mondoman712

Speak for yourself. I'm not pulling this out of my arse, I'm telling you things I just happen to know.

A single train with a single crew can transport more people in a day when travelling at higher speed.

This is running costs. The capital costs are irrelevant.

It's cheaper to run a high speed service than a low speed one. You can transport more people with the same number of staff and trains because it runs faster. The solution isn't to run an artificially cheaper low speed service along side, it's to run the high speed service in a sane way.

The problem isn't how they're constructed, it's how they're run, and this article is basically just complaining about SNCF without realising it. They run bad timetables and aim for high occupancy rather than transporting more people. Jon Worth has better writing on the topic IMO.

Should it not be double foldable? It has two folds

Or the fact that it doesn't need to be real because 1. It's still funny and 2. We all know that the incident has happened somewhere, because shit like this happens so often.

Which part of what I said do you disagree with?

exactly, either way you need to make sure there isn't any oncoming traffic.

If there isn't space to overtake two cyclists side by side, there isn't space to overtake one cyclist. If there's another car coming towards you while you overtake, you'd be endangering the one cyclist.

The 20mph has had a measurable impact in Wales, and it does lower average speeds even if more people are now driving over the limit. It really should come along with infrastructure changes to reflect the lower limits, but that would take decades and this is something that can be done quickly.

New roads don't reduce traffic, they create more. It's called induced demand. We should be building viable alternatives to driving.

I'm surprised by how many people here buy into Apple's marketing. I thought people on Lemmy would be more aware.