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."
What is micromobility? I am unfamiliar with this term.
It's things like bikes, ebikes, electric scooters, monowheels, etc.
My powered wheelchair!
Based
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.
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.
There's a massive failure condition for your example - sure, autonomous cars behave like trains when they communicate with each other to sync acceleration and deceleration, but they can also separate themselves from the collective to drive you to the door of your home. In the train metaphor this would be like you sitting in your own train car, and the train car separating from the rest of it and driving you to your doorstep.
I especially like that this format of the meme removes the d-bag that is in the original.
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).
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.
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 🫠
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"
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.
I'm going to make the argument against trains for everything, despite being a huge fanatic for trains.
Trains are the most efficient transport method per tonne-km over land, yes. However from certain operational standpoints trains can make less sense than existing solutions.
When distance between stops for heavy rail becomes too short, you lose quite a bit of efficiency. Trains themselves aren't a one-size fits all solution as there are various types that each need their own form of investment (which is a lot $), when roads are compatible with both personal transport and large trucks with little investment by the transporter (govt pays for road maintenance).
Rail companies right now are chasing profits and neglecting operational improvements. In the US, hauling a long, LONG, old and slow train loaded with bulk aggregate, oil, grain, chemicals is more profitable than aiming for JIT capability that is more feasible with trucks. A complete change in societal incentives is necessary to bring back the usefulness of railway in all types of transport. Second, the North American way of railroad companies owning the tracks dissuades a lot of innovation and new firms from entering the market, unlike the "open road" where there are many competing OTR freight companies. None of the Big Six would like my idea of a nationally controlled rail/track system.
Electric motors are now capable of >90% regen, so the braking energy argument against short stops doesn't work anymore (and the energy during motion strictly less than a rubber tired vehicle with a worse aspect ratio so long as the trip is no longer).
The amount of rail needed for short distance distribution networks could still be prohibitive in regions designed for road though. Even then one could still argue that the total infrastructure costs are lower by moving the destinations slightly given how much roads cost to maintain.
Well, streetcars could be an option for high density corridors but they will lose money in low density, low ridership areas.
Roads always lose money, so that's still a win. Travel speed and coverage may be a limiting factor though.
Roads and cars lose money constantly.