@bluemoon Everywhere that has tried free public transport sees a 30℅ increase in ridership, but no reduction in car use. The 30% increase comes out of active transport so it's a very expensive upkeep cost to get people walking to take the bus instead.

If money is available to make public transport free then that money would be better spent on things that will result in large increases in ridership and actually reduce car usage by expanding the public transport network and running more frequent services.

You can remove the requirement for drivers to enforce fares without removing the fare as most people will still pay it.

@ajsadauskas @fuck_cars ah, good point.

@ajsadauskas @fuck_cars

I grew up in Collingwood, Melbourne and all of these things were within 20mins walk from my house.

I'm on the other side of Melbourne now (Footscray) and the only thing I'm not walking distance from is 'sports arena'..unless you count horse racing.

@TootSweet @ajsadauskas They'll just completely rewrite it from scratch using a newer LLM and that will be considered normal. In those 5yrs the percentage of developers who remember the idea of code having longevity will be tiny.

@pathief @ProdigalFrog it's just physically not possible to build enough parking for everyone to always have a park. You have trouble finding a park because that's just the physical reality. Adding more parking (like adding more lanes) doesn't increase availability because of induced demand and the inherent inefficiency of cars.

Reducing parking won't reduce the parking available to you. Just as reducing the number of car lanes won't reduce your ability to drive places.

@themeatbridge @sexy_peach Commuter driving has the same 'last mile' problem, but it's parking.

The photo doesn't include the $250 million worth of carparks for those 10,000 cars that has to exist at the other end of the highway.

@blandy @frostbiker
In Victoria (Australia), the fine for using your mobile phone while riding a bicycle is the same as when driving a 2.6 tonne ute.

@JasSmith @cerement @lysol Density is the panacea. Cycling is just what makes it possible. You can't have nice livable density with cars.

@Crazypartypony @glasgitarrewelt But if parking restrictions are enforced and people can't park and thus can't use cars then there will be political will for public transport. Public transport is cheaper to deploy than all the car infrastructure even for small townships.

@DLSchichtl @Iron_Lynx of course there are things that can't be delivered in bicycles and of course this only make sense with enough density.
But density is a goal of urbanism.

The places in the world that currently have success doing bicycle deliveries right now allow night time or off peak van/truck deliveries.
Most deliveries are small packages, especially the deliveries that are time sensitive and so are ideal for cargo bike delivery.
The 2-3 photocopier deliveries a week are done with a van at night.

@ChicoSuave @HiddenLayer5 you've got it the wrong way around. The anti-car/pro public transport/urbanism movement always has the goal of reducing the cost of transport and the cost of housing to make places that are livable for people on lower incomes.

Cars in rural areas aren't a concern because they're places where population density is so low that cars have fewer negative effects.

But rural public transport between townships and major cities can also make getting places quicker, easier and safer.

Building public transport in and to higher density areas doesn't stop you from driving your car in a rural area.

@zoe @frankPodmore Driving licences and traffic lights were invented because car drivers were too dangerous to safely mix with existing road traffic and we needed to restrain them. Bicycles have never been a significant danger to other road traffic. We don't require licences for people to ride bicycles for the same reason we don't require licences for pedestrians, it's a ridiculous idea that would do nothing useful.