this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
607 points (97.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9626 readers
589 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Izzy@lemmy.world 243 points 1 year ago (5 children)

We have re-invented trains for the 500th time. Good job world.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 91 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about trains underground?

Maybe even powered by electricity.

[–] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 43 points 1 year ago

Is this "ThE lOop"?

[–] teruma@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Is that like crabification for vehicles?

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 22 points 1 year ago

But this time, it's different!

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 16 points 1 year ago

My trains have black jack and hookers.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But it's an even worse version because with it the traffic on rail networks would explode, the complexity of the unit that moves everything increases (as well as cost), and it pisses away all the efficiency trains get from economies of scale. A 2 mile train will always be more efficient than this crap. And that's all before you consider the safety nightmare that this would cause.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 123 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is how you get the US to finally agree on a large scale train system: can them trucks.

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 72 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Rail trucks.

Hell, they could probably get away with re-marketing ~~trains~~ rail trucks by talking about how much horsepower they have, how big they are, and how they can even pull other cars in a single line.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 year ago

how they can even pull other ~~cars~~ trucks

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

Rail trucks that drive down rail roads.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Now we just need to wait for the Smart Rail Truck Convoy™

[–] lemann@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just wait until they find out about the fancy air conditioned ones that can carry human cargo much faster than container cargo 😳

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"this ~~dumbass~~ brave, smart, tech billionaire is upending ~~train~~ truck freight with this crazy ~~200 year old~~ new idea"

[–] QuinceDaPence@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

If you put a bunch of them together is that a road train on rails?

[–] Izzy@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Truck platoons on rails. Sounds so cool. Fund it immediately.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We can optimize vertical synergies by putting the drivetrain into one car. I call it The Engine™.

[–] QuinceDaPence@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Such a crazy idea for moving things around. I vote we call it the Locomotive^Tm

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Sorry, our focus groups think "loco" has negative connotations

[–] Belgdore@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago

The us has a large scale train system (for freight.) the key will be to convince people who currently drive trucks (vehicles used to move freight) that trains are bigger and more phallic and thus a better method of compensation.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

Doesn't the US already have a massive freight rail network though?

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What if you link a whole bunch of them together, and then instead of having each cart be self propelled, you could have one car that pushes all of the linked cars at once? Sounds way more efficient to me. If only there was a name for a long chain of linked cars...

[–] mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago

HyperRailTrackerCarGroup™

I am now taking on investors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] drkhrse96@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

From these comments it seemed like no one actually read what these are for? It actually makes a lot of sense to use existing, underutilized railway to deliver loads that would not require full train setups. This isn’t really a cars/trucks thing and I do blame Arstechnica for writing that shitty headline.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yes, however, a lot of these rail lines have been needlessly abandoned and replaced with road shipping. Road shipping isn't really cheaper, they just get to put $10 of operational cost on the taxpayer for every $1 they spend. You're basically subsidizing artificially cheap shipping. Rail is the single most efficient means that we have of moving just about anything, but it's not as heavily taxpayer subsidized, and therefor not stonks. The correct answer would be to put those $10 of operational cost back on long and mid haul trucking companies and rebuild our freight rail networks, which, even without switching to electric trains, would significantly reduce emissions, make our roads safer, and drastically reduce long term maintenance costs on our highway infrastructure.

[–] TrustingZebra@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Road shipping isn't really cheaper, they just get to put $10 of operational cost on the taxpayer for every $1 they spend. You're basically subsidizing artificially cheap shipping.

Could you explain this? Is it because taxes pay for roads?

[–] yimby@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

In a word, yes. Subsides to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars a year across the USA.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Heavy vehicles are the only thing that can put any meaningful wear on roads and streets, due to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law that says that the wear on the road is a function of the fourth power of the mass of the vehicle over the number of axles. A car puts 160,000 times as much wear on a road as a bike does, and the step up to heavy transportation vehicles involves a similarly massive jump. Every time a heavy truck moves a shipment over our roads, there is a real cost that we have to pay in maintenance that has no equivalent for personal vehicles.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Like YIMBY said, the short answer is yes. The long answer is that there's a complicated network of subsidies, write-offs, and car-related maintenance, bureaucracy, and clean-up that is supported by the taxpayer and doesn't pay for itself. It's not just repaving roads, which has to happen more and more often as vehicles get heavier and faster (road damage increases quadratically as vehicle weight increases), it's also paying for highway patrol to enforce road safety, paying for first responders to clean up accidents, paying for other maintenance to prevent wildfires and clean up roadside litter (even if you use prison crews, it doesn't cost nothing), paying to maintain other road-related infrastructure like signs and guardrails, as well as the multitude of oil and gasoline subsidies that become more and more important as we become more and more reliant on tractor-trailers to haul goods.

The ten dollars spent by taxpayers for every one dollar of operational cost actually applies to driving cars, I suspect that the cost to taxpayers for long haul trucking is quite larger.

[–] drkhrse96@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Not sure if you are saying that this is what we should be doing because that is what the article is suggesting. Using rail in a more efficient manner, not roads.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Of course not, they're just going to make twenty different posts talking about genitals, as if that's a priority for semi truck drivers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Adam Something on YouTube:

It's like a train, but shittier, like a bus, but shittier, like a tram, but shittier...

[–] qwop@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

That video was the first thing I thought of :)

(https://youtu.be/YUpST_cQ1hM for anyone wondering)

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That sounds like a horrible idea logistically, you still need to ship stuff from a cargo terminal to the location its needed and putting single containers on rail as their own "train" makes traffic a absolute nightmare there will never not be some kind of truck unless we can Teleport shit around or airships become a cheap, fast and reliable option.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have nothing intelligent to add, but I just want to say that I sincerely hate cars. This sub isn't a joke to me, I wish those god damn things were never invented.

I'm tired of breathing their cancer-causing fumes, I'm tired of the honking and screeching, I'm tired of worrying I'll get run over just walking around my neighborhood, I'm tired of micro plastics in my brain because some fat asshole was too lazy to ride a bike, I'm tired of climate change threatening global stability. Sorry for the rant.

[–] nsantoro73@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

Very well said! No apology necessary.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Now stop me if you've heard this before, but what if... and this is just a thought, don't get too worked up... but what if instead of just one of those, we hooked a bunch of them together and pulled them with something?

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not sure we have the technology to achieve such greatness, but if we did, we could call it a TRAnsportation Innovation Network or TRAIN for short.

[–] nsantoro73@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

HOLY SHIT GIVE THIS GUY A CONTRACT!

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

In before someone in the US calls it CoMmUNiSm!

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] nsantoro73@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

This guy gets it.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

America doesn't seem to want trains unless they're either cars or way too complicated.

[–] nsantoro73@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

It seems The Onion's article headline everytime there is a school shooting applies here, '"There's no way to prevent this!" says only country where this happens.'

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Doesn't America have a huge amount of rail freight though?

load more comments
view more: next ›