> Are you really sure? Yes. It has a huge amount of support from the population. So pretty much everybody agrees on this. Trying to go away from this model wo

> Are you really sure? Yes. It has a huge amount of support from the population. So pretty much everybody agrees on this. Trying to go away from this model would be such a big disruption that the impact could not even be calculated. There is so much complex commuting, that simply wouldn't be possible in a car based model, people would have to migrate. > I mean did you really try and see the material costs in terms of fragility, environment, freedom to move etc? Yes. Pretty much everybody in any country that studies this comes the to same conclusion. Trains are efficiency in terms of space, energy and air quality. > AND of course the mere money spent in such services for just few big companies profits? The SBB and BLS are mostly govenrment companies and they get most of the money. Sure some money goes to private builders and producers of trains. But of course we also export trains so its not a total lose. Private companies are gone make some money and that is fine. There are few big train scandals. For big projects like 'Gotthard Base Tunnel' are voted on democratically, and generally 'only profits big companies' is not even a point the opposition makes. > Let's say a bit of rime that block some trains trolley and a line between Lugano and Bellinzona is out of service for hours (happened few times to me) In pretty much every case this happened over the last 20 years provide backup trains (on other routes) or buses. The delays you experience are not really worse then what you can have on a road network. Having both trains and roads makes the most sense. But having trains allows you road infrastructure to stay reasonably small. > A classically safe important passages might be endangered by climate change, a new tech might demand a new infra and ANYTHING is damn expensive and slow to adapt. Rail has survived for a few 100 years now and sometimes you have to invest, like electrification but all of those investments paid off. If upgrades have to be made because of climate change then that not inherently a problem. > Ok, so allow me a little game: let's say you want to go outside the village/city for a trip. Did you lease a car or accept to being bound to public transport covered areas (witch means not much in nature)? I think you have a hilariously idea of public transport. With public transport in Switzerland you can reach all kinds of place in nature that are simply not available by car. My great-grandfather built a tiny house in the mountains during WW1, guess how I usually go there. By train, and then with a gondola. This is a village with a fixed population of less then 100 people. In fact, if everybody has to take a car to go to 'nature' it often ends up destroying nature. There were hiking trails that started in my village, and nature is all around. Literally hike by walking out of your door. By bicycle you can easily go much further, you can take your bicycle in the train if you want to. > Let's say a rail strike make you locked somewhere or another technical or "political" issue create a service mishap, it's ok for you being there powerless hoping for someone else to fix things for you? Ok what if a war in the middle east makes driving to expensive for you? Do you just hope this fixes things for you? What if the police strike and block the roads? What if another country makes a naval blockade. We can spin theories and theories about literally everything. The reality is in society you relay on others, you are not sell sufficient because you have a car. Oil needs infrastructure, if power goes out then you can't pump oil in gas-stations anymore. The idea that whole countries transport infrastructure is safer from infrastructure disruption because its based on cars and oil is simply inaccurate both historically and theoretically. Do you have any series evidence that rail strikes are so incredibly dangerous and common that it me personally and my whole society should totally change its green and safe transport infrastructure? Sorry most people don't live their lives base on some doom's day paranoia but how to practically live with the actually real challenges of today. > For instance just to buy groceries on Drive I regularly have no waiting time, there is always a free slot to park and someone who came in a minute or less. Just on the shore a Drive means often 10-15' minimum before get served OR if you just buy ready to use food for any meal well... You waste FAR MORE time in shop than me. This is pretty hilarious. Wow you can destroy the planet by driving every-time you have to go shopping and you get free parking spot. Wow. I just walk out of my house, and within literally 3min I'm at the shop, buy things and then walk home. Often I just walk past the shop on my way home and pick up what I need. But I'm sure its much better for the world when everybody gets into a car, drives to a huge parking lot and then drives home. This video illustrates the point quite clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk Yes food needs to be transported to cities (and you can do that by electric train just fine btw). From there you can use small electric trucks and even smaller electric bikes to distribute it to shops as is already done quite often in places like Amsterdam. But the same is true for suburbs but the distances are just far wider. The simply fact is food will mostly be produced far away and people are simply not gone move to Iowa to live in cornfields. So it will need to be transported even if people live more distributed. Your point about remote work is also far from reality. Most people, specially poor people, simply do not jobs that can be remote. You overestimate the impact of remote work by a waste amounts. Your ideal of everybody living in small towns surrounded by farmland that can feed people locally and water sources that are local is simply a fantasy. In the real world not building actually dense cities is building suburbs. They have all the disadvantages of cities, with non of the advantages. People who actually do live rural (who have a decent standard of living) have actually much higher energy consumption and require larger more environmentally damaging global infrastructure. Everything you have suggest is literally the single worst thing for the climate I can imagine.