• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    As always, the problem with commuter trains is the last mile. If you work in the city, there is probably some form of bus or subway, but if you work in an unwalkable suburb, you’ll need an Uber for that last mile which cuts into the benefit.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      surely you can bike 2 miles in the burbs? One of the upsides of suburbs being so painfully sprawly is that barely anyone lives there, so you shouldn’t have a tremendous amount of traffic on those 2 miles to the train station.

      And even if you’d fear for your life biking there now, it’s not like you need to build bike paths along every little residential street to fix it, start with the largest most high-traffic roads and build your way down until people feel safe biking to the train station.

      • PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, but then you have to carry your bike with you on the train. There is no workable solution to suburbia that doesn’t involve cars because it was designed and built around them. Unfortunately, they’re now home to tens of millions of people, and any quick solution would most likely end up hurting a lot of them.

    • moitoi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The problem is the unwalkable suburb that doesn’t make any sense. It never made sense either.

      It’s not only bad for commuting. It’s a mess for groundwater, pollution of all type (noise, microplastics, air, etc.) It has an impact on the wildlife including reproduction, on plants, etc.

      It’s just a bad use of space? No, it’s bad socially by isolating people. It creates urban traps. I will stop here otherwise I will continue on the fact it’s a myth created by the capital…

  • Microw@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re making the right point, BUT pretty much every train service provider would add more parallel tracks if they increase the number of trains to a certain point, because they start getting in the way of each other

  • errer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Even with single people in cars you can move wayyyy more than 100 people per hour in the top left.

    Assume 25 mph speed and 30 feet between cars, each car crosses 30 feet in about a second. 3600 seconds in an hour, times 2 for both directions and you have 7200 people that can move on that little road.

    Now add additional passengers…buses…it can move a decent amount more. There’s lots of reasons cars suck but let’s not make up math to prove the point.

    • bob_lemon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      At 25mph, the safe distance between cars is closer to 60-70 feet. Add the length of the cars for another 15-20 feet and your throughput calculations drop by a factor of 2.5-3 already.

      It gets worse once you start considering comparable velocities. Trains go way over 25mph.