Subj : Re: EVs
To   : Arelor
From : Adept
Date : Wed Oct 25 2023 20:35:58

 Ar> Also you need to pass TSA-like access controls to board certain trains
 Ar> here. If I am a paying customer I am not gonna consent to that, period.

That's... not a train problem, though it _is_ interesting how much more things like border controls hit mass transit things than they do with cars, at least in the EU.

But, yeah, not a fan of that sort of thing.

 Ar> Buses still fall so short, though, because you can't count on them being
 Ar> available when you need them. If your shcedules are not flexible you
 Ar> many still not be able to take the bus at all.

When you're a far distance from where anyone would build a train to, it does seem unlikely that a bus would ever pay for itself, either.

But, yes, trains are for routes that are likely to be congested at some point in the future, which means places with higher density or that are destinations for some reason.

Since the point is to transport a large quantity of people, frequently, but with enough slack on the edges of schedules that people feel as though they can depend on the infrastructure.

And, "middle of the country" is not that situation.

That said, this is reminding me of MonoCab, which is... not a great solution for anything, but _is_ entertaining, since it's meant to be a taxi-like service that's automated, but only takes one side of a train track, so that the vehicles can go both ways at once.

At which point it'd probably be more reasonable to have tracks going to less-traffic'd areas.

But I'm not anti-car -- just in favor of designing high-density areas in ways that best use the land. And favoring cars when there's generally no place to park the things just makes for unpleasant cities. Even when they're moving around, it's just so inefficient, for the amount of people in a given area.

But low-density? That's a different problem.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
 * Origin: Storm BBS (21:2/108)

.