As always depends where you live. I live in Frankfurt am Main and travel to my parents in Poland who live in a 3k village with a train. One change in Berlin, one in Poland in a smaller city to a very local train which takes me to 4km from their home, where they finally do pick me up with a car.
With a car it would take at least 12h (been there, done that when I moved), similar amount of money for gas and I would have to take a day off from work, which I don’t have to do on the train, because I work remotely on the way. I can also shit without stopping or eat on the train if I have a fancy. How is this inconvenient?
I made trips to Italy, France, Austria, Romania and ofc Poland with trains. And at least half of them were to not urbanized areas at all (for example France was to Port-en-Royans, population 817 people, when I got off around 5km from destination) and the only inconvenience is that you need some effort with planning.
It’s mostly a reaction to comments like yours that insinuate this isn’t possible for most people, looking at population density where most people live paints a different picture though.
Only if “most people” only commute, with nothing more than a back pack.
There are so, so many examples but just this morning… I need to drop my pressure washer off at a friend’s house, later I need to take my pregnant wife to a drs check up.
Most trips don’t need a car and even if they do there’s rentals. Importantly statistics can show you that ~60 of trips in the US are <6 miles obviously very doable by bike. Also 57% of people live in urban areas where public transit should be very viable. Also at least electric pressure washers certainly can be transported by train and or bike, and getting the wife to the doctor should really not be more than a walk, otherwise you might be the one finding yourself in the minority statistically, living so far from a doctor. So please don’t rely on personal anecdotes to argue what is the case for most people. Coming into a community called fuck cars and arguing like this (in bad faith or just out of ignorance) is the more bizarre behavior imo. The bottom line is we need far fewer cars and less infrastructure for them than we currently have. When we have fewer than 1/50 cars/person your edge cases might be relevant but we have 1/2 or more which is crazy.
![[meme] Trains are 100000x easier to electrify and automate than cars, so why does everyone keep talking about electric and driverless cars?](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/11c37658-7c32-4cc2-b12c-6ced348bd09d.png){kind=link}
Because trains are massively inconvenient to anyone that isn’t living in AND traveling to the most dense of urban areas.
American Suburbs are a plague.
The Dutch do suburbs right. You shouldn’t have to own 2 cars to be a functional family in the USA.
Idk man, it seems convenient.
As always depends where you live. I live in Frankfurt am Main and travel to my parents in Poland who live in a 3k village with a train. One change in Berlin, one in Poland in a smaller city to a very local train which takes me to 4km from their home, where they finally do pick me up with a car.
With a car it would take at least 12h (been there, done that when I moved), similar amount of money for gas and I would have to take a day off from work, which I don’t have to do on the train, because I work remotely on the way. I can also shit without stopping or eat on the train if I have a fancy. How is this inconvenient?
I made trips to Italy, France, Austria, Romania and ofc Poland with trains. And at least half of them were to not urbanized areas at all (for example France was to Port-en-Royans, population 817 people, when I got off around 5km from destination) and the only inconvenience is that you need some effort with planning.
Tautological. The proposal is to stop designing communities to make public transit massively inconvenient to them.
Some of the comments in this thread are bizarre.
“I can bike everywhere I need to go. Everyone should just do that and then we don’t need cars”
It’s mostly a reaction to comments like yours that insinuate this isn’t possible for most people, looking at population density where most people live paints a different picture though.
Only if “most people” only commute, with nothing more than a back pack.
There are so, so many examples but just this morning… I need to drop my pressure washer off at a friend’s house, later I need to take my pregnant wife to a drs check up.
How can I do these things on a train or bike?
Most trips don’t need a car and even if they do there’s rentals. Importantly statistics can show you that ~60 of trips in the US are <6 miles obviously very doable by bike. Also 57% of people live in urban areas where public transit should be very viable. Also at least electric pressure washers certainly can be transported by train and or bike, and getting the wife to the doctor should really not be more than a walk, otherwise you might be the one finding yourself in the minority statistically, living so far from a doctor. So please don’t rely on personal anecdotes to argue what is the case for most people. Coming into a community called fuck cars and arguing like this (in bad faith or just out of ignorance) is the more bizarre behavior imo. The bottom line is we need far fewer cars and less infrastructure for them than we currently have. When we have fewer than 1/50 cars/person your edge cases might be relevant but we have 1/2 or more which is crazy.
Now look up what percentage of people live/work in dense urban areas.
Yeah, but thos is fuckcars. They want everyone living in giant towers in super dense urban areas.