this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
899 points (98.0% liked)
Greentext
6530 readers
493 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A train can't take me up remote roads 15 miles up a canyon to destinations that only a capable 4x4 can reach (this is the point of those roads), then take me out the other end of the canyon via those trails into a small town with a delicious diner and ice cream shop. All while checking out abandoned mines (no I don't go in), ghost towns, and other history from before my time.
And yes, I do this often.
Wow, cool, you ride an airplane directly into an abandoned mineshaft?
Of course; do you not?
Yeah, they're an Ace Combat protagonist.
That actually looks like a fun game.
Ok, cool. But I don't think your experience would still be very good if you were joined by an additional trainload of people riding 4x4s right alongside you. It'd be time to pave over that canyon so that the people visiting it can park.
And trains aren't mutually exclusive with cars. I might take the train to visit my parents a few cities over, but that didn't mean there wasn't a highway for the moving truck to drive along when I had to get my stuff over to where I live now.
No-one is saying no-one should drive a car. Rather, that the right tool for the right job should be used. In the US, cars are used for a lot more than what they're best at. That you are using them effectively for personal use, is not a reason to also have them used where they aren't as effective (in this case in comparison to trains, large volume transit of people who are mainly transporting themselves between hubs of human activity).
In Tokyo, Shinjuku train station routes 3.8 million people to where they are going, EVERY, DAY.
Interstate 5 in the US, the busiest in the country, does a pathetic 0.75 million a day on its busiest strip. And the cost-effectiveness of trains beats out cars waaay before you hit capacity on such a highway.
Completely missed the point. Less "general public" is the entire idea of offroading in remote locations with no cell service or anything else. It takes actual skills to get up there, and the more-skilled people tend to be more respectful of the lands. But I digress.
For sure. I don't disagree with that at all. I've moved across the USA twice, and both times it was more cost-effective to just drive. Paying a transporter to haul a minivan, paying a moving company to ship my family's stuff, and loading us all on a plane to live at the in-laws while we wait for our stuff to arrive - was our first choice. However, I did the math and found that sending my family on a plane while I rented a UHaul trailer and just towed it with the minivan was over $1000 cheaper, despite the 5-day drive I had to do. But I enjoyed it.
Absolutely. I just get really fucking tired of seeing the "fuck cars" morons beating a dead horse over and over again with "all cars are bad and should be illegal right now".
And it's a beautiful thing. The fact that Japan is roughly the size of the entire US east coast and somehow manages with trains just fine is an engineering marvel.
I don't disagree with this either.
Honestly though, for general "getting around", I just prefer my bikes.
Exactly.
I'm pointing out that your low volume scenario has literally zero equivalence with high volume transit, and you shouldn't have brought it up.