• RGB3x3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    How is mass transit not more practical? You get hundreds of people on a single train, get them to a safe spot, and support the population with last-mile transit.

    You can route as many extra trains as possible to go back and forth, getting way more people through.

    OP’s photo has fewer people in just that pic than could fit on a train, and yet they’re all going to be sitting in traffic for hours, endangering everyone.

    • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think the problem is sending the trains back in. Depending on the reason for the evacuation it could be prohibitively dangerous. And then there are people waiting for the train to come back.

      I don’t know what the solution is.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Possibly, but with the right planning, 5 trains within 30 minutes can get a few thousand people out.

        This is assuming there’s actually a decent railway system built.

    • Gord32@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s very dependent in what city needs to be evacuated. I’ve lived in Ft McMurray, the city in this picture and its remote. It’s almost 500km from Edmonton, the next nearest big city, where most of these people will be evacuated to. Even if there was passenger rail service up to there each round trip would be over 10 hours. Evacuating almost 70k people by rail would not be feasible in this situation, not that it wouldn’t be a good option during an emergency in less remote city.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Trains have limited maneuverability, especially if the fire jumps ahead. At least in a car, you can choose to turn off onto a different route.