this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
226 points (97.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

13681 readers
283 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Source: The fourth power law

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18107@aussie.zone 41 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Now look at trucks (18 wheelers) and try to decide if they're cheaper than trains when factoring in infrastructure maintenance.

[–] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I was an over the road trucker for a bit, and this was one of the first things that struck me. Going through Chicago is a literal river of trucks 24/7. Absolutely no reason 90%+ couldn't be a train. Just fucking embarrassing really. We let the money management bros into the train system and this is what we get.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Figuratively literal means figuratively. It’s even in the dictionary now, sad to say

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Doesn't the figurative use of literally date back to shakespear? afaik its acceptable so long as its actually attatched to an appropriate metaphor.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I hope you’re right that there’s at least a qualification, but people don’t seem to know that.

I like to think I’m open to new words joining the lexicon, new meanings as society develops but Its still hard to accept this one.

“Literally” is so overused as hyperbole that we’re going to give it the opposite meaning? wtf? Actually, it’s like a swear word and loses its punch when overused. The act of acceptance of the opposite meaning takes away from its use in hyperbole

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's in a dictionary, not the dictionary. There can be mistakes in a dictionary. It was someone's judgement call. Dictionaries are not prescriptive and you can't really use them like that, anyway.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 14 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

A big part of this is about who pays for the infrastructure. In the US at least, most roads are paid for by the public whilst railways are paid for by the company that owns them. To make matters worse, while the cost of making a 13 lane highway is externalized, many states charge taxes per track mile, which incentivizes single-tracking.

Essentially what you end up with is that if you're sending goods by train, you're paying for both the maintenance of the train tracks and the roads the trucks use, whereas if you send them by truck you're only paying for the road maintenance. This is a direct government policy that selects for trucking over rail, despite the inefficiency.

[–] ManOMorphos@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

This is why I think large companies with lots of trucking should be paying a lot more taxes for roads and bridges. As it stands now, ordinary citizens are subsidizing them while they turn around and raise prices off the back of this. Corporate welfare for nothing in return

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago

if you send them by truck you’re only paying for the road maintenance

But you're not even paying that. You're only directly paying the vehicle tax on the truck, its fuel and amortized operation and maintenance costs. But the vehicle tax doesn't even come close to covering the cost of the damage the truck causes to the road infrastructure. You pay the difference indirectly in other taxation that is a subsidy to the trucking industry, and also taxation that subsidizes the fossil-fuel industry.

So the bias against rail transport is even greater than you indicate.