• Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Because to them being able to drive 4 hours one way in a day is somehow more “liberating” than taking a train. Even going the same distance, they for some reason think its better to drain multiple tanks of gas (at $4.50 a gallon where I am) to go that distance than to purchase a $20 dollar train ticket and do the same distance while being able to read, play games, whatever.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I have midwest friends who have admitted this, that they don’t like sharing a space. This is generally just a problem with rural people, they shut themselves out from the general public for so long that they get fearful of anyone outside of their social norms.

        Which of course I say “Get tougher and deal with it”, your fear of other people shouldn’t drive society. (But that’s human history - aint it)

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Is it a strange thing to admit to? I spent half my childhood in New York City (including taking the subway every day) and I still don’t like sharing a space with other people. It’s a common preference and I don’t see why it should be respected less than, for example, a preference to avoid loud noises and noxious odors would be when choosing how to live.

          • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Except the alternate is a very selfish, inefficient, and oversized method of transit. Cars mean that we need massive highways that take up millions of acres of space, we need huge parking lots that make it difficult to walk and also again, take up massive amounts of space, and they are horrible for the environment. By being pro car you’re also for all of those side effects.

            Instead of saying you don’t like mass transit, you don’t like those aspects of it. I’ve seen clean mass transit, but it needs to be enforced. Be upset with those who don’t enforce it, not the transit itself.

            • azdle@news.idlestate.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Preferring private spaces doesn’t mean being “pro car”. I very much prefer private spaces, but still overall prefer public transit. That just means I spring for a private roomette on amtrak even when it’s a non-overnight 8 hour trip to Chicago.

        • greenhorn@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Not as a “well actually” but just a different example: I regularly see Mennonites on Amtrak, which is maybe out of necessity, but their norms are very different from the diverse people on the train. I don’t like sharing space on the road. I’m generally a calm pacifist until I’m around other drivers

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Holy shit 8 hours is terrible. When I pick someone up from the airport is a 1 hour round trip. There’s a reasonably conveniently-located train option, except that its inconveniently infrequent off-peak, costs $20 per person, and takes an hour. All of which unfortunately makes driving kind of a no-brainer. The ridiculous cost is one thing that could be easily fixed and frequency wouldn’t be too much of a problem given the political will, but travel time is a little trickier. It sucks that under current conditions, driving is so much more convenient.

  • verdigris@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yeah it’s not that we don’t want to use the train, it’s that the train has been successfully turned into an objectively worse option in every way thanks to decades of lobbying and underfunding. If there even is a reasonable train route between your destinations, it would likely take 2-4x as long as driving, be 4-10x more expensive than the gas for the drive, and would be an uncomfortable and unpleasant experience that would still require a pickup and decently long drive (or further use of the barely functional public transit system) to get to the final destination.

    If you’re not a shipping container, there basically is no public transit infrastructure in the US. It only exists in cities that have chosen to make significant investments in it, and even then in most places it’s like one arterial light rail and then some busses with crappy coverage. For anything between cities or states, it’s nearly the same price as flying to get a charter bus or train ticket.

    The only thing that would solve this problem is extremely aggressive and unpopular legislation, or some benevolent trillionaire to actually do a hyperloop type project without immediately coopting it into just a shittier highway. Market forces and city governments will never create real interstate transit networks. Less aggressive legislation making it more expensive to keep and especially buy/make new cars would help, but it’s political suicide to say “I’m going to tax the good that almost every voter, and especially the ones with money and influence, have and use every day”.

    • bluGill@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      @verdigris

      @fuck_cars @DontMindMe Market forces cannot give you a good transit network as the market needs to compete against roads which are essentially free. Adding insult to injury, if you try you will discover that your taxes are going to support the road network you are trying to compete against.

      Private transit did very well in the US until regulations (NYC didn’t allow subways to charge market rates and thus they went bankrupt) and the highway system messed things up. So long as things like that are a risk you would be a fool to invest in private transit.

      • Gabu@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        NYC didn’t allow subways to charge market rates and thus they went bankrupt

        Simple solution: full statization of public transport infrastructure. Look at Europe (or even Brazil, ffs) - the state can afford to freeze prices or make the service free, if taken as a priority (which it is).

    • autumn (she/they)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      there happens to be a great train from my town to the next that:

      • is a lot cheaper than a ride share (only $7 for 30-40 miles)
      • your bike rides for free
      • is quicker or at least the same amount of time as driving
      • picks you up and drops you off downtown

      my only complaint is that it only runs 4 times per day, and it can’t really be used as a commuter train or getting home late because of the hours. most people here (raleigh and durham) don’t even know it’s an option.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Intercity rail is being built and improved on in CA, TX, FL, and the north east. The main issue is the terrible city planning in every city. City planners need to be brave enough to build non-car-dependent neighborhoods, and zoning restrictions need to be brought into the 21st century to allow that.

      • Square Singer@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Intercity rail is only really useful if you have good public transport in both cities. It does defeat the purpose if you need a car to get to and from the train station.