How much energy does it take to move one train 500 miles? How much energy does it take to move 10 cars 25 miles each? That's your question.
Why do people always frame public transport in the light of "everyone can just take a single train!"? It doesn't work like that. It never works like that. It's a ridiculous argument barely even worthy of a response. 500 people might take one train in LA or NYC, but how about Greenville, Wisconsin? How about in Bitely, Michigan? How about Linn Grove, Indiana?
Suddenly the argument breaks down, doesn't it? Good luck replacing 500 cars with one train when the town only has 150 people and they all work in different cities. Now suddenly cars are looking pretty damn efficient, aren't they?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15077631 and marked it off-topic because it turned into a flamewar. Please read the HN guidelines and follow them when commenting here.
You raise good points, but they're specific to American urban design, and the long-term solution is probably to redesign and rebuild our cities to move away from those designs.
So the solution is to tear down our cities, abandon our homes, and rebuild everything somewhere else. Gotcha. I mean that's probably environmentally friendly, right?
Thanks for your input. It's rare to meet an anti-development NIMBY on Hacker News, it's always welcome to have different points of view on this website.
Cities and homes should not be expected to last forever; while we shouldn't be rebuilding them every year, doing so every few decades is probably more environmentally friendly than not.
I'm not sure I'm understanding... my home was built in 1953 and is standing just fine. It's got new windows, new insulation, and a new roof. Are you saying I should abandon it and go build a new one? There's a brick building in town that's been there since 1842, you're saying we should rip it down just because it's old?
Has everyone in this entire thread lost their damn minds? First meth-head farmers are "living in luxury", then "street cars will replace every road in the nation", and now "buildings should be torn down and rebuilt every 30 years".
Why do people always frame public transport in the light of "everyone can just take a single train!"? It doesn't work like that. It never works like that. It's a ridiculous argument barely even worthy of a response. 500 people might take one train in LA or NYC, but how about Greenville, Wisconsin? How about in Bitely, Michigan? How about Linn Grove, Indiana?
Suddenly the argument breaks down, doesn't it? Good luck replacing 500 cars with one train when the town only has 150 people and they all work in different cities. Now suddenly cars are looking pretty damn efficient, aren't they?