• KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Indianapolis is tiny and irrelevant. All the big boy cities have ports. Chicago even has some of its own. They just dont matter anymore. I give it less than 40 years before what remains of our rail system degrades to the point that its just not safe to transport anything by train anymore. Boats will never have that problem. Its a lot easier to move a port than move 1000 miles of rail.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      All the big boy cities have ports

      Alright, now send some goods from NYC to LA via boat, see how long that takes you.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Indianapolis is the 16th largest US city by population. Nearly a million people live in the city proper, and 2.2 million living in the city and surrounding metro area. What do you mean it is tiny? More people live there than San Francisco, Seattle, Denver and Nashville.

      And regardless most of the country is tiny, and none of it is irrelevant. Without those “tiny” “irrelevant” places the big port cities that make so much money shipping goods wouldn’t have anywhere to ship them to. If the only people you care about are the ones living in cities the size of LA and up, I’m afraid you care about very few people.

      • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Indianapolis has a population density of 2500 people per square mile. SF has about 19,000 in the same space. Seattle is about 10,000. Denver and Nashville are around 5k and 1.5k respectively, so you’re getting closer. LA is way back up about about 9k. You see why these things aren’t the same?

        Chicago has the density, but its glory days are long past. Its just not able to compete with better placed city centers. Not with the state of rail.

        • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          So you’re not a real city unless a 500 sqft apartment is a luxury? Stupid take. Throw it on the pile of other stupid takes.

          Edit: Also, I love how your defense of calling it tiny is “yeah, sure, it has a lot of people. But it also has a lot of land too, so… ergo… it’s tiny and irrelevant.”

    • RobotsLeftHand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      You do recognize that there are a lot of places boats can’t get to, right? That it’d be… whatever I’m not explaining trains to you.

      • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        And that’s why people build cities next to water pretty much any chance they get. No matter how efficient your transportation system is on land, it cant beat floating stuff on water. Look at history. The best cities always have water (and boats) nearby.

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Historically we didn’t have rail and the planet had a few million people on it.

          Now there’s billions of us and we need to make use of more of the land.