[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 57 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!




Just as we have threads about urban design, I was hoping we could have a thread about just the opposite. How would you go about designing an efficient transit system with extremely low population densities and limited infrastructure? How much car dependency does there need to be? Could you have a series of light rail networks connecting various ranches and townships together? Could STOL and bush planes be as normalized as any other taxi service?
>>
>>1814891
The car is unironically the best transport for rural areas. There's simply not enough demand for any public transport to work. Which is why they don't exist
>>
>>1814891
Bring back the SN
>>
>>1814894
>>
This isn’t quite true. Depends what counts are rural. Are there no population clusters at all? Not even towns or villages of a few hundred? The other consideration is that the road network can be more compact depending on the shape and design of the community. This isn’t exactly the best image but old European villages will have skinny parcels of land extending far behind the home for farming while all the homes (single family detached, of course) and buildings of the village are arranged rather compactly and orderly on either side of the singular main road that runs through the village. This is a walkable low population area not just for its scale but it’s efficient layout. Kind of a more relaxed street car suburb, minus the streetcar.

As for OPs post non land based transport definitely makes sense when the density is so low the cost of paved roads simply doesn’t make sense, and when distances are too great for gravel/unpaved
>>
>>1814897
>>
>>1814892
Is that really true though? Public transit as we know it couldn't survive, but just as we don't expect all road vehicles to have the same capacity as buses, is it so unreasonable to have low capacity trains and planes be main methods of travel? Rural living requires self-sustainability, and there are methods of communication at distances via radio and cellular to be able to coordinate transit.
>>
>>1814901
Think about where people in small communities are actually going if you're some small farmer
or something anon.
>Going to buy supplies
probably means a lot at once because the nearest town isn't that close so you don't want to go often. This isn't practical on public transport.
>Going really far to the nearest large city for whatever reason
They already own a car anyway but a charter but station would be fine.
>Dropping kids off to school.
some kind of school bus system would be fine if not dropped off by car
Trains don't make any sense here. They require too much infrastructure to be built. Planes make even less sense. Why would you pay the enormous cost of air travel just to go to town?
>>
>>1814892
This is incorrect. A bus costs about 7x as much to operate as a car. This means, that a bus is cheaper than a car whenever it transports the equivalent of >8 cars. Go to a rural road and count how long it takes for 8 cars, not hauling anything in particular, to pass in a single direction. These are the bus-able rides, and that's how often you could theoretically run buses. In a lot of rural areas that means easily a bus every 10 minutes. Trains cost something like 20 times more than a car, so if you count over 20 "person-moving" cars, it could have been a train.
>but they don't go point to point
A network does, and if it's properly designed (a grid), a single boarding change is all you need to reach local destinations.
>>
Interurbans ran between midwestern cities, offering fast express service, but locals made flagstops, connecting rural with urban.
>>
You will use le pod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5kRl2RxT70
>>
>>1814924
I feel that the expensive infrastructure for rail would be offset by the volumes of goods that could be moved since transit isn’t just for moving people. Grain, cattle, wood, and ore could be more efficiently moved via rail than road. As for planes, I think that actually might be a decent alternative for moving people since that requires the least amount of infrastructure.

This isn’t to say cars would be made moot, because they are certainly useful for the things you say, but I think it could be more balanced.
>>
>>1815147
what so you think there's going to be a micro train and a micro trainstation with specialized cars for people that need to move hundreds of pounds of shit that goes to the train station in their house? That doesn't make any sense.
Like I said before planes are too expensive. I'm not paying $300 to replace a $90 cab or even cheaper bus.
>>1814943
Yeah but in reality most people can't ride the bus because it doesn't fit into their schedule or don't want to because it takes too long. In reality you would probably need to find a route with 100 cars to get enough people to make it viable
>>
>>1814891
In Minnesota, there has been a push to change out state and county highway intersections with roundabouts. This is actually a pretty sensible move, seeing as rural highways are usually only two lanes and see volumes of traffic that make roundabouts a good move.
I think that a sensible future for rural planning would be to do the "mega block" style of urban development using two lane highways, with offshoot connections to towns, and grid development for farms within those. Seeing as in the US most small hamlets tend to have a single main street and a few houses on side streets, it makes sense to lean into that development pattern.
>>
>>1815180
>I think that a sensible future for rural planning would be to do the "mega block" style of urban development using two lane highways, with offshoot connections to towns, and grid development for farms within those.
That's pretty much how it is now
>>
>>1815177
Rural people don't take the bus because they have crappy schedules. Buses have crappy schedules because people don't take the bus. At some point we have to break the vicious circle and bring "high" frequency buses to rural areas. One every 15 minutes is plenty convenient, and unironically makes sense for most rural settlements. As for speed, I don't think it matters too much. A 40 km trip takes 30 min for a car doing an average of 80 km/h, and 40 min for a bus doing an average of 60 km/h. 10 minutes longer but cheaper (very important considering rural inhabitants are poorer than urbanites) and you don't have to drive yourself. Make it a good network, make it reliable, and the ridership will come. It'd probably revive many areas by bringing former urbanites for whom the lack of public services and transportation was the only barrier to moving out of the city.
>>
>>1814891
>Just as we have threads about urban design, I was hoping we could have a thread about just the opposite. How would you go about designing an efficient transit system with extremely low population densities and limited infrastructure? How much car dependency does there need to be? Could you have a series of light rail networks connecting various ranches and townships together? Could STOL and bush planes be as normalized as any other taxi service?
You could have drop off spots for freight which would get picked up by rail.

They would only have to drive the last mile themselves and unload their goods at a local freight depot instead of arranging for a truck to pick it up.

I'm sure they could manage most of that with some simple 8ft flatbed trucks. As far as diesel or electric they would probably need to get a small modular reactor installed in the community if they wanted to operate battery-powered heavy machinery and cars and the like. The freight trains could also have a passenger car at the front in case some people wanted to take a train into town with no guarantee on when it would come back. The people around there would probably know the schedule though, so they would probably be able to plan around it. Maybe the SMR is even located at the freight depot and contributes to the electrification of the tracks which the train then uses to operate on.

I suppose in the very long run it could be possible to install a centrally located small modular reactor and wire up a kind of trolly wire system overhead and efficiently run their tractors over their land instead of battery powered. I have no real idea how feasible that would be.
>>
>>1815241
then why doesn't anyone do this with a fleet of hybrid microbuses?
>>
File: rainbowspacekitty.png (894 KB, 709x626)
894 KB
894 KB PNG
>>1815199
Which is why rural road infrastructure in the US is actually not that bad. It's the suburbs and mid-sized (25k-200k) cities that are really where trouble starts. My only gripe is that many intersections on county and state highways are either a four way stop, or MAYBE a traffic light if you're lucky. The big focus on rural infrastructure is making roadways safer from a traffic standpoint, rather than increasing traffic flow.
>>1814943
The area I grew up in was serviced by the Heartland Express (before they made shipping their primary focus) which operated a bunch of retard racer busses on a borderline taxi basis. They only were able to sustain routes when subsidized by the state to a point where their expenses were nearly zero, and they weren't really effective at catering to a highly decentralized population. I honestly would say that driving is the most sensible form of transportation for a decentralized rural area.
>>
>>1815326
Lack of political will

>>1815436
Let me guess, it was a shit network with terrible schedules
>>
File: 1655879253139.png (42 KB, 1115x677)
42 KB
42 KB PNG
One of the problems with rural bus lines is they either cover bus stops on the highway that are too far from a town, or they cover bus stops inside the town and they force the rest of the passengers to detour to said town and then back to the highway. Often times said bus stop has no one waiting so the passengers just waste time. See pic related for example. My bus line to the nearest city is like this. It detours several times into small towns and it wastes a lot of time since people rarely board from those places.
It would be much more efficient if regular cars were used with carpooling. We need to somehow force people to carpool.
I own a car and I drive to the nearest city and park there, only to board a bus to another city. This takes me around 2.5 hours. If I got rid of the car and used only buses, it would take me over 3 hours, since the buses never align on their times. That is a total of an extra 1 hour (each day) of waiting in a bus station where you can't sit comfortably.
>just move to the city lol
I will never pay rent, I will never take a mortgage. I will keep working hybrid or remote jobs from my comfy town.
>>
File: muttposting1.png (26 KB, 997x611)
26 KB
26 KB PNG
>>1814892
fpwp
>>
>>1814894
>>1814896
unfathomably based SN respecter
>>
File: postbus.png (2.41 MB, 1400x933)
2.41 MB
2.41 MB PNG
>>1815241
We have probably some of the best rural transportation in Switzerland, with some rail lines and lots of bus lines. The bus lines usually look to running once an hour, though some run less than that. However, the bus lines always have timed connections at a rail line and/or to other bus lines. So even though that's not an amazing frequency, it'll always connect to other services, making it practical for longer journeys.

Even so, our generally hourly frequencies already cost a shitload of money. Proportionally, we probably subsidize public transport more than any other country. We spend a lot of money and it's only enough to maintain hourly frequencies on truly rural lines.

tl;dr
>you can have good rural transport
>needs to be well-coordinated to get the most out of it
>it's expensive
>don't hope for more than hourly service
>>
>>1815437
Absolutely, it was garbage and only serviced the county seat and a couple other towns in the area.
>>1815448
Even though it's completely against what /n/ stands for, if an area doesn't have the population to justify even a bus route, mass transit just doesn't make sense.
A heavy rail station at the county seat may make sense; those typically have the population to gain several riders. If it connects to the nearest urban center, these are justifiable, but that's about it.
>>1815454
If one of the richest countries in Europe per capita, with an incredibly small land area struggles to justify hourly service, this should tell anyone reading this why we don't adopt mass transit in rural areas.
>>
>>1814892
Mostly correct. Small towns I’ve been to are along a rail line (which usually is just coal). So a train is a great option since all the town goods can fit in one box cheaper shipped than a truck. And the town is small enough that you can walk to the bait shop/bank/gun store.
The farmers of town would need to drive to the next town for the occasional farm supply run and to deliver livestock to the slaughterhouse. Small towns on average drive less because there’s no where to drive to.
>>
>>1815451
complete seethe. Euro "rural" isn't actually rural
>>
>>1815808
Euro rural is what rurality is for 90 % of people on this planet, including in the USA. Virtually no one lives in Idaho, contrary to popular belief.
>>
>>1815806
>Anon "knows" how people live in rural America
>>
File: 1548541345090.jpg (101 KB, 500x501)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>1814943
A rural road as you're describing probably already is a collector for the even tinier roads from ranches, dirt roads with only a county road number, tiny subdivisions in the middle of the nowhere, isolated trailer homes, and other backwoods areas. So unless your buses run down every back road or your idea is "suck it, bus stop's a mile away" it won't work.
>>
>>1815326
It's not super rural but when I lived there Lindsay Ontario in Canada had like mini buses that they used for their bus routes. Feel like they'd be good options in less populated areas where it's not worth running a full size bus.
>>
File: 1651596908760.jpg (66 KB, 890x434)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>>1815809
It's just a symptom of the egotistical, king shit, me-me, selfish, self centered, self aggrandizing, myopic worldview of many Americans. They think everything should bend over backwards to cater to them and that nothing else is relevant, important or valuable. "Tread on thee, not on me."
>>
>>1815963
Trying a bit too hard here mate
>>
>>1814892
>live near rural areas
>car
I rather have a pick up to carry stuff.
>not enough demand
Have a pick up and be like the taxi of the zone, also, that works pretty much on demand so you need little regulation. And also knowing all your potential costumers better not be an asshole
>>1814901
Yet most of the work is to carry load to the town it's 3 miles away, there you have an actual bus (or maybe van) terminal to go to bigger cities.
>>1815806
You need to go ti actual rural places. Those far from rails, and two lane roads. Those places located just at the end of a road so there's no reason to maintain them except for the county when they need unincorporated voters.
Yeah, people lives like that.
>>
>>1816743
taxis are more expensive than owning a vehicle
>>
>>1815177
I don’t mean that every single house should be connected by a train line, just that a train line could go through some of the largest and most productive farms so that goods can be directly loaded on. I also think that for medium distances that planes are way more practical, inexpensive, and ecological since the infrastructure requirements are far, far lesser and even the most common aircraft will cut travel time down by at least a third assuming you’re purposefully wasting time by following the road route and not flying direct.
>>
File: sn.png (943 KB, 1849x1184)
943 KB
943 KB PNG
>>1814896
I remember reading the capitol corridor vision implementation plan, and they mentioned rebuilding the ROW south of sac and putting all the freight on it.
>>
I live in an ultra rural area and it is pretty nice for transportation. There are no roads at all and the only access is by infrequent rail, hardly navigable river, and a trail system connected with the roads by a very narrow bridge. In summer we use four wheelers and in winter we use snowmachines. For large items we can either boat it up the river to the nearest trail access or wait until the river freezes and haul it by freight sled.
It is in my opinion safer than cars, more efficient, and can even be enjoyable when you are in the mood. A big advantage is that we all maintain the trails together and don't need subsidies for any of it. My vote goes to four wheeler and snowmachine trails just wide enough to fit small heavy equipment over.
>>
>>1815451
>NOOOOOO YOU CAN’T HAVE YOUR OWN PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION!!!!
>>
>>1814891
Rail is largely pointless, most communities are so small that passenger trains shouldn’t even stop and should be built to bypass towns entirely so they don’t have to slow down. The real question is general principles of town layout, community centers, schools, stores. Unlike cities there is no real reason to oppose cars because traffic isn’t actually an issue anyway, nobody complains about being stuck in traffic for 30 minutes in Bumpass Virginia population 150.
>>
>>1818110
>Unlike cities there is no real reason to oppose cars because traffic isn’t actually an issue anyway
i mean, the ultimate reason is that burning fossil fuels is not sustainable, either in supply or in environmental cost
>>
>>1818180
Migration towards EVs. Besides most greenhouse gas emissions come from corporate levels and individual hillbillies driving increasingly green cars has an extremely minor impact.
>>
>>1817503
> I also think that for medium distances that planes are way more practical, inexpensive, and ecological since the infrastructure requirements are far, far lesser
Fren, how much do you know about planes? They are literally none of these things. For anything less than a couple hundred miles taking a plane is sort of like killing a fly with a sledgehammer, it’s overkill to the extreme, not practical at all and calling it cheaper is laughable. Unless you’re talking about large aircraft packed to the brim, it’s not more eco-friendly, either. Planes require a lot more infrastructure. Specialized fuel, specialized repair centers, firefighting equipment. Unless you only plan to build airports next to railroads you’re going to have to build roads there anyways, so you might as well just use cars.
>>
>>1818220
>Migration towards EVs
the status quo is inherently unsustainable, and 'just buy a slightly different type of car bro' changes nothing.

oh you can't afford to buy a brand-new slightly different type of car? you don't have your own allocated individual parking space? you don't own your own home (and thus can't legally or financially install a slightly-different-type-of-car charger)? you have weather that's not 'sunshine and maybe a little rain sometimes, as a treat'? Ah. Well. (eyes glazing over) Nevertheless,
>>
>>1818333
>Purposely try to make cars unuseable
>Look at how unisable cars might be for the common person
The fact is that you need personal medium-long range transportation capable of carrying multiple people and materiel in rural communities. You can’t build an entire train line and pay people to man and maintain it if the line services a dozen people a day, the same is true of buses and airports.
>>
Weird how stuff and people just wasnt around at all, before automobiles and paved roads, huh
>>
>>1818355
people just used personal horses or donkeys to haul shit around in the country back then. Some stupid train system wouldn't have worked then and it wont work now. People need personal autonomy in places like that. It's unironically the one setting where the car is the clearly superior choice for most people
>>
Oh ok. Nothing at all would work, you say?
>>
>>1818370
Why not make some suggestions all knowing one? All I’ve seen is retarded shit like “lets build a train line that services a dozen people a day” or “lets have inter-city buses stop at every town or house more than five miles from a bus stop even though they won’t pick up anyone the vast majority of stops and massively increase travel times for those they do pick up.”
>>
Are you sure? I don't think anybody suggested those things.
>>
>>1818322
All you need is a well-maintained field or airstrip. No paving, tunneling, clear-cutting, or bridge-building needed. It’s an easy justification for rural communities made remote by substantial distances or inaccessible terrain. The so-called “specialized” requirements are only specialized because of the current attitude towards air transit, not due to some resource, intellectual, or technological constraint.
>>
>>1818322
every town in alaska has an airstrip and some people even have their own
airports don't need to be fancy
>>
>>1818390
Alaska lacks infrastructure. Cars beat planes in most cases, you can give wvery farmer an airstrip but then you transfer any road congestion to the sky and make pilot training a mandatory part of living outside of an urban hellscape not to mention increased costs and decreased fuel efficiency over cars just to claim you got rid of cars like a badge of honour.
>>
>>1818397
I'm not anti car
it would be small airstrips with parking lots and commercial flights. people would still drive around their area but would fly between more distant towns
>>
>>1818389
>It’s an easy justification for rural communities made remote by substantial distances or inaccessible terrain.

Key word there being inacessible. The only time a plane is a economic form of primary transport is when it’s in an area where nothing else can go. There are very few places in the world where this is the case.

I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to beat you over the head with this for you to understand. Planes are fucking expensive. Not just buying one, but fueling one and maintaining one is fucking expensive. It’s not a car where you can get away with changing the oil every three months and putting new tires on every few years. You have to constantly be looking for and fixing problems before they happen because you can’t pull over at 5,000ft when the check engine light comes on. So much so that most normal people don’t work on their plane, they hire specialized mechanics to do so.

Fuel is another expensive thing, not only is aviation fuel more expensive than regular gas, but planes aren’t exactly built like a Prius. A rough estimate for a small, economically minded plane like a Cessna 172 is around 14mpg ideally. I’ve got a pickup that gets about the same, but it also can haul four people and a camper while doing so. Aircraft fuel economy only really beats cars when you’re talking about huge aircraft hauling huge cargos over long distances, the antithesis to your transport plan.

> The so-called “specialized” requirements are only specialized because of the current attitude towards air transit, not due to some resource, intellectual, or technological constraint.

No, they’re not, they’re specialized because putting something several thousand feet in the air at several hundred miles per hour is an order of magnitude more complex that running something on the ground at 60. You need specialized requirements because “bubba”-fixing shit on a plane gets people killed.
>>
>>1818652
Not to mention the fact that if you rely on aircraft for transit you need said aircraft to transport goods into and out of rural communities (need to get food out of rural communities and into urban hellscapes) so either you build a full airfield for every town or you drive trucks to transport goods to rail hubs in which case why not just let farmer Bob drive his truck to town to pick up food?

The only decent idea I’ve seen in this thread is incentivized ride sharing, which is just decreasing the number of cars to decrease the number of cars while decreasing personal mobility.
>>
>>1818695
People here just can’t accept that maybe cars are the best solution in some situations. On /n/ it’s like making a vampire hold a cross.
>>
>>1814891
I miss when this place was mostly weebs romanticizing Japanese transit and legit train nerds :(
>>
eurotard here. I think your STOL air taxi concept could work in the US and in some first-world countries such as the uk, as they have a fairly large amount of aerodromes, airfields and airports where these two-or-three-aircraft could work. Then comes range. On paper, bush planes can fly in a ~100-200km range, but it could be expensive for the middle class people. These kind of planes don't have a crazy maintenance cost and fuel prices, since most of them run on small, but efficient engines. Realistically, people would use this kind of an air taxi in a maximum ~50-100km range, only in a hurry or some rich tourists could just be hopping cross the country more comfortable and faster than a bus, car or taxi. In conclusion, I mean it could be done, but not in small population areas and not nation-wide large-scale where you are suggesting. Also I don't think it will be as popular as a taxi, for example.
>>
>>1818819
Air taxis were tried in the US in the 60’s and 70’s, specifically helicopter taxis between cities. The problem is, again, that aircraft are expensive as hell and the margin between people who can afford to take an air taxi regularly and people who can afford their own aircraft isn’t that large.
>>
>>1814891
Cars are the most reasonable form of transit for rural areas due to the insufficient demand for rail or buses. Here in the UK, the smallest amount of people that would serviced by rail would be a few small towns with about 1000 people. So surely rail would be an impossibility in some very rural part of the US for instance.
I don't think bush planes could be normalised because they are so inefficient, they probably will always remain in use though.
>>
>>1818818
well, see, something happened six years ago and this website completely broke its collective brain
>>
How would you connect rural community with infrastructure the most cost efficient way? Not just with rail but stuff like internet and etc
>>
>>1820349
Going by most of the other fucking retarded takes in here we'll have a constant patrol of retired electronic surveillance aircraft flying over the region beaming signals in and out as needed.
>>
>>1820349
Starlink for internet (or rails, on cars, on houses)

SpaceX has spent like ~$2-3B to build a global internet network so far. That's fairly cheap in the grand scheme of things. Right now they have like ~600K customers and increasing rapidly. Suppose they get 1 million customer by next year. That's $3 billion / 1 million = $3000 per customer spent. If they pay for 1 year @ $110 each, that's $1320 for the year. By year 2.5, the company would be profitable on their venture. Its a fairly straight forward ROI and with 2.5 year for ROI, its a very efficient way to bring internet to the world.

>waste
For trash, I think a local dumpster needs to be had, or maybe just burn it via incineration either at home or at the local dumpster which could generate power for the region as well. Ofcourse the burning doesn't have to be bad for the environment if you just filter out the bad smoke with many levels of filter. Then collect the filter and sell it or make use of it as a recyclable chemical material. Japan has incinerators at schools as well as at local dumping ground. Recyclable could be recycled at the recycling center.
>>
>>1814891
Better biking/walking infrastructure, denser towns/villages, and short buses with flexible routes. Passenger rail networks really don't make sense outside of dense areas, maybe give rural towns a minor stop on a long distance line if it's passing through nearby, but otherwise it's not really necessary.
>>
>>1820349
>>1821319
Also Starlink infrastructure is already there, so rural internet is covered worldwide. All you need is few of these terminals and you can power the entire rural business necessities. If you look it to a 4G tower that broad acts as a relay between Starlink/local homes, then its there a decent network system.
>>
>>1822428
Starlink is over $100/mo and you have to pay $600 for the transceiver. It will probably come down in price over time, but expanding regular wired internet service is probably still the best option for most of the rural US at least.
>>
>>1822432
$600 + $110 per month is cheaper than $100,000 + $50 per month

Wired service barely only begins to come close to Starlink in terms of cost after around 200 years.

Labor isn't cheap. Wired service aren't cheap.
>>
>>1822434
>satellites r cheaper than wire on power poles in the long run
No
>>
>>1822438
Starlink sats are not only cheaper in short term, its also cheaper long term. Hence its the only sensible option.

Installing a wired line costs tens of thousands of dollars if not hundreds of thousands per mile cost. If the rural area is larger than a mile, it costs even more.

Suppose it only cost $27,000 (Department of Transportation data) per mile of wired line and only 1 mile wired coverage for the village and you have to pay $50 per month.

$110 per month x 12 month x 30 years + $600 = $40,200 for starlink cost

$50 * 12 * 30 + $27,000= $45,000 wired cost

Its not sustainable. In that time, the rural needs to pay lots of money to maintain the wired, customer service, etc. And this is only 1 mile cost. If the rural area stretches more, it costs exponentially more to the point that the whole venture will never recover the initial cost.

Meanwhile, Starlink continues to be maintained/upgraded globally by a private company. Without any additional costs to you.
>>
>>1822442
>Its not sustainable
Cop out. You think running wire on existing power lines is expensive, but hand-wave away the costs of developing, launching, operating, and maintaining a fleet of satellites.
>>
>>1822453
>but hand-wave away the costs of developing, launching, operating, and maintaining a fleet of satellites.
>he thinks SpaceX is not going to price it to cover their costs
The launching part is the most expensive part, but with reuseability, is drastically lower cost than traditional providers.
>>
>>1822465
It's not cheaper, though. It's more expensive to develop and initialize and it still costs more for consumers per month.
>>
>>1822453
>but hand-wave away the costs of developing, launching, operating, and maintaining a fleet of satellites.
The cost is included in the $600+$110 per month. Same as the $27,000 + $50 per month.
>>
>>1822583
It doesn't cost $27,000 to the consumer, just $50/mo. (btw, what was the source for that number)
>>
>>1822601
Sure it does. Who do you think lives in the rural area that lays down the wired lines? LMAO. With handful of people, you're the one footing the bill. Directly.
>>
>>1822616
Only in extreme circumstances. Between policy changes like letting local utilities and co-ops install lines to direct subsidies, the price can be dropped to zero for the consumer. You're doing the usual /n/imby tactic of cherry picking an outlier and presenting it as commonplace.
>>
>>1822620
>muh nimby/cherry picking
Running 1 mile of wired internet in the middle of nowhere ain't free to utility. Unless you want to live in a magic land where everything is free and paid for by God.
>>
>>1822627
Try reading >>1822620 again.
>>
>>1814898

Were it not for the relentless straight lines, I would say that was England. Is that Holland?
>>
Should dedicated rural BRT be a thing more
I figure it would be easier to get going
>>
>>1823134
You're proposing building dedicated bus lanes or busways in rural areas?
>>
File: file.png (280 KB, 600x400)
280 KB
280 KB PNG
>>1818384
In the Finnish archipelago we have ferries that are kind of like this, where they only stop at your island if you book them ahead of time. They still have regular schedules and routes, they just don't stop everywhere except for certain specific times.
>>
>>1814891
A Steam Train that can hold 2 carriages worth of people that can go back and fourth a few times a day would be cool.
>>
>>1823134
I think a more important technological leap is an automated car going from station to station. Given rural area, the population density would be low and the lanes would be simple enough that most of the big autonomous systems could fill that job. Instead of a bus with 40 seat going across the rural roads with 1-2 passengers every few hours, it would be better to have 1-2 automated car coming and going on demand.
>>
>>1823799
The benefit would be low lower maintenance/running cost for those cars vs a bus or a train system.
>>
>>1823799
Why wouldn't I just drive my own car
>>
>>1823816
If you are driving a car, then why are you asking for a fucking bus?
>>
>>1823818
Exactly
>>
>>1823799
>>1823816
>>1823818
Really, if you're capable of driving, then you're not the target demographics for a public transport system. And just because you drive today, doesn't mean you will be able/want to when you're 70-80. Or even in between the periods due to injuries/loss of financial stability/etc.

For the matter of public transport in rural area, you don't need a "mass" transport system since rural area isn't densely populated to begin with. You need an efficient and cheap transport system. Thats what a leased automated car gets you. Suppose the lease cost is $1000 per month for an automated car. With 5 people daily in a low rural area and paying $5 for a ride (x 2 for to and from home) x 30 days x 5, that's $1500 per month ($500 profit), enough to pay for the leased car for a small rural area. If the rural area has ~20 people riding the car daily, you can expand the service to 2 cars costing $2K/m while generating ~$6000($4000 profit). You could even sell it as a subscription of $100 per month for the 20 people and you'd net $2000, enough to pay for the leased automated cars. Or reduce the price from $5 per ride to $3 per ride and you'd get $3600 per month.

There's plenty of options to keep a small rural area's public transport working with just a handful of automated cars.
>>
>>1823851
Err, I forgot about adding in the insurance cost, suppose the insurance is ~$100-$300, that would need to be taken into account as well.
>>
>>1823854
You’re forgetting gas and that’s where this idea dies. You’re either going to spend all of your money on fuel, go electric and spend 1/2 of the day charging, or charge sky-high prices that make almost nobody regularly take your vehicles.
>>
>>1824043
Almost all the modern evs sold today in US does 0-80% charge in ~20-30 mins. Suppose thats 300 miles. Avg Uber driver does ~100-300 miles a day. With 2-3 car fleet, none of the cars need to refuel "1/2 of the day."

Electricity prices for charging a 360 miles electric car is ~$15 for ~80% fill up if you use super charger or ~$7 at any standard home/office, if you charge with Level 2/Level 1 @ office/home. On top of that, if the rural drives are ~30-40 mph roads, then the range increase by 50% or more reaching 500+ miles.
>>
>>1824050
> Almost all the modern evs sold today in US does 0-80% charge in ~20-30 mins.
Source: my ass
Teslas can be recharged in that amount of time at specifically built charging stations. That’s not “almost all ev’s” and pretending that it’s in any way commonplace is dishonest. The vast majority of ev’s are charged in a measurement of hours, and Tesla isn’t going to build one of their fancy DC charging stations in the middle of nowhere for the sake of your three little cars.

>The average Uber driver goes 1-300 miles per day.
Yeah, that’s in the city. If you had ever left your city you would know that distances in the country are much larger. Where I live my nearest neighbor is over a mile away, let alone the nearest town.

And if we’re focusing on current EV’s, your plan isn’t going to work again because passenger transport is only half the battle. Are you going to let farmer Bob haul his sick calf to the vet in your little Nissan Leaf? Are you going to be able to haul hardware, lumber, fertilizer, and other farm supplies in it? No, and that’s where you run out of steam because if your little EV can’t haul bulk supplies it’s of no use to 75% of the rural population. Are you going to let me rent it all day and use it to haul fence post offroad? No? Then why the hell wouldn’t I just keep my truck? This is the response the overwhelming majority of people are going to give you.

Stop trying to create a problem to poorly fix. Joe-bob and Charlene driving their truck to town isn’t what’s causing vehicle based pollution, it’s thousands of urbanites sitting in their cars every morning for an hour during their 10 mile commute.
>>
>>1825133
Tesla is 70-80% of the in the US. Thats good enough statistics.
>>
Would a train station in a local hamlet be viable? Add in a lot with space for buses like >>1815962 to provide local service on-demand.
>>
>>1827119
If there isn't enough usage, no. Rural areas suffer from lack of public transport due to lack of density. The solution isn't expensive trains or large buses that travel once or twice a day, the solution is an automated car or a car taxi service.
>>
>>1823851
>Really, if you're capable of driving, then you're not the target demographics for a public transport system
>"only the retarded and criminally insane take public transit xd"
When will burgers stop with this insane cope.
>>
>>1814891
low density rail transit would disrupt lucrative freight
>>
File: 883324.jpg (56 KB, 735x368)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>1814891
>provides transit for hundreds daily
>extremely efficient, works around a regular work schedule
>connects entire communities
>goes to you're fucking driveway
>free
trainfags btfo
>>
>>1829307
For a shitpost, this brings up some pretty interesting points. Imagine if counties and small towns nixed their school bus budget and operated bus services that focused on single stops for a neighborhood, offered hourly or bihourly service instead of bidaily, and were open to the general public? Simply repainting existing school busses would be enough to establish the rolling stock, and hiring the existing drivers on a full time basis would make for an incredibly simple transition.
>>
>>1829446
Most school buses aren't fully ADA compliant like metro buses are. Plus schools manage the funding, not the town.<xxvfwh
>>
File: mapa_s_kw_hist_p_1940.jpg (1.38 MB, 1834x2349)
1.38 MB
1.38 MB JPG
>>1814891
Seriously? 100 replies and no one mentioned narrow gauge commuter railways which have always been more rural than urban
>>
>>1829882
There is an exceptionally small minority of rural communities with access to narrow gauge rail. Standard gauge is pretty common, especially at towns with access to a grain elevator.
>>
File: yukatán.jpg (127 KB, 1152x868)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
>i absolutely HAVE to have a four-door "truck" with less practically usable cargo space than a Japanese Kei for my commute/business!!!!
>*meanwhile in the literal jungle*
>>
File: yukatán2.jpg (161 KB, 576x819)
161 KB
161 KB JPG
>>1829910
I mean, seriously, check it out. Cool stuff.
>>
File: liniap.jpg (287 KB, 633x835)
287 KB
287 KB JPG
>>1829886
there used to be a shitton of them in central europe
>>
>>1829446
Santa Clara county, California, has something I'm reminded of. Their transit system, Valley Transit authority, has a few bus routes oriented toward schools but that allow the general public to ride.
https://www.vta.org/school-trippers
They're the dashed grey lines on this map:
https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/VTA_MainMap_061322.pdf
>>
>>1814892
if you have something bulky to export the passenger trains are tacked onto that line
>>
>>1829922
imagine having to connect all this bullshit, I get why the soviets just built new blocks with tram lines and moved everyone into them
>>
>>1830210
no corelation
>>
Why not set in tram tracks into the road as a rural rail network? Rural rail would be oriented towards truck farming and some passenger traffic.

Have a bunch of light flatbed cars (more trailer than car) for cargo, dragged behind a railbus or a medium truck, available for rent to transport goods. If you want to go really ghetto, a motorcycle draisine dragging trailers running on their rims.

https://youtu.be/sINjk3W-NjU
>>
>>1814943
And each of those 8 cars have a different route, you dumbass.
>>
Ride share is the lowest cost and can be set up overnight
>>
>>1831679
Listen, I love trains as much as the next autist, but stop with these braindead attempts to ham-fist them into being the solution to every problem.

Congestion isn’t a problem in rural areas. If you have the road already there’s no need for a tram to ferry people/goods around. It’s much easier and cheaper for cars and trucks to use the road as needed. You’re already paying upkeep for a road, you might as well scrap the rail and go with what you have.

Just face the facts, as much as /n/ hates cars and trucks, rural areas are one place where they are the best solution.
>>
>>1827069
>What is “moving the goalpost”?
>>
File: 1585500507243.png (190 KB, 500x494)
190 KB
190 KB PNG
>>1828126
>social programs and laws since the 1950s have slowly dismantled society trust and continue to do so
>part of these social programs turned public transportation to be a way for the poorest and most vulnerable of society to get around
>this in turn forces buses to run all night on lesser used routes, at the cost of destroying efficiency
>largest cities with legacy mass transit systems are a zoo that give trains a horrible reputation in practice
>any post-1990 transit system, even if it has a successful, popular line that everyone likes, is over-expanded with trains that no one with a job rides and a bloat to the budget that becomes a cautionary tale
>corrupt DAs in cities allow criminals to go free, causing crime associated with mass transit to skyrocket
>"reee why do you hate & distrust mass transit so much"
It's all so tiresome.
>>
>>1833308
This. Mass transit in many parts of this country is no better than a subsidized nigger delivery service, and any pasty euro transit crusader that wants to call me a NIMBY for saying so should spend 30 minutes at any BART station in Oakland. You still have a watch and a wallet after your term is up, and I'll not only suck your dick, but tickle your balls as well.
>>
File: appenzeller_bahnen1.jpg (420 KB, 1477x985)
420 KB
420 KB JPG
>>1831679
>>1833010
We have some roadside rail lines in Switzerland, but they're all from back in the day when road vehicles were quite primitive and few people had cars. From a planner's perspective these are pretty awful, since they cause all kinds of interference with road traffic with constant level crossings that can't be overcome, and they're hard to double track as well. But at least they have the advantage of having segregated infrastructure. Putting rails into the street would be a terrible idea, it makes road maintenance much more difficult and expensive, and the rail line isn't segregated from vehicle traffic, so your train may get stuck behind a tractor going 20 kph for a while and get thrown of schedule, while a bus can overtake it.
I don't think some interurban-style roadside rail line is actually all that unrealistic, so long as there's at least some demand, and it could be used for short line freight like back in the day, connecting to the mainlines. But the possibilities for such lines would be limited and dependent on the region not being completely car-dependent, so that you can have connecting services, also comparatively expensive.
>>
>>1814891
cars are pretty good.
you could have one bus in and one bus out of a main town / small city in the region.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9KNax1QpD4

Guys, please. Why do we need public transit? Small towns are already designed around foot traffic, cars are just an afterthought.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.