• @kameecoding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    521 year ago

    not sure about environmentally friendly,friendlier sure, but a well developed public transit system and biking infrastructure beats any kind of car based infrastructure

    • @AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Complements. The reason we’re stuck in this auto-dystopia (are we auto-asphyxiating? ;-) is people wanting one size fits all infrastructure. Let’s apply this more intelligently this time - recognize that some areas are more built up than others and different solutions scale differently . In general that can be a good thing, but we need interconnected services for everyone. That does include cars in many areas, although I agree a worthwhile goal for cities/town centers is that people not need a car

      • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        The reason we’re stuck in this auto-dystopia (are we auto-asphyxiating? ;-) is people wanting one size fits all infrastructure.

        The reason the US is a car dependent dystopia is because they let the auto industry dismantle a shitton of public infrastructure.

        Just because you build public transport infrastructure doesn’t mean you can’t have your car, look at switzerland, netherlands, they have good public transport/bike infrastructure and still have cars.

        Having great public transportation actually makes it better for people who only want to use cars, because it takes off a lot of people from the road who now have alternative options.

          • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            It’s really efficient in densely populated areas but inefficient in sparsely populated areas.

            While it should be everywhere eventually , the focus should definitely be on cities first.

              • @Zink@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                They may have been talking about economic inefficiency, if you don’t have a busy enough route to justify the initial investment.

                And in the US at least, there is a LOT of land, and huge amounts of it are sparsely populated. But that still adds up to a lot of people.

              • @frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -11 year ago

                The more stops you have for a train, the slower, more expensive, and less efficient it is. They like hauling for long distances without stopping.

                • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  31 year ago

                  still more efficient than anything else…

                  and then usually how it works is that some trains go local and stop everywhere and others are intercity and stuff and stop at less stations etc.

                  • @frezik@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    “Efficient” covers a lot of things. There are often reasons to avoid what is technically the most efficient solution by some measure. For trains, their high up front cost has to be made up by low marginal cost, which typically means having a high number of passengers for each stop.

                    And before you say it, no, I’m not demanding they be profitable, just that they be cost effective.

              • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -21 year ago

                The last miles are a huge problem in villages. Train stops and you then walk 5 miles every time? The bus needs to ride every 30 minutes to bring along 5 people that’s super expensive.

                Also everyone there already has a car anyways since it’s basically required there.

                Cities however can use public transport far more efficiently.

                • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  you do realize trains are part of the public transport and no reasonable person would think you can’t take a car to the train station?

                  what do you think I am talking about? a bus going every 30 minutes to every house in bumfuck nowhere on the off chance they get a passenger?

                  • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -21 year ago

                    Yes but then you already have the car.

                    And if you already have the car then that’s usually far more practical than public transport.

                    Public transport works well in cities because it can completely eliminate the need for someone to own a car.

        • @mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          I also want to add that if public transit was more more common; it would EVENTUALLY spread to the rural areas just in a more limited fashion. Also, towns do build up as they age, it’s not like they are static.

    • @dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

      We need the incrementally more eco-friendly options as well. Most pickup truck driving office workers won’t suddenly get a bike and change their ways, so a more eco friendly personal vehicle is probably a lot more likely to reduce emissions for that demography.

        • Echo Dot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m sorry but if maglev trains are an option I want my damn maglev train.

          Anyways since we already don’t have public transport we might as well not have magic magnetic levitating public transport.

    • @const_void@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      Don’t forget working from home. Proven by the lockdown air quality to be the most environmentally friendly option. Remember this when you’re employer is asking you to “return to the office”.

      • Franklin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Trains and trans are a more cost effective and environmentally friendly way to transport the masses. It can work to a surprisingly small populations as evidenced by all of the small disparate towns in Switzerland, Norway and Denmark that depend on them.

        Of course no solution works everywhere, we can’t depend on trains everywhere but they should not be our first option.

      • @AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        Most people live in a city. In Australia and NZ it’s around 90%, in China, Europe and Canada for sure over 50%.

      • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        I don’t actually, I live in a small town, and I see american style suburbs popping up and it’s fucking disgusting

      • @Strykker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Man over 90% of the population is most countries lives in a fucking city.

        Helping them get off cars would be a massive improvement.