this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
337 points (94.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9670 readers
22 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
 

America is too big for planes, too. If your transportation solution is flying, now everyone has to get around via endless highways or big, complicated regional airports, and you can only have so many of those. There's a reason why rural areas in North America have completely different politics from urban areas, and why so much of it is driven by a sense of isolation and abandonment. Trains promise to help here because they are able to stop in small places that will never, ever have practical airports.

A good rail network provides a reliable, consistent, repeatable, and straightforward three hour connection from Nowheresberg to the nearest city. Slow, but good enough to feel like they exist in the same planet. Unfortunately, that promise is subtle, and it plays out over decades, so the reward system we've created for ourselves is incapable of supporting it. And thus, we have Amtrak and confederate flags

https://cosocial.ca/@dylanmccall/113233671160717813

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 69 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Rural America is covered in local airports. No large commercial carriers, but the airports exist.

We need more rail. The argument starts from a bad premise.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

They're not viable as general passenger hubs.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Why not though? Honest question, I've been to an airport that had a terminal of around 30 square metres with decent passenger service in the EU.

I'd say it's the flying that's not scalable, not the airport footprints.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Most municipal airports can't handle jet engine planes around here. They are all just small body, single engine aircraft on poorly maintained and non-level runways. They are fine for recreational flights, crop dusters, or flight instruction, but most rural airports here are little more than a few hangers and an administrative building with a runaway.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So the airport I'm talking about is Sønderborg, it also can't service jets, the only passenger service operates 2-3 twin turboprop planes to Copenhagen and back. The airport is six hangars, the terminal literally is a single room with enough room for the passengers of a single plane.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago

I can see how small airports would make sense in Denmark since the landscape of islands and peninsulas makes direct paths by road or train nearly impossible. I'm in Ohio, which is comparable to Poland in geography. Rolling plains along a smooth coastline in the north with sizable hills and low mountains in the south. Flying from Toledo to Akron doesn't make any sense since driving that is less than 2 hours, and so passenger rail would be a mich better option. You barely even see commercial flights from Cleveland to Cincinnati since the driving distance is doable for a day trip. A rail line connecting Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati would be perfect for us instead of lots of tiny airlines.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Flying is much more energy intensive, there are heightened security concerns and pilots are expensive

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I get that flying is not an ideal solution because of those reasons, but the aspect that was being talked about was airport footprints, which should be easier in the US than in the EU, with all that space.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I’ve tried to use them and they’re generally not affordable for most people, since you’re comparing to cost of driving a relatively short distance.

  • The town I grew up in had a small airport where you could buy a ticket on a prop plane to get you to a bigger airport to make your flight. But it was cheaper and easier to drive an hour, and buses are even cheaper
  • similar to where I went to college
  • now I live just outside a major city, but it’s possible to take a small plane to a nearby tourist destination. Sure it avoids traffic but you need a car there and it’s cheaper to pick an off time for travel and drive the two hours

Edit to add: yes it’s also the airport that’s not scalable. A small airport requires minimal infrastructure, mostly provided by businesses. But for passenger service, someone needs to build a terminal, make sure there’s parking, have security staff on duty, install scanners, etc. d you have enough business to support that?

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Every county has a county seat. There's nothing preventing the county seat from being a regional travel hub.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Yeah this stupid-ass post was made by someone who has both never lived in a rural area, and never looked at Google Maps lol

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Literally no idea how a regular person would actually use those for realistic transportation. I figured those places were for private jets, people learning to fly and cargo/farm/industrial flights.

Would booking a flight on somebody's cesna even work and be affordable/safe?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (3 children)

True, my southern Illinois relatives are aware they can catch an Amtrak to the cities, but the trains suck really bad and the stations are often in a terrible place to leave anything of value (like your car) so they just drive when the occasionally need to go to the city for something like real healthcare

[–] einlander@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

And the Amtrak in southern Illinois can be hours late.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I just really hate flying and really like going places. Give me rails, I don’t want to drive either.

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Father, I yearn for the rails!

[–] yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Removing all the train stations in towns across the USA was a huge mistake

[–] modus@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not if you own a car factory.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or a highway. See also: Roger Rabbit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Coming from a more rural region, even if trains were available, when people go to the city they come back with their car filled up with stuff because it's easier to find/cheaper in the city, most won't take the train even if it's available if they have their car they can rely on.

But cars are still more efficient (L/km/passenger) than planes so we don't need more planes for rural regions either.

[–] stinerman@midwest.social 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah going to the grocery store was a 40 minute round trip growing up. You go there and buy as much as you can so you don't have to go again for two more weeks. Having a train will not be suitable for this type of trip.

[–] __ghost__@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A 40 minute round trip would be average in most US cities, eg Dallas, Denver, Atlanta, suburban Chicago, etc

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Those cities have grocery stores every exit off the highway. I'm in NW Ohio and while every town over 15,000 people has at least onc grocery store, lota of the surrounding villages do not. 30 miles each direction to a grocery store is rough. Growing up in suburbs of major cities, i cant remember a grocery store being further than 5 miles away. It's a vastly different experience.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

No, but a walkable city is. Even in a small town, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to park once then walk to the grocery, the movie theater, the home center, etc

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 13 points 1 month ago

May I point out that this effect is killing small towns and living-wage jobs? Before the car, there had to be stores and groceries and doctors' practices, et cetera, in small towns. Those provided local jobs for people, and community. Now, people drive into the city, or to the regional Walmart, and the small towns are decaying, mired in crippling poverty, isolation, and the diseases of despair that we see today. So the car might offer "freedom" to load up on a large selection of cheap consumer goods, but at the cost of dignity, connection, and meaning.

(Walmart, by the way, can be seen as predatory, killing small business with prices they can't match, but also, it is successful largely because it is so well-adapted to a car-based lifestyle. It's not the cause, it's an effect.)

[–] regul@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Plenty of places with developed rail networks are still conservative in rural places.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, but passenger rail collapsed hard. Amtrak is a shell of the former service and most states that kept their systems focused only on commuters into cities.

You also see a lot of rural towns encouraged to spread out far more than before because cars provided transportation. A small town in the early 20th century looked a lot more like a very small city instead of the hollow suburban form they have today.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I meant in other countries. Rural France is still conservative, for example. So is rural Japan.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, but that conservatism still involves as somewhat competent government helping people out. I don't think they would push for the economics of American conservatism.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

American conservatism killed passenger rail. The only places you see functional passenger rail are large, non conservative cities.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pachrist@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Yeah, but the US is too big for trains too. It's too big for planes, cars, all of it. It's been nearly 25 years since Herbert Garrison invented the gyroscopic monowheel but just like Nikola Tesla, he's being silenced by all these corporate fatcats and government bailouts.

[–] kindenough@kbin.earth 10 points 1 month ago

Planes, few cripple trains, and a shitload of giant automobiles

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Do Australia, Canada or India have the same problem?

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Australia and Canada, yes. India has a much more developed rail infrastructure.

The main driver for passenger rail success is population density--people per square mile or per square kilometer. The US, Canada, and Australia do not have enough population density in most areas to really support a passenger rail service.

There are parts or sections of the US that are starting to get the kind of density that supports trains, and trains do tend to appear when that happens.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I hear this argument often, but it perplexes me. Yeah, the US has large areas with little population density, but surprisingly, comparatively nobody lives there. The places with high population density have lots of people living there. We could have trains in places where people live, but for the most part, we don't. Not even a single high-speed line to connect the Northeast Corridor, just the Acela. The Great Lakes region has higher population density than, and about the same size as, Spain, but Spain has a well-developed rail system.

It's not really about population density.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

The DC metro system was built when the population was 750k. The population of Columbus, Ohio is about 950k. Columbus could support a rail system (which would also bring more growth).

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

But we do have that kind of population density. Any pair of million person cities less than 500 miles apart is potentially good,and that’s most of the population

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 4 points 1 month ago

Thank you for writing the text and a link.

I don't know why this is so hard for people who post screenshots of websites.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A good rail network also connects to major airports to give people a range of choices so they can pick the best combination for their travel

load more comments
view more: next ›