this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
610 points (98.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

16670 readers
1543 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (3 children)

More like three and a half hours if you want an actually usefull line that stops.at places where people wanna stop at and you add the time needed to accelerate and decelerate but yeah. Also thats calculating with 500kmh which is very much cutting edge and constructing a line like that takes decades BUT that doesnt mean such investments arent worth it and also just fixing transport within a city is already worth it.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 4 points 35 minutes ago (1 children)

China and Japan seem to have figured this shit out. How come the largest economy in the world can't? Pissed about with Elon and his Hyperloop which would be too expensive for any regular person (extreme maintenance costs) and can't move as many people (very limited size). And it didn't even work! Meanwhile elsewhere the train wasn't being reinvented, but improved, and it's actually functional.

Also, you can have high speed transit between two major stations, then take local transit to your specific destination. That's what central stations are supposed to be for.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 minutes ago

Yeahhh but chicago is several large cities away from new york so thats why im saying they would need a stop for each of them. You can of course have commuter trains that skip some of those and others that serve the less used ones of course, and shuttles as well but you also have to consider that chicago and ny are 1100kms away from each other in a straight line while tokyo and kyoto are 370kms from each other in a straight line for example and those are 2 hours by train(and i looked from the train stations which are not in the center of the city tho you could argue they are somewhat but these metropolitan areas are so large that they have multiple city centers) so that means if you just multiply it up you would get that the chicago-ny line would be a six hour journey. This is, of course, probably not correct. Im just trying to show how you cant just draw a straight line between two places and say "Train!". Tho of course you also have to calculate with the fact that the us is much richer than both china and japan but once again that just complicates things again.

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

A thing a lot of people don't understand about high speed rail is that it needs to be very straight and very flat. Draw a straight line from those two cities and count the number of places it goes through, the different elevations and figure out how you'd bulldoze through it all.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 1 points 31 minutes ago

Thats why i drew a squiggly line when i calculated this lol

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world -1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Also high-speed rail doesn't run at top speed the whole time. You might have a few flat spots here and there, but most of the time it's running much slower.

Also, if there's a problem with a train, the whole rail goes down. If there's a problem with an airplane, the other planes have a whole lot of sky they can still use.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 6 points 38 minutes ago

Also, if there’s a problem with a train, the whole rail goes down. If there’s a problem with an airplane, the other planes have a whole lot of sky they can still use.

That's not how rail works.

There absolutely are passing places where a train can hop onto the left track and then back again, or just a long stretch of an extra track going parallel to the main route where either the faulty train can sit and wait for repairs, or the working trains can jump around the faulty one.

Source: living in a country that actually has a working passenger railway system.

[–] culprit@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 minutes ago

This passing problem was solved a long time ago, it's just that the freight rail corps in the US have "optimized" for trains that are longer than the passing rail sections. It's extremely bad for the entire rail industry and the cause of many of the derailments and accidents, but because capital always gets its way in the US, nothing significantly has changed to resolve the issue.

It's very frustrating how often there are perfectly workable solutions to making the world better, but if it doesn't have a fat profit margin, it just gets strangled to death by capital interests in this country.