• plyth@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    No, you thought that I had inflated numbers and thus reduced the factor but that reduction is not necessary. There is even another underestimation because the land for the tracks is wider than three meters.

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      i gotta ask, is this a devils advocate thing? because your responses are all so incredibly off that i can’t realistically believe that you believe what you are saying.

      • plyth@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        There is nothing to believe. Trains only make sense with more than 37k daily passengers. You have the Wikipedia pages for the numbers and you can do the multiplications for yourself.

        I have just stopped caring about downvotes. This is not the first time the hive mind is off but I rarely see facts being ignored this strongly.

        I prefer trains because planes are loud. But that’s not relevant for the economics. If people want trains they should push for trains where they make sense, and not everywhere.

        Trains make sense for high volumes of passengers. A highspeed train has to pay about $8 per km. So for a 100km trainride with 800 passengers, one passenger has to pay $1 whereas the plane burns kerosine for $2,40.

        • lime!@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          it’s because your arguments are not sourced properly and your comparisons don’t apply

          • plyth@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            Whereas everybody else sources their arguments. Which number of mine is not sourced by now?

            However I didn’t expect that I had to source basic solar cell numbers in a post that is vaguely about renewable energies.

            Why do the comparisons not apply?