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

Fuck Cars

15673 readers
626 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
[–] titanicx@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The funny thing is you look at the map and yeah it looks like we have less rail however overall we have more rail total.

US 136,729 miles

EU 124,895 miles

But I know neither one of these two also include light rail in here, narrow gauge rail, etc, which US does have quite extensively and it moves quite a few more people within the cities than cross the country.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Honestly this is why miles of rail is a pointless metric.

Number of people moved, how quickly, how far, how affordably, and distributed by population matter more.

I've lived in the US and Europe. Growing up in the US, the nearest public transit, a bus, was about 9 miles away. The roads did not have sidewalks for the vast majority of that and the roads were not designed for bikes. Essentially there was no available transit. If I somehow made it to this stop it would be another 1.5 hr bus ride with transfers to the nearest amtrak station. This wasn't even the most rural part of the US. 8th most populous state in the country and about 20 miles from the 5th most populous city in that state.

I've yet to find anything like that anywhere in the country I'm currently in. Even going on hikes purposefully away from everything there's still closer public transit than growing up.

I've been to plenty of places in the US where you wouldn't find a bus stop for 50 miles.

And this isn't even getting into how expensive and slow US rail is. That's only talking about access.

[–] titanicx@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Distance traveled is a huge thing. Also transit depends on where you live. In the city I live in there is a bus close to pretty much everywhere. They have last mile transit, light rail, and heavy rail as well,l. Servicing 1400 sq miles, 89 miles of light rail, 43 miles of heavy rail. That's only one area here. I didn't own a car for 9 years. In the 8 years since then the system has only gotten better, for example when I used to ride transit on Sundays there were only buses every hour and then they stopped after 5. That's no longer the issue. Anyways. Honestly this argument of the US transit vs EU transit really doesn't matter. They are far different places with far different needs. I can tell you that rail would work for some things, but definitely not every place.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes I've traveled to cities in the US as well, but that's not what I'm saying at all.

These are not far different places with far different needs. Both people need transport. Both people need to get food, medicine, go to school, etc. However one group is significantly served while the other must rely on cars. If you lack the capital to access cars then you are destitute and practically locked into poverty. The percentage of the population with reasonable access to public transit ia significantly lower.

I'm not saying my old neighborhood need a rail connection per se, but it should have reliable transit that connects it to the major hub and provides rail access through that connection.

The US used to have this

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The map only includes intercity passenger rail. Most of that 136,000 miles is freight rail that’s not on this map

People online claim we have a great freight rail network but I’m not convinced

  • it’s heavily skewed toward bulk good like ore, that dont have a deadline or schedule, and very few shippers. Great efficiency numbers for spotty service
  • we’re running on 100 year old infrastructure
  • they’ve just let the rail rot, too often pulling up the second track or letting it get too rough for passenger rail
  • they run ever larger trains, despite not building sidings big enough - cheaping out at the cost of delaying everyone else
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Meanwhile in europe the TGV bombards at 320 kmh standard speed (or 350mph on fun days) while anemicans goes at 60...

Don't compare dirt tracks to the autobahn!

[–] titanicx@lemmy.zip 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

The Frontrunner in Utah runs up to 79mph. Not sure where you get caped at 60. It's not the high speed. But for where it travels it's fast

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 20 hours ago

It was just a comparison, your trains are basically walking speed in comparison. Which means rail length in the us and europe isn't comparable.

That was the gist of my post. Now good for you if you have fast trains and/or doesn't need speedtrains.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, but we have Acela “high speed rail”

  • meets the definition by traveling 150mph … for < 50 miles
  • I think trip average Boston—>NYC is now up to 79mph