• romanticremedy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    That’s what decades of car centric urban design does to everyone; any transportation other than a car is treated as a second class

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      While there’s something to that, it’s also a difficult fact that rail is just harder than roads, and by extension more expensive. You have hills? You are going to need to do tunnels and bridges for the rail because you can’t turn that sharply and you mustn’t have more than 1.5% grade. For road, just snake it around and up and down the hills.

      You have a source and destination that not many people will be using? It’s cost prohibitive to run a whole train or bus to cover that route.

      Now it’s one thing when the population distribution was based around settling around the harsh realities of needing to be along viable transit paths, but when a great deal of the population settled with the assumption of roads, you are going to have a hard time sorting out transit routes without mass resettlement.

      Of course, if you apply mass transit to cities and nearby areas you’ve gotten the worst of the troubles solved and it’s viable for mass transit. But cars are just part of the equation for longer hauls.