this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
162 points (91.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9699 readers
1985 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I think the point is that with a robust high speed rail infrastructure and an appropriate mergency response to multiply trains on the escape routes, a lot fewer people would die because it would be considerably more efficient.

I'm not sure I buy it as people tend to evacuate with large belongings that fit in cars but wouldn't necessarily fit in trains, though I suppose freight trains could also move them efficiently.

[–] Katana314 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I guess this is also why many evacuation plans for extreme disasters say to leave your belongings behind.

[–] WoodScientist 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Belongings are one thing. The biggest problem I see with rail evacuation is the same problem a lot of existing bus-based government evac options have. They don't let you bring your pets. A lot of people refuse to evacuate because they can't afford many nights in a hotel, and the government-provided evac options prohibit people from bringing their pets along. Even if you're lucky and your own home survives, who's going to look after your cats or dogs while you're away for who knows how long? Then when it comes time to return, often people aren't let back in for prolonged periods of time until authorities decide things are safe. Imagine being in that situation, knowing that your pet is dying of dehydration while the cops sit there and decide whether it's time to let you return home or not.

I don't really think it's about saving the TV. I think the biggest reason people would insist on using private transport for evac is they don't want to condemn their pets to death.

[–] Randelung 7 points 1 month ago

A car is a passable temporary shelter. You're protected from the elements (in non storm areas, where you fled to previously), you have heating and power (at least for your phone), you have radio, maybe even a screen.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

I'm pretty sure that every time we evacuated to a relative's house, we over-packed. But most of that "overpacking" wasn't just all the clothes, it was often food in the fridge going into ice chests, lots of water, extra fuel.

It would be common to get stuck in traffic trying to leave, and it even happened a couple of times that the highway was down to a complete stop.

I guess the unfortunate thing there is that they often "counter flow" the highway as well, meaning that they put all lanes leaving, but people rarely ever knew, so I sometimes saw someone going the "wrong way" on the highway while we were outside of our cars wondering what was happening.

Getting stuck like that was rare, but to avoid it you have to leave a day or two before everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

You literally just need normal rail infrastructure.

Fuck all talks about high speed rail in the US, you don't even have normal rail. How do you expect people to stop using their cars if all you will have is rail that ONLY connects metropolises?

Seriously, high speed rail is a prestige project for the most part. It's nearly useless without a solid local rail infrastructure foundation. If you have to travel 60 miles to the nearest train station via car you might as well drive to your destination fully.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There's a video on Youtube by this bloke who calls himself Bald and Bankrupt, where he happened to be in Kyiv on the day the Russians invaded the city so they evacuated, and they just left by train. It was packed wall to wall, obviously, but very feasible.

[–] FireRetardant 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Rail doesn't get congested the same way highways do and nothing in your house is worth more than your life when evacuating. If you want to keep certain belongings safe, maybe it is best to transport them away before hurricane season comes.

Hell even a well serperated bus lane and lots of buses could evacuate more people than cars.

[–] BottleOfAlkahest 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I can't take my dog I'm not going, and thats likely the issue for a lot of others. The government does have buses for evacuation but you can't bring pets on them.

[–] FireRetardant 5 points 1 month ago

The people without pets can take the rail which can lessen the congestion on the highway for people who need to transport pets. More options is better than 1 option.

[–] grue 3 points 1 month ago

Rail doesn’t get congested the same way highways do

This is a point worth emphasizing. In fact, Oh The Urbanity! made an entire video explaining it, which everyone ought to watch.

[–] DarkSpectrum 6 points 1 month ago

Life > belongings.