• BraBraBra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Sure, if we can build the infrastructure for cars there, why not trains too. You’re quite closed minded. But also, why can’t you just bike in a village? I mentioned cities because that’s where trains tend to be, genius.

      There’s trams, there’s bikes, there’s buses, etc. etc. etc.

      • Shifty McCool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Sure, I’ll just bike through 4 feet of snow to get to town. Roads don’t need to fall within specific tolerances to operate either, like tracks. Have you ever been to the country? Anywhere that snows? You sound like “city folk” to me and you throwing around “closed minded” and “genius” when someone else brings up a contradictory point makes you sound more like “city asshole”. Maybe keep the conversation civil, eh?

        • BraBraBra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          There are several alternatives to trains. It was the appropriate example for cities. This is dead simple. If you’re gonna be a condescending, mocking asshole all while completely missing the point, you’re gonna get some sass. Simple as, fuck off if you can’t handle it.

        • BraBraBra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          If the infrastructure exists for cars, it can exist for trains.

          1 bus > 25 cars. Or how many ever it seats.

        • BraBraBra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Btw, I’m pretty sure places that are that remote rely on planes. Some parts of alaska are like that if I’m remembering correctly.