I don't think individual vehicles can ever achieve the same envirnmental economies of scale as trains. Certainly they're far more convenient (especially for short-haul journeys) but I also think they're somewhat alienating, in that they're engineering humans out of the loop completely which contributes to social atomization.

> I don't think individual vehicles can ever achieve the same envirnmental economies of scale as trains.

I think you'd be surprised. Look at the difference in cost per passenger mile.

I'm looking. Comes out unfavorably to cars. Obviously.

I guess you're comparing the total cost of trains vs a subset of costs of cars, as is usual. Road use and pollution are free externalities after all.

Trains only require subsidies in a world where human & robot cars are subsidized.

As soon as a mode of transport actually has to compete in a market for scarce & valuable land to operate on, trains and other forms of transit (publicly or privately owned) win every time.

>cleanly >without subsidies

Source? The biggest source of environmental issues from EVs, tire wear from a heavier vehicle, absolutely applies to AVs. VC subsidizing low prices only to hike them later isn't exactly "without subsidy" - we pay for it either way

Cars don't work in dense places.

Sure but most of the world has a density low enough that cars work and trains don't really. I like trains as much as the next nerd, but you're never going to be able to take a train from your house to your local farm shop or whatever.

Where trains work they are great. Where they don't, driverless electric cars seem like a great option.

Most of the world's population lives in places where trains and public transit works far better than cars. Density doesn't move around, people do.

I don’t believe the data supports that claim.

https://csh.ac.at/news/over-half-of-global-commutes-are-by-c...

>without billions in subsidies

Is there a magic road wand?

AFAICT, the majority (60%) of funding for roads doesn't come from direct user charges...

Roads are subsidized, free parking (and generally a lot of paid parking) is subsidized, and the sprawl encouraged by car dependence combined with the resulting infrastructure costs has and will continue to bankrupt cities.

I don't think we should "just only have trains", but the current US transit landscape is absurdly stupid and inefficient.

Yeah I think the single biggest red flag that the US absolutely could support more public transit is the fact that many cities successfully had more public transit in the past.

So its subsidized? I thought that was the problem.

Who pays for the war in Iraq?

Huh? Last I looked, roads are paid for by the general public, not (car) road users?

Not necessarily, and your premise is incorrect.

Billions of subsidies? Im confused you talking about cars or trains.

No major US public transportation system is fully paid for by riders.

Yep. https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php/Farebox_Re... is a sobering reminder that many cities’ public transportation would cost $20-50 per trip if paid entirely by riders and thus could not exist without subsidy.

That includes cars on public roads.

Neither is any private transportation system?

Public transportation is the backbone of a functioning economy. It doesn't need to be fully paid by riders precisely because the rest of society benefits from it multiple times over.

NYC congestion pricing seems to be working quite well though, and probably helps offset MTA costs.

NYC "congestion" pricing (actually cordon pricing) is a good idea. Would be great to see more road use fees proportional to use (distance, weight^3, etc.).

better for the person vs better for the people

sure, a private vehicle is better for me, but a train is better for the world