this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
785 points (98.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

16170 readers
190 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
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] titanicx@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (5 children)

The funny thing is you look at the map and yeah it looks like we have less rail however overall we have more rail total.

US 136,729 miles

EU 124,895 miles

But I know neither one of these two also include light rail in here, narrow gauge rail, etc, which US does have quite extensively and it moves quite a few more people within the cities than cross the country.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The map only includes intercity passenger rail. Most of that 136,000 miles is freight rail that’s not on this map

People online claim we have a great freight rail network but I’m not convinced

  • it’s heavily skewed toward bulk good like ore, that dont have a deadline or schedule, and very few shippers. Great efficiency numbers for spotty service
  • we’re running on 100 year old infrastructure
  • they’ve just let the rail rot, too often pulling up the second track or letting it get too rough for passenger rail
  • they run ever larger trains, despite not building sidings big enough - cheaping out at the cost of delaying everyone else
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Meanwhile in europe the TGV bombards at 320 kmh standard speed (or 350mph on fun days) while anemicans goes at 60...

Don't compare dirt tracks to the autobahn!

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah, but we have Acela “high speed rail”

  • meets the definition by traveling 150mph … for < 50 miles
  • I think trip average Boston—>NYC is now up to 79mph
[–] titanicx@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The Frontrunner in Utah runs up to 79mph. Not sure where you get caped at 60. It's not the high speed. But for where it travels it's fast

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago

wait till you see not only passenger trains but all trains lines in brazil, and for reference brazil is bigger than USA if you exclude Alaska and all random island USA owns

[–] markz@suppo.fi 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Wouldn't air travel account for more transcontinental passenger traffic than cars or trains?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

For sure. Few people will go the distance if they could fly. But think of all the connecting cities and towns. Rail can be faster and cheaper for a few hundred miles. Think of the long distance routes more as many segments of a few hundred miles, and a few crazies that go the distance

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›