A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
Image transcript:
Calvin (from Calvin & Hobbes) sitting at a lemonade stand, smiling, with a sign that reads, "Trains and micromobility are inevitably the future of urban transportation, whether society wants it or not. CHANGE MY MIND."
I like how you assume that society will choose to have a future over self-immolation.
Yeah that's a bold assumption. My bet is on "it's going to get progressively worse and never better". I have yet to be proven wrong. Since the day I was born everything's been enshittening with only inconsequential cosmetic improvements (lol technology, what a joke).
If nothing else, car dependency is fiscally unsustainable. We might go kicking and screaming towards the solution, but eventually people will have no choice but to abandon the financial suicide that is making your city car dependent.
True, and I wish my city would realize it harder, sooner. On the other hand, I just read an article the other day that claims that the collapse of civilization has begun. A lot of societies throughout history perseverated with maladaptive habits after the local environment changed, and thus collapsed. A lot of them didn’t, though, and I hope that we’ll wise up in time.
!collapse@lemmy.ml
But yeah, honestly, I'm worried myself that our society is starting to unravel if we don't get our act together. Unmitigated climate catastrophe may well prove to be the greatest disaster in human history, if you count all the wars, famines, genocide it may cause. I sincerely hope it doesn't turn out so dire, but so far humanity is stubbornly refusing to do anywhere near enough to stop it. Whether that's civilization-ending or merely really frickin bad remains to be seen, but it's also worthwhile noting that collapse doesn't always mean post-apocalyptic; for farmers in ancient Rome around its collapse, life probably didn't seem all that different day-to-day.
What is micromobility? I am unfamiliar with this term.
It's things like bikes, ebikes, electric scooters, monowheels, etc.
My powered wheelchair!
Based
I especially like that this format of the meme removes the d-bag that is in the original.
We shouldn't take anything for granted. The US has happily killed it's cities for decades instead of investing in public transit. If we don't push for it, car companies and rich people will keep public transportation from ever taking off.
If remote work takes off, and ordering most everything online, I wonder if urban sprawl will get even worse.
The more people try to "innovate" transportation the closer it gets to going back to trains. Driverless cars, for efficiency have them communicate with eachother, to accelerate and brake at the same time, for example. That's just less efficient and more expensive trains.
A huge problem with public transportation is safety and usability for small children, the elderly, and people with disabilities or who are sick. All these people often can't use bikes or scooters. They have problems with having to wait standing and constantly out of order escalators and elevators.
I don't own a car and live in a place with relatively good public transportation. That's the biggest problem I see, next to how badly organised it is (at least here in Germany).
American here, I have a disabled family member. Cars are ultimately harder on them because they physically cannot lift themselves into a car while also stowing their 200lbs wheelchair.
A bus or train doesn't have that problem and are therefore better.
And the more walk able the area the better because it makes it far easier. I'm sure there are disabled and elderly people who have an easier time using cars. But to say in a broad sweeping generalization that it's better for all disabled and elderly people is a mistake. Cars should not be the first go to for a solution.
And kids can't even use cars. They are dependent on public transportation and the walkability in their area.
? I never said cars are better?
It's just a problem that needs to be fixed and is rarely mentioned (if at all). Especially the unreliable elevators + escalators.
Additionally, many trams and busses here have narrow stairs to enter or a huge gap to the floor. Some bus drivers refuse to help people in wheelchairs, they will just claim the bus is too full so they don't need to build the ramp. For the trams, there's no way to get in with a wheelchair.
Ironically, these were meant to have enough space for at least one wheelchair. But the entrance is not friendly, for various reasons.
I have a mild disability and often can't use the public transport because I struggle with stairs. Than I have to wait for a tram with a new model or walk around the city to a stop with no stairs.
They still build crossings like these and call it "modernized" ...
For kids the biggest problem is that in a lot of vehicles the stop isn't announced. And when the bus is (too) full they can't see the monitors or out of the windows. (That's a problem for all very short people I guess.)
You are destroying my fantasy that everything in Western Europe is better. But this would be extremely unlikely to have happened in the US in this day and age - the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") would have required the station (be it public or private) to have reasonable accomodations for the disabled. In Florida, for example, PalmTran stations would have an elevator on either side of the tracks to get you onto the skybridge.
I think people have a somewhat narrow view on countries in Western Europe. Every country is very diverse. It makes a huge difference whether you are in Bavaria, Brandenburg or Hamburg, etc. These are all in Germany but parts of the law can be different.
I live in Nordrhein Westfalen where it is okay if there is any alternative for disabled people. For example, you could drive to another station which has an elevator and than use the bus to come back. ( ་ ⍸ ་ )
For these crossings to be lawful they normally use the fact that it's sufficient if there's an alternative. But these alternatives often are ridiculous. It could be that 1 km down the street there is an accessible pedestrian bridge. Or they literally just add an information that it's not an accessible station and that people should use another station and than drive back to this station by other means.
It seems so odd to me that the transit doesn't have accessibility for those in scooters or wheelchairs. In nearly every city in Canada I've been to, their underfunded bus systems all have a wheelchair access door and systems to lower the bus for easier access.
A lot of the busses have it here, but not all. It also depends if you are lucky enough the bus driver is actually helping.
For the trams it's worse. To safe money they want to wait until the old trams get decommissioned, even when they are hard or impossible to use for disabled people. They also still build crossings made out of stairs, with no other way to reach the other side of the track unless you want to take a huge detour. Just because it's cheap.
Germany loves their cars more than people realise...
Maybe you could try to get people in your communities to take pictures of these difficulties and write to their politicians how it is inadequate service. Perhaps there could be retrofitting done to the existing services and new regulations made for new devlopments. It seems wrong for transit not to service people with mobility issues, they can often be the ones who can most benefit from it.
This was and is done regularly. But the government sold the public transportation sector to private companies and nothing is done.
The skybridge would be required to be made accessible in the USA, regardless of whether its public or private. There are very limited exceptions to ADA requirements - the second the private company spent money "modernizing" a station without installing accessibility aids, they'd have opened themselves up to a lawsuit to compel them to make the station accessible.
I would imagine that Germany is no different that a lot of Western European countries in thinking it is better than the US (because it IS in a lot of ways). Would "we treat the disabled worse than Americans do" effectively trigger German national ego toward change? So long as you keep the convo focused on accessibility and not universal healthcare ;)
I don't know why it would matter how it is any other country? I've only really heard that in a private conversation, like "I was in XY for vacation and they had better whatever". But never as a political argument lol
Perhaps if it's a comparison to a direct neighbour like Austria or Switzerland since they are similar and a lot of Germans move there.
"Cars are better" @ParsnipWitch
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
I have more trouble with cars in my day to day life than with the issues of public transit. I just wanted to add that public transit has to be done better. But if you dare to criticise it people lose their minds here. And pretend you are against public transit and a car fetishist. -.-
That's definitely not a problem everywhere. The buses we use in Canada are very disability friendly and we have programs to teach kids how to ride the bus alone. We have bike racks on the front of our buses too, so we can combine modes of transportation.
The biggest problem with public transit over here is lack of funding and infrastructure. The bus system is intentionally kept shitty here so that people will opt to buy cars where possible.
Here the public transit was sold to private companies by the government. It still costs a huge sum of money but they have less strict laws when it comes to accessibility. The government is very much a boot licker of the car industry here and Germany in general has a weird car culture.
"Barely functioning" is good enough for public transport, that seems to be the overall attitude, even in the general population.
People here have no trouble walking to stops and bikes / scooters are common, so the premises are there. But instead of taking the final leap and improving public transportation so that more people switch, they are currently moving backwards it seems.
A big problem with car-heavy streets is everyone’s safety when the elderly are driving on them.
It’s also shown that if people live in walkable neighborhoods, they get more exercise and can get used to movement even in old age.
I literally see the struggle of the people I talked about everyday. In a walkable city with public transportation.
Criticising aspects of public transport also doesn't mean I am against it or pro cars.
That is an organizational problem because my country next to it has all those things at just about every train stop (Switzerland).
Even in a country it depends on the state or city. In Munich and even around Tegernsee in Bavaria they have it better organised than in some places here in NRW. It's because so many different private companies are responsible.
One of the leading causes of death for children in North America is from cars. Well funded and built transit should be accessible to all in their urban areas. Stops should have sheltered waiting areas with adequate and maintained seating. Good maintanence and funding would reduce equipment failures in elevators and other equipment. Ideally we densify around this transit as well which would help to reduce travel distances for people with movement disabilties and promote walkability. 95% of the time well designed and funded transit paired with good urban density and zoning will be more accessible to those with disabilities than private vehicle ownership.
Yes, I agree fully.
Elderly people use electric mobility scooters at Disney literally all the time. They're pretty great for the elderly so long as there's accessability ramps everywhere.
Escalators and elevators being out of service seems like an issue of lack of investment in public transit.
And cities can be built around public transit and micromobility while still allowing cars. Generally, you'll have better access for emergency vehicles, and you can do the same for people with disabilities.
I feel like people misunderstand my post. That it is a lack of investment is 100 % true. I want more investment and better public transport. People here seem to think I want to have cars, but that's not my point?!
In the United States, I don't know how you'd accomplish this. It would be impossible for almost all rural neighborhoods unless we're going to build a grocery store within walking distance of most homes.
This is one of those liberal (I rarely leave my home) notions whose heart is in the right place but is ultimately stupid.
This comment seems to be based on the false presumption that cities and settlements cannot be transformed, however they can
They can, but it's a multi trillion dollar century plus endeavor that well require eminent domain millions of properties in order to make enough space for the conversion. Infrastructure still needs to go some place, and you need to replace millions of sfh with apartments. My city doesn't even have any land left to build more train lines. It's just 30 miles of gridded small lots.
30 Miles of gridded small lots -> no space to build trains 🫠
The suburbs are inherently compatible with trains and really any public transportation. They were quite literally designed around the car and the expectation that everyone would have a car.
Unless you plan to bulldoze the suburbs and then force everyone to move into higher density areas your anti-car dreams are never going to happen.
Although there are many American cities that could get much more anti-car and public transport would work. LA could theoretically not be such a car city with the appropriate infrastructure built in.
Why are the anti-car people anti-self-driving car? With self-driving cars we could mostly eliminate private car ownership.
The suburbs are inherently compatible with trains and really any public transportation. They were quite literally designed around the car and the expectation that everyone would have a car.
New suburbs get built and they can be built differently. Not to mention that the current suburbs in the US aren't made to last the next hundred years, like stone houses in Europe are. They can, have to and will change.
The Work from home trend for example is a huge change. If you work from home and do not have to drive to work and back, you do not want to drive the same amount anyway just for grocery shopping. You want to use the free time won, by stepping outside of your home and go on a walk, sit in a café and meet people in your suburb.
Why are the anti-car people anti-self-driving car?
If a human makes a mistake while driving, we call for self-driving cars.
If a self-driving car causes an accident, we call for the road to be more catered to self-driving cars.
Self-driving car is still too many cars rotting on the road, unused most of the day, heating up cities and taking up space and resources, when a bus can replace hundreds of them.
A self-driving car is still a car, and it can't do what humans can do: People make billions of good decisions every day that help avoid accidents. We just don't recognise them because we focus on the bad decisions that cause accidents. Self-driving cars will never be able to make those good decisions, so having lots of them will only work if the roads are designed more for them. Then we will have roads that are like train tracks with all the negative characteristics of today's cars on top, when we could just have trains and busses all the benefits that come with them.
10 or 20 years from now when you're taking a nap or jerking off or eating fried chicken or playing Call of Duty while a self-driving car (you can call it an "automated transportation pod" if the word "car" triggers you) takes your extremely drunk self right to your front door you'll think it's fine.
I live in a 15-minute city. I take the bus home, now and in 20 years time when I am 77 years old, only with the help of a walking aid, but luckily our buses already have low entrances to allow disabled people to get on. I also stay with friends when I drink and come home the next day, and I do not need or want to eat or play games on the way home, and I especially do not want to masturbate in a car, automated or not, I want a nice and comfortable place for that. I prefer to look out of the window and experience the journey and stop and eat something. That you seem to basically live in your car, maybe except when you need to shit, is car brain thinking for me. A car is not a place to live, it's a means of transport with a lot of flaws, I'd love to see your face when you're jerking off in your automated car while it decides to drive you right into fresh concrete, onto train tracks or into the nearest river.
I do not own a car and never have, and I have survived well. If the world doesn't recover from car brain, we won't survive as a species. Automated transport is the future for buses and trains, not individual transport, which will always be worse in every way, only topped by flying taxis, which are even dumber.
Funny side note: Saudi Arabia has started building the most idiotic "city of the future" you can build: The Line, but they also killed the car, because even they realised that cars, automated or not, are not the future and you can only get around in this futuristic place by walking or by train.
Yes, bulldoze suburbia!
Idk how the train will pick me up living in the middle of nowhere. Sure, trains are practical where civilization lives, but it's just far too rural for trains here.
it says "urban transportation"
Tbh, as someone living in rural community all i want is decent public transportation of any sort. Like, it would be nice to have trains or escooters but, we don't even have busses ( though that having been said i don't how busses would get out here without it making tarc fare more expensive) or making bikes or scooter ( e or otherwise) a viable option in my area or making walking a more viable option. Admittedly i don't know how they would do the last one but, the others they've been trying to do for awhile. I'm hoping that this not only made sense but, actually was on point.
The US (and much of europe) needs to realize that car centric planning is not the solution to mobility problems, it's the cause! Suburbia could be more walkable if a few steps were taken during planning:
narrower roads (less wasted space, slower driving speeds, shorter distances)
Pedestrian paths that connect cul-de-sacs and streets (quicker access to higher order roads for pedestrians)
mixed use zoning/town houses (bring destinations to the people)
no mandatory minimum parking requirements for businesses (same advantages as my first point)
How do you feel about utility trucks and stuff? Like how are you gonna move homes without atleast a van?