this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
757 points (98.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

15667 readers
1455 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Reminds me of my home city where people argued that there was no way to incorporate urban rail into the city, but luckily the town is crisscrossed by bike trails. The bike trails were literally the rail bed from our urban train system that got torn out in the 50s.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I love and use rails-to-trails myself, but I can't shake the feeling that they're essentially motornormative culture scapegoating cyclists to bury any possible hope of reviving rail networks. The carbrained planner says "No you can't put the rails back in, you'd displace the cyclists!" While displacing cyclists every time they choose to exclude cycling infrastructure on streets.

I have similar feelings bit ido tell myself this: If nothing else rails to trails maintains the right of way. The carbrained city planner says you'll displace the cyclists, but in 30 years that planner will be retired or dead. What would kill railroads forever would be carving up the ROW and selling it off.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Occasionally, in my most cynical moments, I have the same thought.

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They also feel like something designed by someone who hasn't ridden a bike since they were 16.

I get it. "Might was well" use land where the right-of-way is already clear, etc. But a miles of straightaways followed by gentle curves designed for a train don't make for a very engaging bike ride. I'm sure this could exist, but I haven't been on any that would actually be useful as bicycle infrastructure. They mostly go from nowhere to nowhere and there are few options to get on or off the 'trail'.

[–] knexcar@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Straight cycling routes with gentle curves and low grades and few intersections are great, what are you talking about? So much better than bike paths crammed next to a road or river with random twists and turns to get around car infrastructure, or worse, winding and convoluted neighborhood routes with lots of stop signs that make it take forever to get anywhere. If a trail goes from nowhere to nowhere, it would probably not have gotten frequent rail service anyway and is still useful to some people as a bike path.

I suppose it helps I’m on a fast ebike though and want to make my 11 mile commute in a reasonable amount of time.

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

The bad ones I've been on are:

  • between old small town stations, so now it's suburb to suburb and you can't access anything in between so they're useless for commuting. If the rail-to-trail revamp continued on it would go on through the former rail hub of the local large town, but that part hasn't been built out yet, and may never be because at some point they'll have to deal with crossing (hopefully over / under) highways and stroads that have been built up since.

I have a proper bike trail in my home city that goes along a river and it's amazing that it winds along for dozens of miles with stuff to look at and breezes. You're not confined to a corridor with overgrowth on both sides causing stifling heat that's trying to imitate a highway. It's a pleasant commute if you happen to live along it and a relaxing recreational ride if you're not.

  • long gradual grade. Coast one way, which is nice, Sisyphean bike ride with no rest for miles the other way.

I might've come off harsh, I do generally like rails-to-trails. They're better than nothing, and you're right that having an ebike takes the arduousness out of it, but they're very much a hand-me-down version of proper infrastructure. I would rather have the passenger light rail service.

In the 1900s the small MS town I'm thinking of had a few hundred people and a rail station. You could pay the inflation adjusted ~$15 for all the transfers to go back and forth to the coast ~100 miles away. We didn't discard passenger rail in the US because it wasn't useful, but because it was hard to extract profit out of the public service.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

While I agree with the guilt of enjoying rail trails

  • I no longer cycle on them: it’s not enjoyable because they’re so crowded
  • we have some that are very useful for getting places, usually train stations
  • the one across my town goes through neighborhoods, so I’m sure they’re happy it’s not trains
  • there’s a plan to build my towns third train station, and one of the requirements is connecting the rail trails
  • I realized just last summer that my favorite diner is only 1 mile walk if I take the new rail trail!