• ramble81@lemm.ee
    31610·
    1 year ago

    /c/fuckcars : “use some other form of transportation!”

    Also /c/fuckcars: “No! Not like that!”

      • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
        13·
        1 year ago

        Unless you live in an extremely remote place not served by roads. The arctic for example. It’s not technically commuting as in going to and from your 9 to 5, but plenty of small northern communities are still completely dependent on small gravel runways or even bushplanes for things like going to the doctor or dentist, or really anything they need to go to a city for, which is a lot of things.

        I actually thought this was a similar situation, that they’re so out in the middle of nowhere flying is significantly more convenient than driving. But then I took a look at the map and realized that they’re not far from Chicago and are within easy driving distance from nearby smaller towns, which makes this way harder to justify though still mildly interesting.

        • oatscoop@midwest.socialEnglish
          9·
          1 year ago

          One of the first things my instructor told me was “I hope you’re getting your license for fun or a job, and not planning on commuting. Eventually you’ll get stuck somewhere due to the weather.”

          Heavy, powerful commercial jets have deicing systems. They also have the benefit of an entire team of air traffic controllers on takeoff and landing – and they still get grounded by weather. Small planes are grounded by such inclement weather as “fog”, “thunderstorms”, “high winds”, and “low cloud cover”.

    • Michal@programming.dev
      2464·
      1 year ago

      Why not? Less risk of being hit by a plane if they’re in the sky and requirements for a pilot license are much stricter. In a plane crash occupants are more likely to die than innocent bystanders, compared to cars that are designed for safety only for those on the inside.

      • elephantium@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1486·
        1 year ago

        Why not? Probably because:

        Bike pollution: .

        Car pollution: oooooooooo

        Plane pollution: OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO

        (bike pollution is slightly more than nil just because of the CO2 we breathe out while riding)

        • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          53·
          1 year ago

          bike pollution is slightly more than nil just because of the CO2 we breathe out while riding

          Technically, the CO2 animals exhale is carbon neutral because it’s from plants you eat (or your food eats). Unless you’re eating petroleum derived products of course.

          I say technically because while the plants themselves are carbon neutral, modern food production and distribution, especially meat production, still has a large carbon footprint. So your breath is only truly carbon neutral if you foraged for food in the forest on foot.

          • Noodle07@lemmy.world
            20·
            1 year ago

            So your breath is only truly carbon neutral if you foraged for food in the forest on foot.

            So once again: return to monkee

          • Zehzin@lemmy.world
            7·
            1 year ago

            Unless you’re eating petroleum derived products of course.

            I didn’t come here to be judged

        • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
          29·
          1 year ago

          Don’t forget that many small propeller driven aircraft run on leaded gas, and it’s a formulation of leaded gas that has 10x the lead that motor fuel used to.

          • jarfil@lemmy.world
            15·
            1 year ago

            But, didn’t you hear the Midgley guy who invented TEL like 100 years ago? You can safely breathe it and even wash your hands in it! (said right after he got lead poisoning)

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                3·
                1 year ago

                “Most dangerous man in history”… and knowing humanity’s track record, that’s something.

            • rexxit@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 year ago

              That was a great watch - it’s cool to find out the history.

              I must say, society is much better off without widespread use of TEL, but as someone who used to do racecar things, TEL works like magic. A little goes a LONG way, and Midgely did legitimately stumble upon something with very high effect for the concentration (they also touch on ethanol in the video which has the drawback of needing a lot).

              I’m not opposed to using it in a small scale racing context (like definitely not NASCAR) because it’s so fucking useful and the quantity is unlikely to cause harm. Unfortunately so much bad has been done with it at this point, I don’t think that’s a very popular opinion.

              Whatever your views on it, it’s the only thing that can make gasoline legitimately 120+ octane, and that has huge implications for some types of racing.

          • rexxit@lemmy.world
            3·
            1 year ago

            Worth noting that the amount of aviation fuel burned annually should make it a negligible contributer to environmental lead contamination compared to widespread automotive use (although I’m sure it contributes on airport grounds).

            Edit: All the pilots I know want to use unleaded, and it was recently approved after being stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare process, but market forces may make it hard to adopt.

        • CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
          24·
          1 year ago

          Small aircraft have a carbon equivalent to large cars. My plane is from 1961 and has a fuel economy of 15mpg as the crow flies (arguably closer to 25mpg because of straight line measurements versus winding roads that can almost double the distance), seats 4 people comfortably, and flies at 160 mph.

          • elephantium@lemmy.worldEnglish
            9·
            1 year ago

            Hmm, interesting. I had the opposite impression. Maybe from discussion of private jets? I wonder how commercial jets vs. private jets vs. light aircraft fare – similar to cars vs. buses, perhaps? I haven’t actually dug much into this subject :\

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              4·
              1 year ago

              how commercial jets vs. private jets vs. light aircraft fare

              Just looked some up, they’re approximately, per passenger:

              • -, bus, ~100…300mpg/pp
              • Commercial jet, -, ~60…120mpg/pp
              • Ultralight, motorbike, train, ~50mpg/pp
              • Light aircraft, car, ~15…60mpg/pp
              • Private jet, limo, ~5…50mpg/pp
              • Fighter jet, monster truck, ~0.5mpg/pp

              The more passengers, the more efficient.

              So, fully loaded, there isn’t that much difference between a private jet, a limo, a car, light aircraft, ultralight, motorbike, train, or low range commercial jet.

              But if it’s a single person, a private jet would use 10 times more fuel than a motorbike.

              A fully loaded bus, still wins hands down.

            • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Props tend to be more efficient aircraft when it comes to fuel consumption but fly relatively low and slow. Jets are faster so they make more sense for ferrying people and cargo but they burn more fuel in the process.

            • rexxit@lemmy.world
              4·
              1 year ago

              It was caught in FAA-Bureauctatic hell for 15+ years and just approved last year. It will be still be slow to become available and adopt for reasons that are complicated, but amount to bureaucracy, economics, and an insane degree of risk aversion. The vast majority of pilots want unleaded and it’s also much better for the engines.

        • Mr_Will@feddit.ukEnglish
          131·
          1 year ago

          Walking pollution: …

          That’s right, bike pollution is less than walking (or running) pollution in terms of CO2 per mile travelled. Cycling typically burns ~⅓ of the calories compared to making the same journey on foot and there’s a direct link between calories burnt and CO2 produced.

          Cycling at 12mph takes roughly the same energy as walking at 4mph. You emit the same CO2 per minute, but get there in ⅓ of the time. Running at 12mph takes 3 times the effort of cycling at 12mph. You’ll get there in the same amount of time, but breath out 3 times as much CO2. Bicycles are more efficient than our own two legs - how cool is that!

        • Vashti@feddit.uk
          6·
          1 year ago

          I’ve got to ask, though—how is breathing CO2 pollution? Aren’t we just taking in air, removing the oxygen, and exhaling the waste gases? Isn’t there the same net CO2 afterwards?

          Have I misunderstood something as simple as breathing? Please say no.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            6·
            1 year ago

            You haven’t misunderstood it! You’re just coupling cellular respiration with photosynthesis, which on the surface seems to balance to net zero – 6 CO2 molecules and sunlight create 1 glucose molecule, and we break down 1 glucose molecule for energy and generate 6 CO2 molecules.

            There’s one big factor though which isn’t immediately obvious, and that’s the rate of reaction. The chemical equations say nothing about how many molecules are consumed per second. In order for the net CO2 to be zero, they’d need to consume and generate CO2, respectively, at the same rate, which isn’t the case.

            It’s actually a really good thing, because photosynthesis happens faster. Plants are net negative CO2 because of that. What we’d need to complete this comparison now is how much CO2 a human generates by existing, and we can determine how many plants are needed per human to have the same net CO2.

        • XEAL@lemm.ee
          5·
          1 year ago

          But, do that people have light aircrafts or motherfucking Boeings 787?

          • Depress_Mode@lemmy.world
            7·
            1 year ago

            Planes still require leaded gasoline and they are the largest contributor or airborne lead pollution in the US, probably the world.

            • uis@lemmy.world
              21·
              1 year ago

              Planes still require leaded gasoline

              No, they don’t. It’s like saying all cars require leaded gasoline. They can work on it, but it’s banned in all countries.

              • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
                4·
                1 year ago

                Piston driven planes still do use leaded gasoline. There is a very recent push to certify lead free avgas and progress is being made but they’re being a bit opaque and seemingly rushing it which is making a lot of people weary of it.

              • flynnguy@lemmy.worldEnglish
                3·
                1 year ago

                Planes that would land here typically use 100LL which contains lead. (LL stands for Low Lead). It’s not banned for aviation use.

                There has been a push recently to use alternatives which don’t contain lead but most places still have 100LL as it’s a very long process to get things certified for aviation use.

              • oatscoop@midwest.socialEnglish
                21·
                1 year ago

                All the local small airports in the USA sell 100LL – “One hundred, low lead”.

                Modern small plane engines can run off regular unleaded, but a lot of small planes in the air are “old” and require leaded gas.

        • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
          84·
          1 year ago

          Cycling has carbon emissions if you factor the additional calorie intake needed to power your bike. :| Which will vary widely depending on your size, diet, and food source. Is it still a more sustainable form of transportation? Probably, but maybe not in extreme cases (like a 300-lb person eating beef daily flown in from the other side of the planet, versus, a tiny two seater electric car power off of solar energy, using batteries sourced from recycled materials) and it certainly isn’t 0 impact.

          Also, for extra pedantism, carbon emission are not pollution (in the sense that it doesn’t poison the life forms directly), but it is a GHG which causes harm to the environment too.

          • __dev@lemmy.world
            111·
            1 year ago

            If you factor calorie intake of the bike rider you need to do the same for other forms of transportation. And if you account for the amount of exercise people are supposed to get to stay healthy there’s no additional calorie intake whatsoever.

        • bluGill@kbin.social
          719·
          1 year ago

          Plane pollution is not that much worse than a car. Depending on what metric you measure it can be better (planes are more fuel efficient and thus less CO2. Small planes like the picture generally use lead fuel and old engine designs that pollute more) on long trips.

          • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
            185·
            1 year ago

            I do love having heavy metals rain down on me from the sky so rich cunts can entertain themselves.

          • meat_popsicle@kbin.social
            9·
            1 year ago

            Nearly all land near small runways and airports that fly planes using AvGas will have lead contamination. That’s because lead is still used in most aviation fuels a consumer plane would use. Runways are also required to have and use PFAS in firefighting foam for emergencies. Training and system tests will dump that stuff in the surrounding area.

            Unless these fine folks have A380s they’re paying a hefty premium for lead exposure and PFAS in their water and soil.

            • bluGill@kbin.social
              43·
              1 year ago

              Lead is only one factor of pollution though. You will note that i acknowledged it exists. There is no objective way to say what is the most important factor or how you compare them.

          • vreraan@sh.itjust.works
            52·
            1 year ago

            No, planes are not more fuel efficient, even driving alone a car. The reason why it costs more to go by car is due to many reasons, especially the higher cost of fuel at petrol stations.

            • rexxit@lemmy.world
              2·
              1 year ago

              Yes, some light planes have fuel economy similar to efficient cars (which is very impressive considering how fast they are relative to cars). If you consider the advantages of direct, straight line routing, it’s not hard for planes to do better on fuel economy.

              We’re not talking about jets here, though some of those do very well in mpg on a per passenger basis.

        • Michal@programming.dev
          215·
          1 year ago

          You’re only taking into account pollution and i bet you with the barrier of entry and cost accounted there would be less pollution from flying compared to driving.

            • Redscare867@lemmy.ml
              7·
              1 year ago

              I think they’re trying to say that less people would fly than currently drive due to the cost of flying. Although, if we subsidized personal planes at the same rate that we do personal vehicles I’m not entirely sure that flying would continue to be so expensive.

            • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.worldEnglish
              41·
              1 year ago

              It’s quite simple really. Less people would be able to fly, so those that can’t will just stand still in confusion until they die from starvation. The remaining population would be the small fraction who were able to afford to fly. Net loss in pollution.

            • Michal@programming.dev
              24·
              1 year ago

              Flying is expensive and you need a license that’s substantially harder to get than a driver’s license.

          • elephantium@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            You’re only taking into account pollution

            Yes, that’s correct. I’m not doing a serious study here, just summarizing the general sentiment I’ve observed.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.worldΕλληνικά
        1·
        1 year ago

        I dunno, I was supposed to get 100hrs of driving experience in order to get my license. Meanwhile the minimum required for a PPL is 40, and only 20 of that is required to be with an instructor. You can get away with fewer if you are just getting a Light Sport license, and an Ultralight requires no license at all (seriously though, get training).

  • FlashZordon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1361·
    1 year ago

    Must be lovely to hear your neighbor fire up their Cessna at 7 in the morning for their morning commute.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      15·
      1 year ago

      I’ve lived under a flight path, ~9km/6miles from the airport - while I understand the difference between a 787 and a Cessna 172, I’ve got no earthly idea why anyone would choose to have a runway in their front yard.

    • Lumberjacked@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      I lived adjacent to a neighborhood like this. It was much quieter than middle aged neighbors with Harley’s. Little Cessnas and Pipers are not that loud.

    • AAA@feddit.de
      6·
      1 year ago

      I imagine the people living there probably don’t need to commute at all anymore, or if they do, it’s definitely not at 7 in the morning.

    • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
      4·
      1 year ago

      I live basically across the street from an Air Force base so I get turboprops over the house at 1,000 feet starting at about 7:00 5-6 days a week. Doesn’t bother me or my wife, we just like planes.

        • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          It’s a training base so we’ve got both here. I’m just on the prop side. Cargo planes are super fun too, used to fly C-17s over my old house all the time before we moved here.

  • Ian@Cambio@lemm.eeEnglish
    1092·
    1 year ago

    Little known fact. Airplanes still use leaded fuel. I’ll bet that the blood levels for all of these families are elevated. Not a great place to raise a kid.

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      71·
      1 year ago

      Clarification: Only piston aircraft require leaded fuel. Which is unfortunately a pretty big part of the general aviation market, but similarly sized turboprops do also exist (though are more expensive) and it doesn’t apply to modern commercial aviation at all.

      • Fox@pawb.social
        52·
        1 year ago

        Further clarification: Only gasoline powered aircraft without the Auto Fuel STC require leaded fuel.

        Although, there is an initiative underway to fully phase out leaded avgas. G100UL is the FAA approved formulation. Exciting time and long overdue.

    • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyiEnglish
      19·
      1 year ago

      Yep, and the FAA is taking it’s sweet time to approve a new unleaded fuel for general aviation that shows a lot of promise called G100UL. It’s estimated it could take another 6-9 years. Otherwise it’s currently only approved for specific planes and not available at most airports and aerodromes.

      • rexxit@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 year ago

        It’s approved as of last fall, but the FAA spent well over a decade stonewalling it with unnecessary bureaucracy.

        Now we’re left with the chicken-and-egg problem of the market, where nobody will offer unleaded because it’s more expensive, but it’s expensive because it’s not widely used. The feds should subsidize it down to $4/gal for 5 years to get it off the ground.

        • Asymptote@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          9·
          1 year ago

          [INTRO]

          Tom Scott (with his characteristic enthusiasm): “Hello, lovely internet denizens! Today, we find ourselves in a comment thread, delightfully jesting about my propensity to dive into the oddest corners of knowledge. From the physics of shoelaces to the mysteries of quantum buttered toast, we’ve covered it all!”

          [SMILE AND NOD]

          Tom Scott: “Now, I can already predict a few of the replies that might pop up here. ‘Tom, why not delve into the intricacies of a potato chip next?’ Well, who knows, that might just be on the horizon! And yes, someone will undoubtedly ask about the physics of a cat’s purr. It’s been on the list for a while, folks!”

          [CONFIDENT NOD]

          Tom Scott: “But you know what they say, the quest for knowledge knows no bounds! So, let’s keep the laughter rolling and the curiosity burning. What’s next, you ask? Well, that’s anyone’s guess! Stay tuned, stay curious, and let’s keep this adventure going!”

          [OUTRO]

          Tom Scott (looking bemusedly at his busily buzzing phone): “Well, it seems the replies are pouring in already! I might be here for a while trying to keep up with all your brilliant comments. But hey, that’s the joy of it, isn’t it? The learning never stops! Keep those questions and suggestions coming, and I’ll do my best to tackle them in the videos to come.”

          [TOM SCOTT SMILES AT THE CAMERA]

            • Asymptote@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              2·
              1 year ago

              [Hard cut to specialist]

              [Overlay with a Scandinavian name and the title, “Expert in online discussions”]

              “Mange tror at internetdiskussioner er sunde. Det er et indtryk vi har arbejdet mange år på at kultivere så vi kan påvirke folks meninger uden at blive opdaget i det. Vi fik blandt andet Tom til at lave denne video blot for at få mig med i den!”

              [Cut back to Tom]

        • n00b001@lemmy.world
          8·
          1 year ago

          Very true, even the 99% global human population reduction of 2025 he’s already recorded and got ready to go

      • viking@infosec.pub
        6·
        1 year ago

        Are you sure? I’ve seen a video about this community, but I don’t think it was Tom Scott. Couldn’t find it on his channel.

        • Guest_User@lemmy.world
          5·
          1 year ago

          Wow, I’m actually pretty sure I’m wrong on this. I’m just now checking on my lunch break but I can’t find it. I know I saw a video about this (or a very similar) community following specifically one man who has a hanger house. Swore it was Tom Scott but, I just can’t find it… Don’t tell me I hallucinated it lol

    • nyoooom@lemmy.world
      406·
      1 year ago

      Depends, looks like small planes, and even if 10 come and go everyday you would quickly stop hearing them at all (the brain is very good at ignoring useless stimuli)

        • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyiEnglish
          18·
          1 year ago

          Eh, if you’re living in a air park like that one, chances are you’re a planespotter or an aircraft owner/pilot yourself, I’ll wager the sound is music to those guys ears. I certainly doubt anyone will complane, I mean they should know exactly what they signed up for.

        • theangryseal@lemmy.world
          4·
          1 year ago

          I’ve got you bud.

          Get some good speakers. Install an ad blocker (for now) and play “Air conditioner sound, 10 hours” on YouTube. It won’t annoy your neighbors, you can just say, “it’s muh humidifier” if anyone asks, but they probably won’t. Barking dog? Not in your bedroom. Vacuum cleaner? Nope, won’t hear it.

          And you’ll get to where you can’t sleep without it.

          I should download that video.

        • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          6·
          1 year ago

          I work at an airport. Cessnas and other small prop planes are perfectly fine and I think they are quieter than a harley for example. I bet those planes are the vast majority of planes flown in that pic of the neighborhood.

          Once you put jets on things it can get annoying. Even small business jets are pretty loud for their size, not to mention commercial airliners coming and going.

        • nyoooom@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          Oh your brain processes those sounds for sure, but it mostly filters them out so, unless there is an unexpected sound, you don’t pay attention to them

          • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
            11·
            1 year ago

            No, exactly this was disproven again and again the last few years. The unconscious sounds add to the stress level too, makes you sleep worse, etc.

            Ok, may be different with only every hour or so. The studies are usually with constant traffic noise (like neighbourhood to airports, main roads).

            • nyoooom@lemmy.world
              3·
              1 year ago

              Not sure if there is a misunderstanding but I’m agreeing with you

              When I say the brain processes it, it means it does take some work and energy, although it might not bring it up to your conscious perception for you to react

        • Urbanfox@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          At the end of my in laws small 8mx8m garden is a freight train line, and honestly, you just don’t hear it anymore once you’re used to it.

    • ℛ𝒶𝓋ℯ𝓃@pawb.social
      231·
      1 year ago

      See, there are some weird types like me who actually like the smell of 100LL, and don’t mind plane noise. I’d live there. But yeah, it’s definitely not for everyone.

    • oatscoop@midwest.socialEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      Small airports like these really don’t smell like much. Sure: the fueling area, hangers, and maintenance shops have a smell, but it’s non existent as soon as you’re 50 feet away from them.

      What is fucked up is how much leaded fuel gets dumped on the ground. Part of the pre-flight check for planes is taking a sample of gas from the lowest point in the tanks (the “sump”) to make sure there’s no water in it. It’s usually done with a tool like this one. A lot of pilots just toss the fuel sample on the ground rather than “dispose” of it properly.

  • Damage@feddit.it
    361·
    1 year ago

    “honey, Joe’s wife is sick, can you take care of control tower duty today?”

      • ryo@lemmy.eco.br
        13·
        1 year ago

        unicom

        First thing I thought of reading on this tiny screen: 🦄

        We need a community for keming.

        • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyiEnglish
          31·
          1 year ago

          No, you read it right, UNICOM

          Or UNIversal COMmunications

          Also known as CTAF, or

          Common Traffic Advisory Frequency.

          Basically the frequency you use when you’re in uncontrolled airspace.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        10·
        1 year ago

        A private (meaning, non-public) field like this one probably uses the multicom frequency, but yes. Self-announce on the CTAF. Irks me a bit there aren’t runway numbers.

          • ℛ𝒶𝓋ℯ𝓃@pawb.social
            6·
            1 year ago

            Gives you a rough magnetic heading so you can line up easier and keep your pattern straight. Also to tell others which way you’re going to keep from crashing head-on (a north/south strip might be 36/18, for example, so ppl know which way you’re going).

          • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
            3·
            1 year ago

            A runway with two ends. And you’d probably be surprised how easy it is to choose one end when you mean another.

            Also to identify it from the air as a runway. It’s paved and they painted a centerline; I would have also painted numbers and thresholds.

  • shastaxc@lemm.ee
    386·
    1 year ago

    And they can’t even afford an HOA to water the grass by the runway.

      • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
        19·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, or at least train cars, with a way to get it onto the network for vacations and such. (Vacationing in a personal train car sounds fun)

        • ivanafterall@kbin.social
          122·
          1 year ago

          This is the future I didn’t know I wanted. But it seems like a good way to make Snowpiercer reality in record time.

          • Overzeetop@kbin.social
            101·
            1 year ago

            It’s the present in the US. Many people own personal train cars, and you just contract with Amtrak to hook you up and you’re off on vacation. You can even bring Babu. You can rent personal cars as well, though you probably should make sure yuor ocelot is housebroken if you’re taking a rental.

            Now, I say “many” but what I means is that’s more than a few. Many is still probably in the 3-4 digit number (I’m guessing). And you’d be correct in assuming that it’s not a luxury most people can afford. But it does exist.

            • tburkhol@lemmy.world
              13·
              1 year ago

              I was just googling around, and it looks to me like a private rail car costs something like a 2nd home, storage fees similar to property tax, $4/mile to have Amtrak haul you around. Basically a vacation home, but mobile. Definitely a 1% thing, but not billionaires-only. Probably way more prestige in saying you’ve got a private rail car than a beach house. At least among a certain segment.

              Most interesting thing I’ve learned all week.

            • bluGill@kbin.social
              4·
              1 year ago

              DO they still? Last I heard Amtrak was no longer taking private train cars as too many were not in good mechanical shape and thus a large cause of their delayed trains.

              • PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works
                1·
                1 year ago

                An ocelot from the cartoon Archer

                Another character in the show, Carol/Sheryl, comes from a wealthy family and owns a private rail car

                And, there’s an ocelot named Babu

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          1 year ago

          Vacationing in a personal train car sounds fun

          My parents almost did this in India a few years back. They have travel agencies that plop you in a couple of nicely-appointed rail cars that you stay in for a month while they’re attached to different trains every night. You wake up each morning in a new city - basically a land cruise.

        • SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de
          61·
          1 year ago

          The logistics and cost of that does NOT sound fun. I’m pretty sure it would make the airport neighborhood look like a slum, based on the money needed.

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      10·
      1 year ago

      Railroad suburbs exist! Streetcar suburbs as well. Was actually the norm outside of the city core until they started ripping up all the rail lines to build highways.

  • edric@lemm.eeEnglish
    211·
    1 year ago

    That’s a lot leaded fuel to be inhaling everyday.

  • otacon239@feddit.de
    19·
    1 year ago

    I have a friend who lives in one of these neighborhoods but right in the middle of a city. Blows my mind that it was there the whole time and I just never noticed until I went to his house.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      15·
      1 year ago

      There are a bunch of these around. In my old city we had two nearby. One was nice kind of like this, one was just a grass field out by cornfields.