this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
1357 points (98.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

16874 readers
786 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 50 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 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 22 points 1 month ago (4 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.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Musk has openly admitted he propped Hyperloop for the sole purpose of stopping California to build a high speed train. He never intended to deliver anything.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

This is one of those moments when I mentally ask "how the fuck is that even legal" but then I remember who writes the rules.

[–] PuddleOfKittens@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Not openly. He allegedly admitted it to his ghostwriter, behind closed doors, but publicly denies it. He claims it was a misunderstanding, which is plausible.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Which is some real cartoon villain shit

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 9 points 1 month ago

And Elon has not produced a single workable anything, but sucked up billions in subsidies.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Nobody even considers that a problem for airplanes.

[–] StabbingSky@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Having to plan connecting flights is a thing.

Of course, we don't just not make direct flights between major cities because other cities are in between.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Plains fly over the obstacles? Thats kinda the point? Also i may have underestimated the amount of people flying in the us cause in europe one flight a day is completely normal for destinations at this distance. Of course if thousands of people want to move between these two locations each day a regular shuttle could make sense but you cant just ignore the distance, 2.5 hourse is a very very best case scenario. Planes can also fly boutta 1000kmh but that doesnt mean a place 1000kms away takes 1 hour, 1.5 to 2 hours is completely normal for a journey like that without accounting for all the flight related hassles. Of course thats a huge upside of trains but you cant just freely apply train to everything. This is very likely a place where a highspeed rail connection would make sense but nothing is ideal instantly. Not to talk about how these cities would have to improve their own public transit to be able to connect to a wider network efficiently.

Literally nobody ever thought we shouldn't make a direct flight route from Chicago to New York because there's other cities people might want to stop at. It's similarly absurd problem to imagine for trains.

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 month ago

planes missing connections is rare and the airlines provide some degree of compensation, Amtrak has no such reputation.

[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Hyperloop is incredibly stupid on the face of it for so many reasons, the two largest of which IMO actually being that it would be incredibly unsafe as escape would be impossible in case of an incident and that it's literally physically impossible, as the material tolerances required are incompatible with the temperature shifts that happen everywhere on account of weather and seasons.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

three and a half hours if you want an actually usefull line that stops.at places where people wanna stop at

You can run a multi-stop and an express train concurrently.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago

In fact, that is the norm.

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (3 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.

[–] syreus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

China seems to have figured it out in their mountainous regions. Some of the lines are 90% tunnel+raised rails. And as an American we should talk about how China is roughly the same size as America. The excuse well has run dry.

[–] whatstatersprecious@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I’m all for high speed rail in the US, but comparing the land area of the two countries is not really that relevant.

China’s network is really focused on about a third of the land area. US could do the same, but the big population hubs are separated and on opposite sides of the country, so it’s less ideal - lot of track to connect the two. It’s like 2-3x the distance to connect LA/NYC vs Chongqing/Shanghai.

China also has 4x the population of the US. So the cost/benefit to build this out is simply much more favorable for china.

Most importantly, China’s autocratic government can clear the red tape to get big projects like this done. Just getting the land rights to build the right track could kill a transcontinental project in the US. But that decision is consolidated in the Chinese government. This cuts time and cost immensely.

[–] syreus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

None of these points are strong enough to stop the idea of high speed rail in the US. The auto lobby alone does that.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

But that's a non issue. If you want to get from LA to NYC, you fly. If you want to get from Chicago to NYC or from LA to San Francisco, you take the HSR... I mean you would if the US had a fully developed transport infrastructure.

[–] whatstatersprecious@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean sure but it’s the same issue, smaller scale at that point. You slashed the distance, but also the demand.

The big problem is always going to be getting the land anyway

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The corridors I mentioned are perfectly fine HSR corridors, the population numbers and distances are great for HSR, perfectly suitable. That is absolutely not the propblem. Developed countries would have already HSR along those corridors, heavily used HSR, that is transformative for the places along it.

The problem is not getting the land, the problem is politics and legislation that is hostile to it and as a consequence it is nigh impossible to get that land for critical infrastructure like that (hostile legislation is also the reason why multiple the times of construction costs have to be paid for non-construction expenses, not even counting land acquisition). Curiously enough it is not impossible to ever widen highways or even build entirely new ones.

[–] JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Cool cool

Then build a HSR on the east coast and one on the west coast. How about we start with that first?

Then you can worry about the detail that isn’t even that important. Nobody is saying to build HSR coast to coast

Next you are going to tell me it’s not a good solution because of Hawai

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

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

[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

From a network perspective it wouldn't make sense to build a Chicago - New York straight line with 0 stops... You'ld better link up Chicago to Cleveland, probably even do the Detroit detour and continue that in an expensive Appalachian tunnel to Washington DC. Then in a separate project build a high speed rail connecting the east coast cities: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington...

[–] VAK@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

If you want to stop at multiple towns, then regular HSR makes sense. Maglev is suitable if you stop at most at Cleveland. (And extend to Minneapolis)

[–] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just bring a non-stop train, a limited stop train and/or a full stop train. It's more expensive, but it's overall better.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah i mention that in a different comment, many cities and countries have systems with full service, shuttle, commuter, etc trains that all serve different modes of transport with the same vehicle(idk how to phrase it exactly). Point is one machine and line(your train in this case) can serve customers demanding different kinds of service by running different schedules.