I have an electric car because I refuse to pay any more money to fossil fuel companies but still need to drive. I use public transport where possible, but many trips just aren’t viable.
It takes me 30 minutes to walk to the nearest shipping centre, but 2 hours to get there by public transport, or 5 minutes by car.
As an average citizen, I don’t have the means to build or fund new railway lines. I am, however, lucky enough to be able to refuse to drive fossil fueled vehicles and still survive.
I have been using my bike for most short trips.
I’ve even ridden my bike into the city, then taken a train most of the way home when I realised I’m not as fit as I thought I was.
I’ve actually solved most of my travel issues by staying home and deciding that I don’t actually need to travel. This works less well when the purpose of travel is to get food.
Sounds like a classic example of poorly designed transit. Well designed transit is often faster than driving and should certainly be faster than walking unless your destination is not frequently visited by many people.
Can you point to any examples of “well designed transit”? In my head, I can only see transit being faster than a car if it’s in a densely populated city with small roads and dedicated transit lanes (be it a bus or a train). I don’t know if that describes most of the places people live in the US.
Many cities in europe have succesful transit systems that compete with car times. Amsterdam in the Netherlands is a strong example. As for the united states, some of the denser downtowns with metros will have faster commute times on their metros than by car. It is rare to find well designed transit in America and that is part of what this sub is advocating to change. Most of the existing decent transit in america is relying on whatever lines and zoning survived the mass adoption of the automobile.
Yeah but do you have any examples of good transportation outside of dense urban areas? I can’t imagine a typical American suburb being redesigned in any way that leads to efficient public transit unless maybe we push people into dense apartment complexes. And yeah, maybe that’s an option, but people aren’t going to give up their big houses and yards for the “privilege” of riding public transportation lol.
Don’t get me wrong, I do greatly dislike cars, and I think public transportation is a very good thing to have, but it’s not what’s going to save us from cars.
It works best alongside redevelopment. America is missing the in between of high density to low density zoning. Areas where building can be built 3-6 stories high and built to be flexible Where they can be mixed commercial uses or residential uses. This can create environments much easier to serve with public transit and walkability. This is basically how many older cities were before they started tearing themselves apart for the car.
You are correct in that public transit doesn’t service suburbia well. The car is the ideal solution to its design and thats exactly how it was built. After decades of this pattern and heavily subsidizing this development, the finnancial impacts are starting to catch up. Unfortunately when maintenance and repairs costs are considered, many suburban and strip mall developments cost more to maintain than the generate in taxes.
![[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}
I have an electric car because I refuse to pay any more money to fossil fuel companies but still need to drive. I use public transport where possible, but many trips just aren’t viable.
It takes me 30 minutes to walk to the nearest shipping centre, but 2 hours to get there by public transport, or 5 minutes by car.
As an average citizen, I don’t have the means to build or fund new railway lines. I am, however, lucky enough to be able to refuse to drive fossil fueled vehicles and still survive.
Is biking not an option?
I have been using my bike for most short trips.
I’ve even ridden my bike into the city, then taken a train most of the way home when I realised I’m not as fit as I thought I was.
I’ve actually solved most of my travel issues by staying home and deciding that I don’t actually need to travel. This works less well when the purpose of travel is to get food.
I doubt that a significant portion of the population lives somewhere that just trains and bikes could meet their requirements.
I doubt that. Only the US has weird population distribution.
Sounds like a classic example of poorly designed transit. Well designed transit is often faster than driving and should certainly be faster than walking unless your destination is not frequently visited by many people.
Can you point to any examples of “well designed transit”? In my head, I can only see transit being faster than a car if it’s in a densely populated city with small roads and dedicated transit lanes (be it a bus or a train). I don’t know if that describes most of the places people live in the US.
Many cities in europe have succesful transit systems that compete with car times. Amsterdam in the Netherlands is a strong example. As for the united states, some of the denser downtowns with metros will have faster commute times on their metros than by car. It is rare to find well designed transit in America and that is part of what this sub is advocating to change. Most of the existing decent transit in america is relying on whatever lines and zoning survived the mass adoption of the automobile.
Yeah but do you have any examples of good transportation outside of dense urban areas? I can’t imagine a typical American suburb being redesigned in any way that leads to efficient public transit unless maybe we push people into dense apartment complexes. And yeah, maybe that’s an option, but people aren’t going to give up their big houses and yards for the “privilege” of riding public transportation lol.
Don’t get me wrong, I do greatly dislike cars, and I think public transportation is a very good thing to have, but it’s not what’s going to save us from cars.
It works best alongside redevelopment. America is missing the in between of high density to low density zoning. Areas where building can be built 3-6 stories high and built to be flexible Where they can be mixed commercial uses or residential uses. This can create environments much easier to serve with public transit and walkability. This is basically how many older cities were before they started tearing themselves apart for the car.
You are correct in that public transit doesn’t service suburbia well. The car is the ideal solution to its design and thats exactly how it was built. After decades of this pattern and heavily subsidizing this development, the finnancial impacts are starting to catch up. Unfortunately when maintenance and repairs costs are considered, many suburban and strip mall developments cost more to maintain than the generate in taxes.