5 ms·
If we're actually serious about this, we should get rid of roads altogether and replace them with rail tracks. That solves 95% of the automation problem anyway.
by orthecreedence 4y ago
If we're actually serious about this, we should get rid of roads altogether and replace them with rail tracks. That solves 95% of the automation problem anyway.
- Zanneth 4y agoReplacing roads with railways means nearly complete reliance on a central authority for all transportation needs. This authority decides who gets to leave town and who doesn’t, which companies have priority when delivering goods, how or if the parallel railways should scale to meet more transportation demand, etc. Transportation safety is important but it shouldn’t be considered in isolation when there are potentially catastrophic consequences to prioritizing safety at the cost of everything else.
- orthecreedence 4y agoWhy can't personal vehicles use rail tracks without permission from a central authority?
- achenet 4y agowith roads, you already have a central authority (the DMV) that decides who can drive and who can't. Try taking your home-built motorbike with no licence plate out for a spin on public roads, you'll likely get pulled over by police.
- SomaticPirate 4y agoUS passenger rail is unsafe. We have no way near the level of sophistication of European passenger rail transport. We have a significantly higher number of derailments. Even the worst European rail is more safe than US rail.
- p_j_w 4y ago>US passenger rail is unsafe. US passenger automobiles are more unsafe.
- jjk166 4y agoIn the US trains have 17 times fewer deaths per passenger-mile than cars, and even then less than 1% of deaths from trains are passengers (the overwhelming majority are trespassers). That it could be even better does not mean it is not a substantial improvement.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rootusrootus 4y agoEurope has more railroad deaths than the US. Try again.
- presentation 4y agoJust let Japan build US rail, and copy paste Dutch city planning, guarantee it’ll be much better and cheaper than anything anyone in US government would come up with and requires 0 brain power.
- panick21_ 4y agoYes I am absolutly for that in a lot of cases. But lets be real, you are not gone end cars anytime soon. Lots of cars exist, more will exits. Even with the largest possible investment in rail, cars will exists in large numbers. So yeah, rail and cargo tram ways in cities are great. But we can't just leave car infrastructure unchanged. Specially because existing car infrastructure is already there and cheap to modify. Changing a 6 lane road into a 3 lane road with large space for bikes and people is pretty easy.
- epolanski 4y agoTrains and trams should be overall the present, past and future of affordable, green, cheap transport.
- presentation 4y agoDon’t forget bikes!
- dennis_jeeves1 4y ago>If we're actually serious about this, They are not serious. The rails are a great idea, along with drive-able 'rail' cars for individuals.
- Beaver117 4y agoYou're living in a fantasy. Name one country that has done that.
- webinvest 4y agoSpain, specifically Barcelona. An absolute joy to ride, I may add.
- mike_d 4y agoI have been to Barcelona and don't once recall seeing someone who owned a train. Having public transit is vastly different than a shared rail system.
- orthecreedence 4y agoName one person who invented airplanes before airplanes were invented.
- presentation 4y agoTokyo is intensely car hostile and it’s amazing
- gremlinsinc 4y agoNot even rails, could be magnetic, and make cars like maglev trains. Wear and tear would be negligible too, since there's no friction.
- brokenmachine 4y agoThat sounds economically realistic.
- presentation 4y agoLol