I want super high speed rail instead of airplanes. I want regular high speed rail instead of highways. I want medium speed rail instead of roads. And so on. The technology is there, and we already have the land for most of it, we just need to stop building so many roads and actually build solid rail infrastructure.

[–] Naura@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago

Agreed.

I live in the Bay Area and because of my anxiety I can’t drive, but I can get to most places I need to be by BART/light rail.

it’s just one mode of transportation. In Japan also have a comprehensive bus system as well as small towns you can only get by car which rail trains use to service in the 1900s.

People will still have cars. We’ll still have roads and their big dick trucks. I don’t understand how this is a bad idea. LA to Vegas high speed would have been amazing. I lived in oak hills by the 15 seeing the traffic and how many people die on the pass due to car accidents was just horrifying.

[–] ASCIIansi@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'd rather fly.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago

Sure, that should be an option too!

If you visit Europe or Japan, you'll find that trains and airplanes both exist, and both are popular and inexpensive. That's what I'd like to see happen elsewhere in the world as well, rely less on personal vehicles and more on mass transit, though preserve each as an option.

[+] Antik@lemmy.ml -17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Por que no los dos?

No one is going to build a train stop near Ione, NV, one of the places I went to on a road trip.

I don't understand why it has to be a zero sum game.

edit: seems like the fuckcars cult has infested Lemmy. lmfao that sucks. It's cool though, because not even you cultists can bring me down. Oh and just to clarify: I definitely agree with where you guys are coming from, but you take it to an xtreme that I can't get on board with.

[–] sinkingship@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 years ago

No, nothing has "infested" Lemmy. It's just that many people understand, that rails are much more efficient than roads and that individual traffic on large scale has no future. At least if you want our future to be survivable.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Sure, we can absolutely have both, we should just be preferring mass transit to personal transit for populated areas.

In my area, we have:

one major corridor with a big highway (5+ lanes) and a commuter train line
a light rail system in the urban area, with some branches extending to the suburbs
old freight rail line that connects to the existing light rail system and passes through several suburban areas, but doesn't have light rail service
long stretches of "nothing" (~50 miles) to smaller metro areas, and after a few hundred miles goes to a popular tourist destination

We've been having more traffic recently, so what's the state-wide transportation system's decision? Delay expansion of rail and expand the highway.

What we should instead be doing is:

extend light rail through existing rail line through busy corridor - great alternative to the commuter rail since it goes different places
increase housing density along rail lines through zoning changes, and mix in commercial zoning w/ residential
improve cycling and pedestrian infrastructure with a focus on connecting to rail infrastructure
reroute cars to make it less convenient to get around in the city by car - i.e. nudge people toward using transit instead of personal vehicles

Transit will never fully replace personal vehicles, but it can drastically reduce the need for driving within urban and suburban areas. Rail lines are a lot cheaper to maintain than roads, and trains can carry a lot more people than cars. In other words, if we can get people to use trains more than cars, we can reduce our spending on transportation infrastructure.

We should absolutely keep and improve our existing highway infrastructure, but we should also be phasing out a lot of our road infrastructure in densely populated areas in favor of mass transit options that move people more efficiently.

[–] Silviecat44@vlemmy.net 2 points 2 years ago

I agree with you! Fuckcars takes it to such an extreme I find it very very difficult to side with them. Cars have their uses

[–] airportline@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’ll only get worse until we start building for the next millennium.

I guess we're fucked then

[–] OofShoot@beehaw.org 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yeah, I agree. It's not hard to build infrastructure that lasts forever, it's just no one wants to pay for it.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

I would gladly pay for it. Unfortunately most of us that would gladly pay for it can't afford to pay for it. And the people that could afford to pay for it don't get rich by spending their own money. They want everyone else to spend their money on it so they can use it for free.

[–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What is the reason why no one wants pay for it?

[–] Appleseuss@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To build that infrastructure, an increase in taxes will be needed. The middle and lower tax brackets can't afford any additional taxes at this time, so that leaves corporations and the upper tax brackets that will need to foot the bill. They don't want that, so they pay to have campaigns of ignorance blasted at the masses to induce fear of any tax reform.

At the end of the day, nothing gets fixed and the wealthy keep their money.

[–] stankbucket@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Or things get fixed at 10x what the actual costs should be because the people who award the contract are paid with part of that excess and it helps them keep the seat that allows them to continue funneling money.