for people who only want to use cars, because it takes off a lot of people from the road who now have alternative options.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Holy based someone on Lemmy not blindly advocating for public transport literally everywhere.

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s really efficient in densely populated areas but inefficient in sparsely populated areas.

          While it should be everywhere eventually , the focus should definitely be on cities first.

            • Zink@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              They may have been talking about economic inefficiency, if you don’t have a busy enough route to justify the initial investment.

              And in the US at least, there is a LOT of land, and huge amounts of it are sparsely populated. But that still adds up to a lot of people.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              The more stops you have for a train, the slower, more expensive, and less efficient it is. They like hauling for long distances without stopping.

              • kameecoding@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                still more efficient than anything else…

                and then usually how it works is that some trains go local and stop everywhere and others are intercity and stuff and stop at less stations etc.

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  “Efficient” covers a lot of things. There are often reasons to avoid what is technically the most efficient solution by some measure. For trains, their high up front cost has to be made up by low marginal cost, which typically means having a high number of passengers for each stop.

                  And before you say it, no, I’m not demanding they be profitable, just that they be cost effective.

                  • kameecoding@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Trains and good public transport are one of the most productive things economically and the best tools for rising economically for individuals, it might have a higher up front cost (which I don’t think it has, I highly doubt a mile of tracks costs more than a mile of road, especially long term), but it’s absolutely worth it long term.

                    pretty sure a lot of US towns spawned from being railroad stops or railroad adjacent, if they can make that happen, they can also revitalize the local economy, meanwhile cars are woefully inefficient and serve more as a gatekeeping device, if you need a car to function you have basically put an entry fee on society.

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              The last miles are a huge problem in villages. Train stops and you then walk 5 miles every time? The bus needs to ride every 30 minutes to bring along 5 people that’s super expensive.

              Also everyone there already has a car anyways since it’s basically required there.

              Cities however can use public transport far more efficiently.

              • kameecoding@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                you do realize trains are part of the public transport and no reasonable person would think you can’t take a car to the train station?

                what do you think I am talking about? a bus going every 30 minutes to every house in bumfuck nowhere on the off chance they get a passenger?

                • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Yes but then you already have the car.

                  And if you already have the car then that’s usually far more practical than public transport.

                  Public transport works well in cities because it can completely eliminate the need for someone to own a car.

      • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I also want to add that if public transit was more more common; it would EVENTUALLY spread to the rural areas just in a more limited fashion. Also, towns do build up as they age, it’s not like they are static.