I also want to add that if public transit was more more common; it would EVENTUALLY spread to the rural areas just in a more limited fashion. Also, towns do build up as they age, it’s not like they are static.
Comment on Fear of cheap Chinese EVs spurs automaker dash for affordable cars
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 1 year agoHoly based
mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 1 year ago
kameecoding@lemmy.world 1 year ago
public transport should be literally everywhere, why shouldn’t it?
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s really efficient in densely populated areas but inefficient in sparsely populated areas.
While it should be everywhere eventually , the focus should definitely be on cities first.
kameecoding@lemmy.world 1 year ago
how is connecting smaller towns/villages to bigger placed by train inefficient?
Zink@programming.dev 1 year ago
They may have been talking about economic inefficiency, if you don’t have a busy enough route to justify the initial investment.
And in the US at least, there is a LOT of land, and huge amounts of it are sparsely populated. But that still adds up to a lot of people.
frezik@midwest.social 1 year ago
The more stops you have for a train, the slower, more expensive, and less efficient it is. They like hauling for long distances without stopping.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The last miles are a huge problem in villages. Train stops and you then walk 5 miles every time? The bus needs to ride every 30 minutes to bring along 5 people that’s super expensive.
Also everyone there already has a car anyways since it’s basically required there.
Cities however can use public transport far more efficiently.