• Sure, and that future likely involves a lot of trains.

    I want super high speed rail instead of airplanes. I want regular high speed rail instead of highways. I want medium speed rail instead of roads. And so on. The technology is there, and we already have the land for most of it, we just need to stop building so many roads and actually build solid rail infrastructure.

    • @Naura@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Agreed.

      I live in the Bay Area and because of my anxiety I can’t drive, but I can get to most places I need to be by BART/light rail.

      it’s just one mode of transportation. In Japan also have a comprehensive bus system as well as small towns you can only get by car which rail trains use to service in the 1900s.

      People will still have cars. We’ll still have roads and their big dick trucks. I don’t understand how this is a bad idea. LA to Vegas high speed would have been amazing. I lived in oak hills by the 15 seeing the traffic and how many people die on the pass due to car accidents was just horrifying.

      • Sure, that should be an option too!

        If you visit Europe or Japan, you’ll find that trains and airplanes both exist, and both are popular and inexpensive. That’s what I’d like to see happen elsewhere in the world as well, rely less on personal vehicles and more on mass transit, though preserve each as an option.

      • @sinkingship@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        231 year ago

        No, nothing has “infested” Lemmy. It’s just that many people understand, that rails are much more efficient than roads and that individual traffic on large scale has no future. At least if you want our future to be survivable.

      • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        22
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, we can absolutely have both, we should just be preferring mass transit to personal transit for populated areas.

        In my area, we have:

        • one major corridor with a big highway (5+ lanes) and a commuter train line
        • a light rail system in the urban area, with some branches extending to the suburbs
        • old freight rail line that connects to the existing light rail system and passes through several suburban areas, but doesn’t have light rail service
        • long stretches of “nothing” (~50 miles) to smaller metro areas, and after a few hundred miles goes to a popular tourist destination

        We’ve been having more traffic recently, so what’s the state-wide transportation system’s decision? Delay expansion of rail and expand the highway.

        What we should instead be doing is:

        1. extend light rail through existing rail line through busy corridor - great alternative to the commuter rail since it goes different places
        2. increase housing density along rail lines through zoning changes, and mix in commercial zoning w/ residential
        3. improve cycling and pedestrian infrastructure with a focus on connecting to rail infrastructure
        4. reroute cars to make it less convenient to get around in the city by car - i.e. nudge people toward using transit instead of personal vehicles

        Transit will never fully replace personal vehicles, but it can drastically reduce the need for driving within urban and suburban areas. Rail lines are a lot cheaper to maintain than roads, and trains can carry a lot more people than cars. In other words, if we can get people to use trains more than cars, we can reduce our spending on transportation infrastructure.

        We should absolutely keep and improve our existing highway infrastructure, but we should also be phasing out a lot of our road infrastructure in densely populated areas in favor of mass transit options that move people more efficiently.

      • @Silviecat44@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        I agree with you! Fuckcars takes it to such an extreme I find it very very difficult to side with them. Cars have their uses