• Blamemeta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because at that point you’re just running buses for individuals at best, but mostly running empty. You’d have to stop at every house… It would create more emissions that it saves.

    • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ideally, you would be running a train instead of a bus. The train stops in the middle of town, which is a thriving mixed use area of medium density residences, corner stores, and restaurants. Everyone can walk to the train station.

      • Blamemeta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        You expect people to walk to a train station? Have you seen how far apart everything is in rural areas?

        Hi, yes please, Id like to walk two hours to get on a train, and I like to walk two hours to get back home when do. And thats assuming you live fairly close to town, within 5 or 6 miles or so.

        • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          People have been walking through rural areas for 12,000 years. Because that’s how long ago agriculture was invented.

          • Blamemeta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except you know, horses.

            Also, we have cars now.

            And its not 12,000 years ago.

            There is zero point in getting in walking two hours to a train station when you can just drive there.

            • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              One of those options emits carbon and drives humanity closer to extinction and one doesn’t. Do you prefer the time saving convenient genocide, or walking?

              • Blamemeta@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Mate, so long as we ship plastic across the pacific, cruises still exist, and execs fly private planes, thats a non-starter.

                Further more, those buses would run empty most of the time, causing more emissions than if people just drove. Have you even been to rural America?

                  • Blamemeta@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Electric trains still have emissions. Not just power, but maintence as well. Overhead lines go down, pantographs leave metal dust everywhere, hell even just normal rail maintence.

                    Theres a reason why all the American passenger lines went bankrupt, and why Amtrak is funded by the government and still struggling.

                    And the best part is you’d spend a trillion dollars running lines everywhere, and almost no one would ride it.

                    Edit: its costs 75,000 dollars per year per mile to maintain electric track. Its completely unfeasible. http://rockymountainrail.org/documents/RMRABP_CH7_OperatingCosts_03.2010.pdf