I find it's similar to the XYZ stereotype, where people get annoyed because you're excited and interested in topic XYZ. Then they use that as an excuse to not like XYZ.
This is a joke but also not. People as a group are the worst.
Hell yeah! Get it, fam. And yeah, try not to be annoying about it, but don’t be shy about it, either: the more people know someone personally who bikes to places, the more every cyclist on the road gets humanized in the mind of the average driver. It makes all of us safer to talk about bike commuting.
l’ll speak up for airplanes, or at least airliners in particular. I concede the point they mostly burn non-renewable fuels, but they make excellent use of the resources. Rhetorically speaking, one can cross half the planet in half a day, for not much money, in a mode of transport that is the safest on the planet (typically an order of magnitude safer than cars as I recall).
Yeah, that’s why I put them in lawful. If we can get them to be more sustainable (maybe green hydrogen fuel), then they’d basically just be super fast and super safe sky buses, whereas they’re currently extremely polluting sky buses.
Although don’t forget that “for not much money” is partly because air travel is so subsidised. Fuel tends to be largely untaxed, even though fuel taxes on other modes don’t really cover the externalities
If I recall correctly, aren’t high speed trains the safest? At the very least, I recall that the Shinkansen has never had a single safety incident in its entire history, and as for the TGV, there have been a few derailments and a terrorist attack.
Especially on middle-distance routes where land transport would be faster (considering that airports can’t be downtown like train stations can be, the delays associated with airport security, etc.) if the rail infrastructure were decent.
In terms of fuel per passenger unit of distance, air travel is very efficient, the reason why there are so many emissions is the amount of distance you can travel.
Fuel makes up a significant amount of the aircraft’s weight at takeoff on long haul flights.
The GO Train pictured in your lawful neutral served 35,234,400 passengers in 2022 and covers 526km connecting 27 cities (rough count).
The old diesel-electric fleet was replaced for higher efficiency/lower emission units about a decade ago and these models are now being converted into even lower emission units.
In the next decade a large portion of tracks will be electrified.
Yeah, I heard the GO trains are undergoing some massive upgrades to provide better frequency and through-running lines. I wish they would do something to modernize the sorely lacking Exo trains here in Montreal. At least we got the REM now, though.
Go is amazing. I can get on a train in Toronto West, like 5 minutes from my house and that train takes me straight to Niagara falls in comfort. I can’t wait till we get faster trains
@uriel238@Album yeah! Let's vote for a high speed rail, give the contract to a racist antisemitic jerk who will dig a few feet of test tunnel then throw a party with flamethrowers.
yea man, i was wondnering too. trains are the least harmful, even the most polluting ones, the amount of torque they deliver for the amound of fuel consumed ratio is just beyond consideration
They're trams in the city, so relatively slow. Live and maintained vegetation has too much water to burn: boiling away the water takes more energy than the fuel provides.
It's probably also got those pop-up sprinklers, so if a fire does happen, you just turn on the water.
Covering a city in tram lines and sprinkler systems so you can keep up a fairy tale aesthetic with more grass isn’t practical. Just do gravel like the train lines and accept that keeping it pretty would be an irresponsible use of water in our increasingly frequent droughts.
It completely depends on the region, though. The grassy tram pic is from Helsinki, which is a plenty moist region that I think is generally predicted to get more rain with climate change. Sustainable urban design should be tailored to the context.
Well if this helps instead, people park on their yards every day with hot exhausts and catalytic converters. And some of us with old gravel driveways have a little grass right where we’re actually supposed to park, lol.
But yeah you’re right that when they decided to make that route so nice and green, they signed up for regular maintenance!
After figuring in all the time it takes to earn enough to pay for a car, time spent maintaining it and gasing up, as well as the actual time spent driving, you still only get about 4 miles per man hour.
I wonder if there’s data out there on life expectancy for people who walk a lot vs those who drive everywhere. I bet the miles per man hour would go down even further if you factor in years of life lost from being sedentary behind the wheel instead of walking.
the problem isn’t the car, but the salary, which is basically straight theft, and that is eating on the Mh (man-hour). if one were paid twice as much, that would translate to 8 mile per Mh, also imagine there were one seat cars, instead of paying for a 5 seat car, u would save at least on half as much of the car cost ( also a 1L for 100km engine locked at 90km/h for speed is also logical), which translates to 16 miles per Mh, so on and so forth…also taxing the rich and subsidizing public facilities will extend Mhours way more…
if u want to transport friends and whatnot, then dont come complaining about car cost…i was just trying to optimize car use cases. sure u wanna go camping ? might as well buy a AWD car for a trip per year and pay for the fuel of daily work commute. might as well buy two cars in this regard…if only public transport was that reliable, and also wages were fair…
The difference in fuel use between a two wheel drive and AWD vehicle is negligible, you might as well have an AWD. Especially if you don’t commute in your own car.
u would think a 1L gasoline engine with 86Nm of torque would serve awd in rugged terrain ? unless u live in the us, where even front wheel’s are run by 2 liter diesel, at 360Nm
The running cost of a vehicle is less than a dollar per KM, if you buy second hand you’re not losing much money to depreciation, and it takes me an hour to do an oil change, which I do every ten thousand KM.
I saw them around here somewhere. I haven’t bothered to run them personally, but after ditching my car and WFH, suddenly I can afford to support my wife and child while they both go to school - by way of explaining why I haven’t put the assertion under a microscope.
Couldn’t conjure up the source I got it from though. After some random figures looked up and shitty napkin math, I would only be able to argue for about 22 miles per Mhour for the average American.
Skynet theories aside, the whole “AI will solve trafic” thing is just dumb. Sure, I suppose we could one day perfect a system of cars working as a hivemind to optimize the flow of trafic, but that just makes it impossible for anyone not part in that hivemind (cyclists etc.) to use the road.
I suppose the “just one more lane bro” joke sort of applies here in that the problem caused by cars would be “solved” by doubling down on cars.
There is a historic neighborhood in my city with narrow stone streets, it’s got plenty of car traffic during the day. At night it’s prime nightlife, streets filled with (inebriated) pedestrians. When the entitled drivers arrogantly drive there at night honking at pedestrians, they quickly find themselves booed, flipped off, covered in empty beer cups balanced on the hood. It’s a beautiful sight to see people reclaim the streets.
I am looking at this for about 5 seconds and it looks like safety and logistics nightmare. It’s so cyberpunk, except the entire genre was meant to be a critique of a decaying and hypercapitalistic society, not a guidebook. Not sure how cyberpunk became cool despite the fact that it is based upon a dystopian imagery of what a city would look like in a dehumanising future
fuckcars
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.