4 ms·
Do you expect a perfectly built out rail system to just spawn? No of course you need to start somewhere and articles like these are one argument to do so.
by phartenfeller 3y ago
Do you expect a perfectly built out rail system to just spawn? No of course you need to start somewhere and articles like these are one argument to do so.
- protocolture 3y agoShitty argument when they arent as capable as electric cars.
- defrost 3y agoPoor response in the context of reducing CO2 emissions as a goal.
- nicoburns 3y agoThey're more capable in some ways. They can go a lot faster than cars, and they allow passengers to engage in a much wider range of activities while riding one.
- rickydroll 3y agoIt's possible for a train to go faster than cars but it's not guaranteed. for example, one of the most heavily traveled corridors is Boston to New York City travel times are: Driving: 3 hours: 51 minutes (plus pee breaks) Amtrak: 3 hours 55 minutes Boston to DC you have much better tracks on the NYC to DC segment driving: 8 hours (plus pee breaks) Amtrak: 6 hours 45 minutes as for a wider range of activities, only if you don't get motion sick. When I'm on a train, my only activity is staring out the window (and taking pee breaks)
- acdha 3y agoThat depends on your priorities. For example, not sitting in traffic is a nice capability as is the ability to eat dinner and have a beer on the way home. Anyone under retirement age should also value the capability not to make the world worse, too.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- karaterobot 3y agoIt matters if adoption is at all important, which we can all agree it is. If the alternative is that you take trains between cities and bike everywhere else, that's a lovely dream to have, but it's not going to persuade people to give up their cars. To do an apples-to-apples comparison a solution relying on trains would have to do everything a solution involving electric cars can do (and, to be fair, vice versa).