all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

It really fucking sucks that the auto industry lobbied the US government so goddamn hard in the 30’s - 70’s and got so much of this country built on car centric infrastructure while also systemically dismantling countless forms of public transit nationwide too. Most major cities and metropolitan areas used to have a pretty comprehensive streetcar system, yet where are they now? That’s right, manufacturers like GM bought majority stakes in those companies and then had their infrastructure dismantled all in the name of “progress.”

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    As far as I'm aware, the only city in the western world that truly kept its pre-automobile streetcar network was Melbourne, Australia. A result is it today has the largest tram network of any city in the world.

    It hurts my soul to imagine how basically every city in North America had similar networks, but they were almost completely annihilated, save for small fragments in a small handful of cities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm struggling with this average vs potential. If I stand on a 3.5m wide sidewalk on average I'm going to see 15,000 people pass me by? And there is no room for potential improvement as the sidewalks are completely full on average? And how are we figuring cars can potentially be improved by 33%? Are all cars 3/4ths full already?

    I'm very pro public transit, I'm just unclear what is being shown in this chart.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago

    They're showing capacity, i.e., a 3.5m sidewalk can move about 15k people per direction per hour. I'm guessing there's leeway for cars depending on intersection types/design, speed, etc., whereas there is much less variation in average speed for pedestrians.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    People don't drive cars because they think they're efficient in absolute numbers. They drive cars, because cars are way more comfortable and faster than anything else in everyday life.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    They're only faster because transit infrastructure is built exclusively for cars at the expense of everyone else, including car drivers. Driving during rush hour sucks, but many people don't have a choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The only thing I wish is that we had more accessible and safe single-seat vehicles. I bring 3 empty seats with me to work every day. I would be more than happy to have a cheap, efficient single seat vehicle for commuting if it was safe. I'm not going to ride a motorcycle 25 miles each way every day in the Florida heat and rain. I'm certainly not going to share the road with the maniacs we have here on a motorcycle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago*

    I'm certainly not going to share the road with the maniacs we have here on a motorcycle.

    In other words, it isn't that biking or motorcycling or walking or whatever isn't safe, it's that the presence of cars makes everything unsafe (including the cars themselves).

    Similarly, bike lanes etc. are car infrastructure, not bike infrastructure, because in the absence of cars cyclists would have no problems using the normal lanes. (Remember that the next time some dipshit complains about spending on bike lanes or cyclists not paying their "fair share.")

    Pretty much every argument drivers have against other transportation modes is rooted in projection.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    Yes, but context matters. Nobody is taking a train up the street to get groceries. And using a car (or a huge ass truck) for that is often overkill.

    Bikes FTW!

  • source
  • [+] 0 points 3 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Honestly, these days I feel like it’s hard to claim that driving is “safer”. It feels safer enclosed in your metal box, except for all the other high speed low-intelligence high-rage boxes driving around near you.

    I can also respect the frustration of finding crazies on public transit, and won’t try to spin that as a positive - but to me, it speaks towards visibility of the world around you, and willingness to exist in it and change society when it’s broken. It’s like the lords in their manors that “cannot fathom consorting with all that plebeian filth”.

    I’m biased. I’m a tall guy, and I’ve had an incident having to stare down a homeless guy that was spewing Asian hate to a poor Korean guy on the train. I’ll keep taking those trains, claim them for the reasonable people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    There was a woman who would beg for money on the last stretch of my commute home. Either she was on the bus or she must have been coming back from the other end of the line.

    Every now and then she would start shrieking. Once she started she just... Didn't stop. She would walk the length of the bus shrieking directly in people's faces. This happened about a dozen times before I just started getting off the bus if I saw her. I would rather walk 30 minutes then have to put up with her.

    I'm my country the transit system won't ban anyone because it is considered excessive punishment for the extremely poor.

    As a result, transit just sucks for everyone.

    Behavior that is anti-social should be unacceptable. We're so afraid of placing limits on anyone that the most unstable/unwell place limits on the rest of us.

    In the case of the woman I mentioned, she's also a victim. There's no proper support for her. She needs help too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    That's illegal in Denmark, i have seen people do this kind of things sometimes and everytime they are kicked off the transport at next stop. And then they jump on at the next transport and kicked off again, this behavior have forced the public transport in the big cities to have guards on board the trains all the times.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Unfortunately, I'm immunocompromised, so most of these options are too high risk.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Really the only justification for a car is when you have kids. I have 3 of them, and a car is super super useful. But yeah, for everyone else, use public transport.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    In a better set up society, public transport is perfect for kids, it teaches them how to plan and how to use public transport, it also gives you all the time to focus on them while travelling instead of being split between the road and the kids.

    Sadly not a NL wide thing, but Amsterdam has free public transport for (accompanied) kids in the summer this year, and (accompanied) kids under 12 travel for free on all trains in NL (and have a 34% discount on other modes of transport).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    That sounds nice in theory, but if your public transportation sucks you're still going to have a car.

    Where I live, most places around me that are too far to walk (over 30 mins) but that take 5 minutes by car have terrible public transport. For example, the mall closest to where I live is 45 minutes by foot, 5 minutes by car, and around 30 to 40 minutes on bus (assuming no wait time at all). The reason is that it doesn't go straight to the mall, it goes into many streets on its route and the mall is its last stop.

    Similarly, it takes 10 minutes by car to get to the closest train station but about an hour to do it by bus.

    That's why I don't think you can simply use a "no kids? no car" logic as a universal one. Rather, the logic would be "use your car as an alternative to public transport". Which means, try to use public transport as primary means, but use the car instead if it's not viable or the difference would be big.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I believe you but to me that just means where you live sucks.

    I'm lucky enough I can choose to only live places with good transit options. Sometimes I forget not everyone has that option and when people are like "but the nearest thing is a 45 minute walk" I'm like "so fucking move!" But of course it's not that simple.

    But I really would rather people considered the lack of transit options a higher priority. If you lived somewhere without running water you'd probably not put up with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    The mall is part of the problem. Concentrating all groceries into one place instead of having mixed urban development.

    Ground floor for groceries, upper floors for housing. That's often done in shopping areas, and it helps a lot. It also helps having small shops spread out evenly.

    Another part of the problem is car-brained development. An easy dirty fix would be making most streets bike and pedestrian-only, and making the 'big' streets be bus/tram lanes, financed by the municipality/county/state, ie. for and by the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Inefficient energy wise. Not timewise.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    This visualization is space efficiency.

    Obviously cars have terrible energy efficiency. The most efficient vehicle is a bicycle, since exercise is good for you it's arguably negative energy usage.

    As for time efficiency, you have to consider car dependent development as a package. Everything spreads out, so overall there may not be an improvement in time efficiency, especially when you factor in the longer travel time of people not in cars. You could even consider the time spent working to pay for the car, or the time lost from people killed by the car, and I doubt cars would come out particularly time efficient then.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    Mods are an incredibly inefficient way to moderate people.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Efficiency is not the objective. In fact, were all energy and materials used in making and powering cars from relatively renewable sources, it wouldn't be a problem. I am aware they're not. All else being equal, efficiency is a worthwhile goal. But the tradeoff for inefficiency here is the freedom to go where you want when you want.

    There are places here in Europe, contrary to what some people in this community might claim, that simply cannot be accessed by train. Smaller villages and the like.

    Access to a car is useful. Ownership might not be unless you live there. But cars have their place.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    But cars have their place.

    True. However with all the downsides of cars, they should be only the fallback if most other options don't work. As it is, in many places, they are the highest priority that everything is planned around.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Gonna use some of that suburban rail to travel dooway-to-doorway. Oh wait. No, you can't. It is almost as if having options for different needs is important. Instead let's use overly simplistic explanations for a rather complicated problem.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)