this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
297 points (98.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

9605 readers
652 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

A great start!!

100% agreed with dedicated Amtrak alignments

MSR would be fantastic. If I had 120mph option for regional travel I would use it all the time. I used to commute from Portland to Seattle and it would be incredible to not have to fly

I don't know the tipping point (distance of trip in miles) at which air travel becomes better time-wise. Obviously coast to coast routes. Probably shorter routes too. But anything regional is a no-brainer at 120+ mph. HSR becomes even better

Main obvious challenge IMO is not the mechanics or the math. HSR/MSR takes a lot of political capital for a long time, which is hard when there's so many things competing for that capital

It needs sustained investment. Even if we get a two steps forward one step back situation, though, I'll take it!!

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Conventional wisdom is that airlines break even with true HSR (220MPH ish) at around 400-450 miles and have it beat by 500. But I also think that's only accounting for time and not accounting for the incredibly enshittified experience that is flying these days.

I'd gladly have my trip take a few extra hours if it meant not dealing with airline bullshit

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

There's an argument against planes due to carbon emissions too, so if that was included in the price I think many would be inclined to take rail instead.

[–] sndrtj@feddit.nl 1 points 11 months ago

Speaking from a European perspective, with an existing rail network that mostly works: above about 300-400km (200-250 mi), the train starts hemorrhaging passengers to flight. Flight is still massively cheaper. Unless that equation changes, trains will always be an also-available regional/long distance travel mode.

[–] buzz86us@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

We need to nationalize our rail.. What Regan did to it was absolutely idiotic, and completely devastated the economies of many small towns.