← Back to context

Comment by xnx

3 hours ago

Isn't a vehicle that goes from anywhere to anywhere on your own schedule, safely, privately, cleanly, and without billions in subsidies better?

I don't think individual vehicles can ever achieve the same envirnmental economies of scale as trains. Certainly they're far more convenient (especially for short-haul journeys) but I also think they're somewhat alienating, in that they're engineering humans out of the loop completely which contributes to social atomization.

  • > I don't think individual vehicles can ever achieve the same envirnmental economies of scale as trains.

    I think you'd be surprised. Look at the difference in cost per passenger mile.

    • I'm looking. Comes out unfavorably to cars. Obviously.

      I guess you're comparing the total cost of trains vs a subset of costs of cars, as is usual. Road use and pollution are free externalities after all.

Trains only require subsidies in a world where human & robot cars are subsidized.

As soon as a mode of transport actually has to compete in a market for scarce & valuable land to operate on, trains and other forms of transit (publicly or privately owned) win every time.

Cars don't work in dense places.

  • Sure but most of the world has a density low enough that cars work and trains don't really. I like trains as much as the next nerd, but you're never going to be able to take a train from your house to your local farm shop or whatever.

    Where trains work they are great. Where they don't, driverless electric cars seem like a great option.

Billions of subsidies? Im confused you talking about cars or trains.