this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
701 points (97.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9801 readers
403 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] invertedspear@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Overall low population density likely means even with high usage, you’d still be serving fewer people per mile of track than pretty much anywhere in Europe. A mile of HSR has to be more exact and defect free than a mile of road, and costs a hell of a lot more in labor and materials. Then there’s the cost of the land to build it on, because for some reason the existing right of way around interstate highways isn’t available.

I don’t think the U.S. is as perfect of a place for it as you think it is, but god damn I wish we’d at least try.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Spain's average population density is on par with California. It would rank as the 10th most densely populated state in the US. And it is about the same size as California, too. Its GDP per capita is about one third of the US or California's, and the whole infrastructure for high speed rail is 100% publicly funded. Private operators pay a fee to use the public tracks.

So yeah, no, that's no excuse. Even at the state level pretty much any state with significant urban centres could pull this off.

They’re trying to build high speed rail in California. The costs are ballooning to astronomical levels. Endless delays too. I don’t really understand all of the reasons. I think there are a lot of political fights involving different regional governments along the route.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah, the D.C.-Bmore-Philly-NYC-Boston corridor is notorious for the tumbleweeds blowing forlornly down empty main streets at high noon, because of low population. /s

C'mon, that tired, old trope is so busted. Obviously, we build HSR where the people are/want to go, and not where the people aren't/don't want to go. The Northeast, the Great Lakes region, the West Coast, the East Coast, the South—all of these regions have the population density for a HSR network.

Much of the Desert Southwest, the Great Plains, the Great Basin, Alaska—we don't have to criss-cross them with HSR routes to make the map look balanced.