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."
Society wants it, companies don’t
That is why we won’t adopt trains and why we haven’t yet
It's funny because trains are both the past and the future.
Also, trains and light rail have already been automated. The tech is already here.
In Europe ( i mean Paris, France and Italy ) public authority had pushed hard on micromobility, but now they are, in reality banning it cause safety problems.
I wonder how a train is picking up my walking disabled mother from three Kilometres afar?
Will a train stop at my house to pick up my some two tons of gardening scraps per year?
At which time will it deliver my 100kg of groceries per week?
Do you run an orphanage?
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)
Well in the UK, considering that a return ticket to London for commuting hours costs me £140, no, it is not the future here. I could drive most of the way from home into London, pay the ULEZ charge, park in an expensive train station car park and get a short distance train for a third of that, including fuel.
But that's an issue with capitalism, not the technology itself. Roads and high(motor)ways are very heavily subsidized and tax funded, while rail in the UK is largely privatized. It's just a sign of what is being prioritized by government and/or society, which is cars in this case. There are plenty of places where public transit is free or at least the definitive cheapest way to travel, also due to government funding.
At one point you just can't move all these people where they need to be in individual tin cans that seat four but mostly hold one.
I rented a car with adaptive cruise controle a month ago and it felt like riding a train. Driverles cars could work if they aren't personal possession.