• SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I find these discussions seem to be dominated by young urbanites. People who don’t need a car to get around as opposed to the huge number of people who live in areas that require a car to function. They are also physically able to bike many miles every day in any weather.

    I took public transportation when I lived in a big city and was glad to have it but anytime I needed to go beyond a limited area in the city I needed a car. Now I live in an area with very limited public transportation and very very little is in walking distance and biking for my needs is not an alternative. Frequently using 100% public transportation routes would increase your travel time by a large amount, time you may not have or want to sacrifice. If you live in country like France it seems like the transit unions have a stranglehold on the nation as they can shut down everyone at will, if you have a car you at least have an alternative. There are also breakdown issues, maintenance shutdowns, etc. You also run into the last mile issue a lot. Where you need to go is frequently not a reasonable distance from the stop. I usually needed a car to get to the train stations for instance.

    • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      huge number of people who live in areas that require a car to function

      That is exactly the problem. Areas that require a car to function shouldn’t exist. That’s what those “young urbanites” are arguing for.

      • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        And there are a lot of great point there about mixed zoning, but nuance is important. Should small towns with nearly nothing available locally, where you have to travel outside of town for most things just not exist? Even if they do have train connections (as they often do where I live, in Europe), you usually only have one train every 1-2 hours unless there’s some specific significance to your town.

        Improving things is a nice goal, but it often feels like here that people just want to eliminate anything that doesn’t conform to their ideals of how the world should be like.

        • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re stating exactly what this community is about in your first paragraph. Why should they only have trains every 1-2 hours? That is the problem. What people here argue for is for the elimination of the need for cars. A car should be a situational tool, not an everyday need.

          Nobody wants to eliminate small towns, this is about improving the quality of life for the people who live in them.

          • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The reason they only have trains every 1-2 hours though is that that’s the frequency at which they’re operating at a desirable occupancy. You can probably popularize trains somewhat and increase it slightly, but not even close to enough to solve the problem that way.

            The other option is smaller, more frequent trains. And yeah, automation could probably help there, but that’s the niche cars fill currently: personalized transport that’s effective and low-latency for your particular need. I do feel like this community has an affinity to reject that though, because the higher you scale each vehicle the better efficiency you get, but everyone who uses the system pays for that in scheduling and wait times.

            • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s a chicken and egg situation. They don’t have occupancy because people already have cars. And while it continues like that, cars will remain the only option. The argument is when you’re in that situation, you don’t build more roads. You improve the public transport infrastructure.

              • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m fairly sure it’s an equilibrium thing. Like yes, if you suddenly told a bunch of people that they have to use trains for the next year, trains would get more frequent, and things would be better for everyone. However, they likely wouldn’t be better enough to completely sway everyone, so after the year ends a bunch of people would switch back, trains would get more infrequent, therefore more inconvenient, others would switch back again, and you’d end up in the same spot. People who used trains before would think that one year was the shit, but everyone who opted out would cite the inconvenience even during that year of heightened frequency. (It would take a while to settle back though.)

                Whether it’s this or a spiral depends on the magnitude of the change the popularity of trains would have on the experience of using trains. And the thing is, increased frequency still doesn’t solve all the gripes, so I don’t see it spiraling anytime soon.

                For example, for my commute, I time it so that I leave the house at the exact right moment so I only have to wait 1-2 minutes at the station, a necessary buffer to account for imprecision both on the train’s part and on mine. On the return trip, I leave mostly randomly but trains are more frequent at that specific part of the day, so I have to wait about 6 minutes on average. Waiting accounts for about 8 minutes on average out of, let’s be generous, my daily total 110 minute commute.

                The daily total by car would be 60 minutes. It would be free of annoying people who listen to music without earbuds, smoke in crowded places (and often around the only entrances/exits!), and push you around on a crowded train. It would have significantly lower exposure to adverse weather, require less physical exertion, and it would be free of the stress of being on time or paying for it with sometimes 15-20 minutes of your life. I don’t know how you can fix any of that with better public transport.

                With all that said I do still use public transport, but I totally understand anyone who doesn’t. If you can replicate the convenience of cars with public transport without requiring everyone to live exclusively in large cities, I’m all ears, but until then, I don’t think you’ll be able to fully eradicate car culture. And that does come with the recognition that cars are way more popular nowadays than they have any right to be, often due to shitty zoning and city design, but there’s a lot you just can’t do with public transport.

                • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You keep misrepresenting the position I’m trying to explain. No one wants to eliminate cars completely from the face of the earth (well I’m sure someone does, but that’s not what’s being talked about). As I said before, cars should be a situational tool, not an everyday necessity for everyone.

                  All that only further proves the point that current public transport infrastructure in your area is insufficient.

                  • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah, that I can agree with. If new technologies can be used to have public transport rival the convenience of cars, I’m all for it.

                    Also, you won’t find many people praising Budapest’s public transport, lol, but at least they made sure that cars actually aren’t a necessity. I’m 26 and I never even had a license, let alone a car. But there are very few situations where cars wouldn’t be an improvement and almost all of them involve being around the densest central areas of the city.

        • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Who’s saying that? Don’t put words in my mouth. Maybe read before kneejerking.

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

          That was a bit exaggerated, but tbh. areas where you have to use the car should be the exception, not the rule. Places where you have to drive to do stuff are a nightmare for everyone too old, too young or otherwise not able/allowed to drive or to afford a car.

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

        Wow, that sucks. We should definitely build some transit near you so you aren’t so isolated. You need some freedom.

    • variants@possumpat.io
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah I think its aimed to help fix the high traffic areas, for me when I was able to take the train from near my home to near my work it was amazing, it went pretty much parallel to the highways so you could drive and maybe get there a little faster but riding the train made it so you had time to play game boy or read a book instead of staring at the bumper in front of you in traffic. more trains and public transportation for commuting and cars for leisure like going on a road trip to go camping

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

        All we honestly need is a few community shared self driving cars in each neighborhood to fix the last mile issue with mass transit, but the fuck cars absolutists often would rather have trains built to every houses doorstep than admit cars could still hold a purpose.

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

          Well see the problem with self driving cars is that most of them put out PM2.5 pollution that gives asthma and lung cancer to little kids.

      • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hi, I’m disabled and I can’t drive. Stop fucking calling the transit and walkability movement ableist. The transit and walkability movement has been life-saving to people like me.

        • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand and I’m glad you’ve benefitted from it, but you’re ignoring the large number of people with disabilities that cannot walk any significant distance, while they can still drive. Old people also have an easier time driving than they do walking long distances and using public transit. Hell, I personally know plenty of people who choose to drive because they can’t walk for long without someone actively assisting them, even though they can still drive. My sibling, in fact, is one of them; the ‘transit and walkability’ movement doesn’t give two shits about them, however.

          I’m not against more public transport and foot access; in fact, as an able-bodied young male who doesn’t want unnecessary debt or to be stuck in traffic, I’d prefer it. However, let’s not pretend that a lot of people haven’t been completely forgotten by the ‘lul fuck cars’ crowd.

          • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dutch style microcars are a greener and safer solution to physical disability and aging than full size full speed cars. Especially when you’re talking about elderly people with deteriorating eyesight and slower reactions. Car dependency helps a precious few disabled people while leaving the rest of us up shit creek and contributing to the extinction of the human species. The transit and walkability movement has a solution for everyone.

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

              Yeah, cuz people don’t need to shop. Also, I’m sorry if people like my sibling fall into a ‘precious few’ but you’re gonna need to get everyone on board if you’re selling accessibility.

              The transit and walkability movement has a solution for everyone.

              Clearly.

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

                  People need space to put stuff, and there’s only so much that can be put into a dinky-ass microcar’s boot. Not to mention, people travel in groups too.

                  • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    people travel in groups

                    Guess what kind of transportation has much more space for groups than a car.

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

                    I’m guessing it’s about the same amount of space as in the rear basket of a bicycle? Because that’s plenty of space if the shops are accessible to visit on a daily basis, which is the case in walkable neighbourhoods.

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

      Couldn’t agree more. Being single in my twenties presented very different needs and capabilities than being a pregnant mother, or an aging single mom taking care of even more aging parents.

      There are few topics that reveal privilege and ignorance faster than this one. It’s a hallmark of immaturity to think there’s a simple answer to ANY social problem.

    • iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you get a referral to a specialist, you cannot reach them with public transpo from my town. And our bus circuit encompasses three small towns and the nearby military base.

      You have to have your own transportation to make it to either of the metro centers 30-45 minutes away.

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

      Yep if you’ve been around for several decades, and traveled around a diverse selection of urban and rural areas, you will likely reach the obvious conclusion that cars are a significant magnifier of personal freedom. If you don’t have a car, you can’t just leave your home and get in the vehicle and go anywhere you want. But when you do have a car, you can immediately travel, and go anywhere that roads do. And with certain vehicles, you don’t even need roads and you can go anywhere the terrain doesn’t physically block your path.

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

      I’m too disabled to drive, I don’t live in a city, and I only bike between 0.5 and 1 km per day. I don’t have the slightest need for a car and I can still do whatever I want.

      Be nice if we had trams tho