Trains Are Not an Abundance Technology
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
twitter.comOtherstory
calmmixed
Debate
60/100
TransportationTrainsAbundance TechnologyInfrastructure
Key topics
Transportation
Trains
Abundance Technology
Infrastructure
Discussion around the idea that trains are not an 'abundance technology' and the trade-offs between trains, cars, and planes.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
7m
Peak period
2
0-1h
Avg / period
1.3
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 8, 2025 at 8:48 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 8, 2025 at 8:55 AM EDT
7m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
2 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 8, 2025 at 4:02 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45167615Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 6:04:50 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
It’s hard to imagine cars and planes becoming fundamentally that much better because of the problems we have scaling them now, compared to trains which, maybe has problems if you try to convert everyone to them, but are generally speaking a positive experience.
Consider how much space you do need ahead for safe travel as a pedestrian, on a bicycle, on an interstate highway in a car, or on a plane taking off at an airport, and you have the answer.
Cars already require a ridiculous amount of space for safety. I live in Germany and there are cities with 200,000 inhabitants that are smaller in area than a single highway intersection.
There are things that trains do exceptionally well, far better than planes or cars. And there are things that planes and cars do exceptionally well, far better than trains. And all three have trade-offs and externalities that a true abundance society would at least attempt to balance.
An abundant society is one that does not put up arbitrary roadblocks in front of people who want to deploy useful technology. Asking that your technology not break other people‘s windows or wake them up in the middle of the night is not an arbitrary roadblock. It’s a reflection of inherent trade-off of a specific type of technology and societies attempt to balance it with the need to sleep and avoid externalities.
This argument ignores an even more fundamental aspect of abundance. That a great deal of transportation demand is not driven by transportation, but by arbitrary limits on construction. No not everyone wants to live in the city and that’s fine. But if they were allowed, millions of millions up on millions of people would live closer to their destinations, then they currently do, requiring less logical innovation in transportation that is required if they are forced to live hundreds of miles away.