• LovesTha🥧@floss.social
          2·
          3 months ago

          @Tak Or build stations and tracks where so few people will use them.

          Building more tracks for everything would be good, but still not an answer for everything.

          A world where we only had trains and push bikes would be nice, but not likely to happen.

            • LovesTha🥧@floss.social
              1·
              3 months ago

              @figstick @Tak you probably need a density of more than 1 person per square km. That is where most people live. It is great for most people. Maybe even nearly everyone.

              But for the last 0.1% something else is needed.

              But even then it might be better to have personal rail vehicles on private tracks (the same tracks the farm should be using for it’s produce.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      21·
      3 months ago

      You mean using same road cars would use for buses, while optionally removing extra lanes, is less green and cheap than building and maintaining 18-lane monstrosities in the middle of nowhere?

        • uis@lemm.ee
          11·
          3 months ago

          18 lane monstrosities are connections between the dense cities/burbs.

          All those 18 lanes are built ONLY because of cars.

            • uis@lemm.ee
              11·
              3 months ago

              What? Cars per length? What is this unit of? Some wierd linear density? I’m saying that that 18-lane abominations are built only for no other reason than driving cars. You say that car infrastructure is cheap, especially in rural areas, but you seem to ignore(intentionally or not) most expensive and destructive part of it. Which happens to go through rural areas. Or you can name abomination that is purely within city limits?

              And public transit just doesn’t need this abomination. Public transit works fine even with one lane per direction. Or track if we are talking about trains.

                • uis@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  And there are fewer cars per km in rural areas.

                  You said sentence that has no clear meaning. Per km of what? Per average distance between houses? Per average distance those cars travel? Or you want to say rural areas require more car infrastructure per car? If so, then this is close to what I was trying to say.

                  I reread entire convo. This started from

                  If you live in rural areas with really low density it is often cheaper and greener to not build mass transit systems there.

                  And if you are not the only person living in that area, then public transport WILL be greener. One car for two people is more efficient than two cars for two people, one car for four people is more efficient and one minivan for eight people is more efficient than two cars for four people. And minivan is just few steps awa from bus.

                  And again, less total amount of cars means less car infrastructure needs to be built and maintained, which means less money spent.