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."
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
1371 points (94.1% liked)
Fuck Cars
9628 readers
541 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
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.
Posting Guidelines
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:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Yes, bulldoze suburbia!
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.
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.
The problem is most people don't live in 15 minute cities and it's impossible to turn the suburbs into 15 minute cities as most things are just physically too far apart.
If you live in a gigantic McMansion neighborhood that takes 5 minutes to get out of by car and then your job is an additional 20 miles away there is no bus or train solution - you'll have to have a car.
Funny you should mention living in your car. I used to have a 40 mi commute from my suburban town, each way, to work. I lived slightly north of Baltimore and commuted to just outside of DC. I would spend an hour minimum each way driving. When traffic was bad easy 2 hours. I did this for 4 years and it was soul destroying, but it was an extremely lucrative job.
Then I found a job in my little suburb that pays about the same amount of money and it's close enough I can ride my bike to, which I do sometimes when it's not hot, by car it's only about 5 minutes. The extra time I've gotten back has been amazing and looking back I would have taken 20% pay cut to not have to do that horrible commute.
That is not a solution for everyone as there aren't enough jobs in the suburbs to support the population. They're called bedroom communities for a reason.
I'm really not pro or anti car. I just think you have to be realistic. The realistic part is the suburbs are just too spaced out and too far from jobs to have a functioning mass transit system.
Well Los Angeles used to have an extensive streetcar system like Toronto. It was bulldozed in the 1950s and that was that. So LA isn't inherently anti-transit, but that was a result of deliberate planning. I could be converted back, however it's density is quite low and it could stand to have some urban centers linked by high-capacity mass transit.
With Uber and other ride hailing services it became clear that cheap point to point transport replaces trips that are otherwise being made with public transportation like buses, and thereby increasing traffic. There were also more trips in total done because of the convenience than were done before, thus also increasing traffic. It's the classic Jevons paradox.
Self driving taxis could certainly have the same effect or more if they are cheaper than ride hailing. The increase in usage can easily be greater than the number of private cars it replaces.
Self-driving cars also have an added benefit, if they are exclusively on the road, in that they could eliminate traffic. But they won't have exclusive access to the road, because people like driving cars. Interconnected compiters planning everyone's trips could eliminate the need for stop signs, stop lights, or the slinky effect on highways, because it turns out comouters can be better drivers than the typical human driver. They just need to stop hitting pedestrians....
That's the question. Let's say the roads are now exclusively self driving cars and they are so efficient they double the throughput of roads. Meanwhile commuters bought houses that are twice as far away from the city because those houses are cheaper, and now they can sleep and work in the car anyway, so twice as much traffic. Or all schoolkids not taking the schoolbus anymore and all going by individual autonomous car and all pensioners getting their robo-taxi to squeeze through rush hour every morning so they're first at the supermarket for the freshest produce. It remains to be seen how that works out.
That's complete bullshit. The reason why there is congestion is because there are too many vehicles on the roadway. Changing the timing of the vehicles doesn't eliminate the vehicles or the congestion. It's a geometry problem.
I bet you think we should be teaching kids abstinence only sex ed, too.
Uh excuse me wtf does that have to do anything.
And no, I don't think that. Just the complete polar opposite in fact.
Because rather than fixing the problem, you think we can avoid it entirely with a completely unreasonable elimination of cars.
Traffic exists because people are inefficient drivers. Congestion happens everywhere people live in sufficient densities, and it's not the density you're imagining.
Fully automated driving is also unlikely to happen in our lifetimes, because people like driving. But it could happen eventually, because the variety of benefits over other forms of transportation. One of those benefits is reducing traffic.
What? I don't think we can eliminate cars. Must have me confused with someone else.
I totally agree with your points and I apology for the confusion or poor communication.
American cities weren't built for the car; they were bulldozed for the car. See Cincinnati, pictured below:
Further, we only have suburban sprawl because of government mandates. For example, thanks to restrictive zoning, it is literally illegal to build anything but detached single-family houses on the vast majority of urban land in this country.
Then there's the matter of parking minimums, based in arbitrary pseudoscience, that have resulted in the demolition of our urban cores.
And also the matter that most cities in America had incredibly extensive streetcar networks, before they were literally torn up. It's no accident that the city in the world with the largest tram network -- Melbourne, Australia -- is also the only city that left its historic streetcar intact.
The beautiful thing about fixing all this malarkey is we don't have to demolish and displace millions of people from their homes like we already did once only ~60 years ago. We just have to abolish those restrictive, Euclidean zoning laws and parking minimums and setback requirements and so forth. Let the invisible hand of the free market provide us with the density and walkability and transit-oriented development it's trying to provide us with!
The primary thing that needs demolishing is parking lots, and absolutely no one will miss those, I guarantee it.
The argument that we will get rid of all cars on the planet is just silly. Prior to the automobile, people had wagons and carriages for thousands of years. They had the same problem as cars due today - they cause pollution from horse poop, and they caused massive congestion.
I don't think there is a single major city on the planet today that doesn't use cars in some level of the transportation system.
What's really funny I said a bus is just a really large car. And a taxi is just a car that somebody else drives for you. So saying that mass transit and taxis or a solution to cars is ignoring the fact that they're basically the same thing.
There are indeed suburbs that make use of transportation, but they... look a bit different than the sprawling, disconnected single family detached with a lawn and a backyard style suburbs. I peraonally believe with a few changes the suburbs could make use of public transport in busses. The suburbs are actually inconvenient for cars, they are poorly connected and have many stop signs and generally no lines or other features. The scale is best with a vehicle rather than on foot, but it's not the end of the world either.
Personally, my anti-car dream only applies to me. I wanna live in a city where I'm at zero inconvenience without one and the risk of being hit by one is significantly lower, too.
That's whete micromobility comes in and abolish whatever prevents suburbs from having shops every other street.
While zoning does interfere in many cases, even without zoning, the businesses aren't interested. Our city has started mandating mixed use for every new residential, and the retail and office space end up mostly empty.
Now that companies are used to consolidating people from miles around, it's not appealing to go back to the old days of having a store per neighborhood.