4 ms·

> There is no way you can cover even half the villages by train. Thats why you combine them with buses for the remainder.

hutzlibu 3y ago
Sure and this is what is being done and makes sense (and could be improved a lot). But parent poster seemed to imply you can replace roads with train tracks.
dagw 3y ago
How many buses? For busses to be a viable alternative they have to run at least every 30-60 minutes for basically the whole day. For many smaller villages this will effectively mean that many of the busses will be running empty much of the time. Or you scale back to once or twice a day to match demand and then busses are no longer a viable alternative, so people don't use them.
- Akronymus 3y ago
  As someone who lived quite a long time in rural austria and heavily used buses: You kinda tend to structure your way around the bus schedule, or drive/bike a relatively short distance to the nearest bus "hub". It really isn't a problem in practice.
  - palata 3y ago
    I agree, and I think this should not be underestimated: people who don't believe in public transportation often (usually?) don't use them. I have never owned a car, I used public transportation my whole life. Trains, buses, publicly-available bikes/scooters, whatever. Occasionally I rent a car. And I am fine, I have just learned to organize around the public transport. Instead of being free to leave or arrive "whenever I want", I know exactly the time (so I'm usually not 20 minutes late because I had a train, where car owners are easily stuck in traffic or left 20 minutes late). Yes, many times it is longer. But I learned to use the time I spend in public transportation: I read, I listen to podcasts, I work. When a car owner loses 2h30 in traffic, I work for 4h in my train. They lost 2h30, I... well if I can count those 4h as work, I didn't lose anything. I find that even reading is a better use of my time than driving. But all my life, car owners around me (friends/family) have had trouble understanding that I am fine with public transportation. "Wait, take my car, it will be much longer by train!" or "Do you want me (to drive 30min) to come pick you up so that you don't have to come by bus (which takes 45min)?". Sometimes it's longer, sometimes it's more annoying, sometimes it's more expensive. Many times it's better, too. It's just different, I just learned the public transportation way. The fact, though, is that it's better for the planet.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Before I had a family, I also did not have a car. But in rural areas, it is really, really hard without one. For example one train line in a village close by down in a valley is currently not active for whatever reason. But there are buses as a replacement - except that they do not go down in that valley, so people wanting to use that bus, just have to walk 2 km steep uphill. Then it happens, that the last train was late, you miss the connection - and are just stranded somewhere and they don't give a shit, even though they told you before, the other train will wait. What else? Well, trains that just don't come and no more information avaiable, except that they officially are on time. So you stand there and wonder if it just came too early and left before the timetablr (also happened to me). Then of course there are villages where the train passes through and they have a train station, but the train never stops there. And if you live a bit away from the trains, then you are lucky if one bus is coming on the weekend. So good luck convincing those people, that they don't need cars. Not with that state of public transport. I also simply cannot imagine, how you can run regular bus lines in low populated areas in an economic way. The best compromise I know are buses on demand, meaning you call one hour before and then they will come. But this also only works with subsidies.

hutzlibu 3y ago

Sure and this is what is being done and makes sense (and could be improved a lot). But parent poster seemed to imply you can replace roads with train tracks.

dagw 3y ago

How many buses? For busses to be a viable alternative they have to run at least every 30-60 minutes for basically the whole day. For many smaller villages this will effectively mean that many of the busses will be running empty much of the time. Or you scale back to once or twice a day to match demand and then busses are no longer a viable alternative, so people don't use them.

Akronymus 3y ago
As someone who lived quite a long time in rural austria and heavily used buses: You kinda tend to structure your way around the bus schedule, or drive/bike a relatively short distance to the nearest bus "hub". It really isn't a problem in practice.
- palata 3y ago
  I agree, and I think this should not be underestimated: people who don't believe in public transportation often (usually?) don't use them. I have never owned a car, I used public transportation my whole life. Trains, buses, publicly-available bikes/scooters, whatever. Occasionally I rent a car. And I am fine, I have just learned to organize around the public transport. Instead of being free to leave or arrive "whenever I want", I know exactly the time (so I'm usually not 20 minutes late because I had a train, where car owners are easily stuck in traffic or left 20 minutes late). Yes, many times it is longer. But I learned to use the time I spend in public transportation: I read, I listen to podcasts, I work. When a car owner loses 2h30 in traffic, I work for 4h in my train. They lost 2h30, I... well if I can count those 4h as work, I didn't lose anything. I find that even reading is a better use of my time than driving. But all my life, car owners around me (friends/family) have had trouble understanding that I am fine with public transportation. "Wait, take my car, it will be much longer by train!" or "Do you want me (to drive 30min) to come pick you up so that you don't have to come by bus (which takes 45min)?". Sometimes it's longer, sometimes it's more annoying, sometimes it's more expensive. Many times it's better, too. It's just different, I just learned the public transportation way. The fact, though, is that it's better for the planet.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Before I had a family, I also did not have a car. But in rural areas, it is really, really hard without one. For example one train line in a village close by down in a valley is currently not active for whatever reason. But there are buses as a replacement - except that they do not go down in that valley, so people wanting to use that bus, just have to walk 2 km steep uphill. Then it happens, that the last train was late, you miss the connection - and are just stranded somewhere and they don't give a shit, even though they told you before, the other train will wait. What else? Well, trains that just don't come and no more information avaiable, except that they officially are on time. So you stand there and wonder if it just came too early and left before the timetablr (also happened to me). Then of course there are villages where the train passes through and they have a train station, but the train never stops there. And if you live a bit away from the trains, then you are lucky if one bus is coming on the weekend. So good luck convincing those people, that they don't need cars. Not with that state of public transport. I also simply cannot imagine, how you can run regular bus lines in low populated areas in an economic way. The best compromise I know are buses on demand, meaning you call one hour before and then they will come. But this also only works with subsidies.