Detroit is now home to the country’s first chunk of road that can wirelessly charge an electric vehicle (EV), whether it’s parked or moving.

Why it matters: Wireless charging on an electrified roadway could remove one of the biggest hassles of owning an EV: the need to stop and plug in regularly.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        everywhere

        Don’t look at the left side of the map tho

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          More than 96 percent of the Chinese population lives in the eastern half of that country.

          The trains go to the population centers of the 3 and 1/2% on the west side.

          Trains service everyone everywhere people are in that country.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There is no concentration of US citizens like this. We are more like the left side of the map than the right. There is no way to service the number of scattered towns we have with one rail line without a truly massive expenditure of resources and I just do not see the point in locking resources into that instead of maintaining current infrastructure for far less

            Far better to focus these energies on mass transit within cities themselves without rebuilding from scratch for no reason.

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              When you talk about maintaining the current infrastructure, you’re talking about completely replacing it anyway at a higher cost since it’s falling apart must be meticulously replaced with crappier materials. Why replace the same slow, century old infrastructure when you can replace it with high speed trains and rail that costs far less?

              There are so many obvious reasons to catch up with the rest of the world in terms of transportation.

              Because the current infrastructure doesn’t connect the country.

              Because that inadequate infrastructure is literally falling apart.

              Because poor Americans can’t easily move to places with better opportunity.

              Because rail can be enacted extremely quickly and positively impact the lives of 300 plus million people.

              Also, you’re completely wrong about the concentration of US population, which is very much concentrated on the east and west coasts.

              Affordable transportation benefits a country nationally and individuals immeasurably at a very low cost.

              Every country with trains has proven that, even the ones as large as the US.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                replacing it anyway at a higher cost since it’s falling apart must be meticulously replaced with crappier materials

                Can you provide a citation here?

                • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Not nationally, only for a Denver metro track some council person told me about that they ended up spending more money and extra years refurbishing one line than it would have cost to replace multiple lines.

                  Refurbishing lines in the US, where the tracks are so old we’re replacing them anyway works too, however we can expand and modernize our ancient, prohibitively expensive transportation infrastructure is not as important as doing it.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I have no problem whatsoever with rail expansion.

                    I just think “cars bad trains good tear it all up” to be a gross oversimplification that isn’t helpful discourse.

                    Like I’ve said elsewhere in this chain, I am extremely pro-mass-transit - whatever form it takes. Any increase in mass transit is better than not, imo.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, that’s completely wrong. The US concentrates a lot of population on the eastern seaboard, still has a lot of people as you move towards the Mississippi, but then quickly falls off to nothing as you hit the plains and Rocky Mountains. Picks up again right along the western seaboard.

              Yes, we do have a concentration of population a lot like this. Or more accurately, two separate concentration regions with mountains in between.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, so the trains make sense in certain areas. The US has a similar problem, with the majority of the population in a few specific areas which are already served well by trains. But you then have extremely sparse population spread out through the rest of the country. Trains just don’t work there.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          US cities are definitively not already served well by trains. Trains are prohibitively expensive, literally falling apart and very rare, even in larger population centers in the US.

          Trains would work very well in this country as they work in literally every country that invests in transportation infrastructure.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can’t even get high speed rail between LA and San Fransisco (yet). US cities in dense areas are not well served by trains.