615
submitted 10 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

still more efficient than anything else...

and then usually how it works is that some trains go local and stop everywhere and others are intercity and stuff and stop at less stations etc.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

"Efficient" covers a lot of things. There are often reasons to avoid what is technically the most efficient solution by some measure. For trains, their high up front cost has to be made up by low marginal cost, which typically means having a high number of passengers for each stop.

And before you say it, no, I'm not demanding they be profitable, just that they be cost effective.

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Trains and good public transport are one of the most productive things economically and the best tools for rising economically for individuals, it might have a higher up front cost (which I don't think it has, I highly doubt a mile of tracks costs more than a mile of road, especially long term), but it's absolutely worth it long term.

pretty sure a lot of US towns spawned from being railroad stops or railroad adjacent, if they can make that happen, they can also revitalize the local economy, meanwhile cars are woefully inefficient and serve more as a gatekeeping device, if you need a car to function you have basically put an entry fee on society.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

which I don’t think it has, I highly doubt a mile of tracks costs more than a mile of road, especially long term

It does. Highway costs around $10M/mile, and rail (without tunnels) close to $120M/mile. We also don't need to build many new highways, while our aging rail infrastructure needs a lot of work just to get what we have up to snuff before we even talk about new rail.

Mostly, this comes down to things that go away with experience. Get rail projects going en mass and the problem will go away. That said, hooking up every town along the route is only going to make the initial build out worse.

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

mile? see that's your problem.

rail doesn't cost that much in Europe.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

Yes, I'm aware. That doesn't actually address the problem.

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

well the good news is that while you accounted for costs going down once projects are built, you also failed to consider the difference in capacity between railroad tracks and roads and also the maintenance costs that are gonna be much higher for roads.

so even if it's more expensive upfront which it really isn't, it's so much better long term

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

Of course it's more expensive up front. That's trivially true when we have highways and not high speed rail.

this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
615 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

58645 readers
4016 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS