8 ms·

Roads are such an apocalyptic blight on the landscape that I'm all for burying as many of them as possible. 200 feet down, 200 billion feet to go.

by kibwen 2y ago

panick21_ 2y ago
Or you know, crazy idea, just have less roads, use something more efficient less impactful to nature. Can't imagine what that could be.
- bluGill 2y ago
  It doesn't matter, there are downsides. In an ideal train world you still end up with railroad tracks everywhere that interstates exist with the same wildlife downsides. Running trains at ground level is an order of magnitude cheaper to build than building it elevated so wildlife can go under. Running underground is another order of magnitude more expensive. The expense directly relates to how much we can build at any one time - we can build a lot more if we choose run on the ground. In the ideal train world you still end up with roads everywhere because "last mile" freight needs to get places and trains don't work well for it (think your kitchen trash). Passenger trains always rely on the fact that people can walk a short distance to the train, but freight cannot walk. Passenger trains also cannot be blocked by freight loading/unloading which means you need a separate road system. Passenger trains need to run frequent, you might not go anywhere in the next half hour, but someone on your block will and if the trains are not frequent (every 5 minutes or less) cars are a great quality of life improvement: unlike cars passenger trains cannot mix with freight and be good in areas where things are not busy (A bus can mix with freight well in less busy areas, but they still need to be frequent and that is rarely the case again pushing people to cars and thus against what "you can't imagine"). This in turn means we have more places wildlife is blocked. Airplanes are the only exception, but they don't cover all the needs and so even if we forced everyone to fly for longer trips (at significant climate costs) we still need all the roads in the middle of nowhere for the people (farmers) who live in those ares.
  - jajko 2y ago
    Hate to burst anyone's bubble but trains in its current form aren't solution to mass transit. They help, sure, under certain circumstances, but are very costly to run and in peak you need huge amount of them. 1 disruption and everything stops, you can't just take an exit and go through villages. Case point Switzerland, the train country of this world. Efficiency, cleanness, reach, small country. Yet its prohibitively expensive here and highways are chock full of commuters just like anywhere else. For weekend trip ie to mountains they (+ post buses where trains don't go) are very restrictive which is understandable, but car becomes a must anyway.
    - ornornor 2y ago
      > expensive Not so much. As a tourist yes, no question. If you’re a resident, there is a card that costs 160/year (180 the first year) and give you half price on all trains. Also works with any local public transit system (municipal buses, etc) across the country. Train is quite affordable like that. For example St Gallen to Zurich is 90 minutes by train and costs 16.- with 1/2 fare card. You can even get a super saver (valid on this train only) for 21.20 or 11.20 1/2 fare. That’s for this Monday. Swiss salaries are some of the highest in the world. The overwhelming majority of trains run on time, don’t strike, and are clean. It’s cheaper than driving (gas and maintenance) + parking by a long margin. You can go ski by train there. Haven’t owned a car in 5 years living there.
      - jajko 2y ago
        Sure if you build and restrict your life around no car, then its doable. Very restricted. Also that part about cost being cheaper ain't true - I have that half tariff. For going somewhere, anywhere, its the same cost (+ saving tons of time). Taking family of 4... you do the math. There is reason why there are so many cars everywhere. Families with kids usually have 2. Basically everybody has at least 1. If what you said is true people wouldn't be buying and using them constantly.
        ornornor 2y ago
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  Me neither. A bus? A train? A bicycle? What do you mean, don’t leave the room for interpretation.
lacrosse_tannin 2y ago
The roads and the borders

Roads are such an apocalyptic blight on the landscape that I'm all for burying as many of them as possible. 200 feet down, 200 billion feet to go.

by kibwen 2y ago

Roads are such an apocalyptic blight on the landscape that I'm all for burying as many of them as possible. 200 feet down, 200 billion feet to go.

panick21_ 2y ago

Or you know, crazy idea, just have less roads, use something more efficient less impactful to nature. Can't imagine what that could be.

bluGill 2y ago
It doesn't matter, there are downsides. In an ideal train world you still end up with railroad tracks everywhere that interstates exist with the same wildlife downsides. Running trains at ground level is an order of magnitude cheaper to build than building it elevated so wildlife can go under. Running underground is another order of magnitude more expensive. The expense directly relates to how much we can build at any one time - we can build a lot more if we choose run on the ground. In the ideal train world you still end up with roads everywhere because "last mile" freight needs to get places and trains don't work well for it (think your kitchen trash). Passenger trains always rely on the fact that people can walk a short distance to the train, but freight cannot walk. Passenger trains also cannot be blocked by freight loading/unloading which means you need a separate road system. Passenger trains need to run frequent, you might not go anywhere in the next half hour, but someone on your block will and if the trains are not frequent (every 5 minutes or less) cars are a great quality of life improvement: unlike cars passenger trains cannot mix with freight and be good in areas where things are not busy (A bus can mix with freight well in less busy areas, but they still need to be frequent and that is rarely the case again pushing people to cars and thus against what "you can't imagine"). This in turn means we have more places wildlife is blocked. Airplanes are the only exception, but they don't cover all the needs and so even if we forced everyone to fly for longer trips (at significant climate costs) we still need all the roads in the middle of nowhere for the people (farmers) who live in those ares.
- jajko 2y ago
  Hate to burst anyone's bubble but trains in its current form aren't solution to mass transit. They help, sure, under certain circumstances, but are very costly to run and in peak you need huge amount of them. 1 disruption and everything stops, you can't just take an exit and go through villages. Case point Switzerland, the train country of this world. Efficiency, cleanness, reach, small country. Yet its prohibitively expensive here and highways are chock full of commuters just like anywhere else. For weekend trip ie to mountains they (+ post buses where trains don't go) are very restrictive which is understandable, but car becomes a must anyway.
  - ornornor 2y ago
    > expensive Not so much. As a tourist yes, no question. If you’re a resident, there is a card that costs 160/year (180 the first year) and give you half price on all trains. Also works with any local public transit system (municipal buses, etc) across the country. Train is quite affordable like that. For example St Gallen to Zurich is 90 minutes by train and costs 16.- with 1/2 fare card. You can even get a super saver (valid on this train only) for 21.20 or 11.20 1/2 fare. That’s for this Monday. Swiss salaries are some of the highest in the world. The overwhelming majority of trains run on time, don’t strike, and are clean. It’s cheaper than driving (gas and maintenance) + parking by a long margin. You can go ski by train there. Haven’t owned a car in 5 years living there.
    - jajko 2y ago
      Sure if you build and restrict your life around no car, then its doable. Very restricted. Also that part about cost being cheaper ain't true - I have that half tariff. For going somewhere, anywhere, its the same cost (+ saving tons of time). Taking family of 4... you do the math. There is reason why there are so many cars everywhere. Families with kids usually have 2. Basically everybody has at least 1. If what you said is true people wouldn't be buying and using them constantly.
      - ornornor 2y ago
rad_gruchalski 2y ago
Me neither. A bus? A train? A bicycle? What do you mean, don’t leave the room for interpretation.

lacrosse_tannin 2y ago

The roads and the borders