this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
303 points (93.4% liked)

Futurology

2915 readers
290 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fireweed@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (5 children)

110km = 68 miles (or about one hour of car travel on many US interstate highways)

Something something Americans will do anything but travel by train for short distances.

Edit: apparently y'all are unfamiliar with the meme, and as such taking my comment at 100% sincerity instead of the intended 38%. Also I'm an American myself, so the only intended disrespect was of the self-depreciating variety.

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago

I haven't read this article yet, but I did recently read about electric planes. There are a shockingly large percentage of flights in the US (and probably the world) that are that short. Not a percentage of passengers, but percentage of flights. Lots of islands that don't have a routine ferry service, or small rural communities in places like Alaska that may be separated from the road system by a mountain range.

Those small communities couldn't support constant rail (or ferry) service, so small planes are actually the most economical way to serve them. Even places like Hawaii could use electric planes to good effect.

The first I read about them was for flights to Nantucket Island, which absolutely gets ferry service, but it's also where a lot of rich people have homes, and they are going to fly. https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/cape-air-to-buy-electric-planes

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You ever tried to travel by train here? Long or short distance. The rail infrastructure isn't there

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago

By design, not by requirement. It used to be there.

[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago

There's plenty of places where an electric shorter range plane makes sense. Alaska and Australia come to mind immediately.

[–] dnick@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well it did say it was a milestone flight, as well as 68 miles not necessarily meaning on a straight road you could drive 70mph on.

There are a lot of good arguments for rail or other means of transportation, but the travel volume vs the infrastructure required are vastly different in the US than in many parts of Europe/Asia. Think 'lots of medium distance low volume routes' that aren't economically feasible since there are existing routes. If you went through the effort of building a train route, you would have to charge so much per person to make it pay for itself that no one could afford it and they would take other methods.

I'm Europe, there seem to be enough 'short, high volume routes' that are economically feasible that considering adding other legs to them make sense, or they just already work.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

medium distance low volume route

You say that like its a constant

[–] metaStatic@kbin.earth 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

have you seen the state of their rail system? Americans might be dumb but they're not fucking stupid.

If this was 1903 they'd bitch that the Wright Brothers could have just walked to the other end of Kitty Hawk.