this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
196 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37756 readers
609 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cradac@feddit.de 31 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] erwan@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Trains suck if you don't have frequency, and because of the population density with a good frequency more than half of the trains will be completely empty and the rest almost empty.

[–] cradac@feddit.de 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If you out half the funding from car infrastructure instead into train and bus infrastructure this would not be a problem. Induced demand works both ways.

[–] erwan@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The population in rural areas is so low that no matter how you induce demand, it won't work.

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Look up "interurban railways". Most towns east of the Mississippi used to have frequent rail service with whistle stops at every farm and crossroads. In addition to passengers these railroads also transported the harvest, Sears purchases, kit houses, even hearses!

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 6 months ago

This almost certainly wouldn't work in the United States but it does in Europe because Europe has loads of these tiny abandoned rail lines (often single track) that were built in the 1800s and then abandoned. They don't go anywhere particularly densely populated, you know because of the industrial Revolution causing everyone to move to the cities, so there isn't the demand for a full rail service. Meaning they're not going to spend the money upgrading the infrastructure to modern standards.

This means they can be used at relatively cheap cost. As long as the tracks are still physically present all they need to do is cut some weeds down and put these things on the line and they're good to go. It's a cheap project that a local municipal authority can handle without having to involve wider government.

[–] Thevenin@beehaw.org 4 points 6 months ago

Even with unlimited funding, you want to scale the size of the train to the population that could potentially ride on it.

A P42 locomotive pulling 7 Amtrak superliner cars is 700 tons of steel getting 0.4 miles per gallon of diesel. That's a crapton of mining and drilling and CO2, and it would be incredibly wasteful if it ended up carrying, like, two people at a time.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 months ago

Cars suck always.