this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
678 points (92.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9661 readers
87 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 CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Why can't we expect rural areas to have some form of mass transit? Having at least a bus system that services a rural area absolutely should be the expectation.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Because a bus that serves a town of 500 people will come once an hour, at most. Also, many people can't walk far to/from the one bus stop. Busses do not solve a problem in small towns, because there is no traffic and plenty of parking.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

Switzerland has rail that serves small towns and it’s pretty frequent: https://youtu.be/muPcHs-E4qc

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your town underinvested in transit because everyone has a car, and they sprawled the architecture because everyone has a car. People got by in rural areas with trains just fine before cars were invented

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would love a better bus or LR in my town, but that shit ain't happening in my life time.

The bus comes every hour, if that, and doesn't really go to many places.

If I went full public transit, I'd have to schedule the county transportation via state health insurance and schedule the whole week in advance just to even get to a bus stop..and that's if I even have medicaid.

I try not to drive as much as possible, make my errands all at once, or while en route to and from work. Me and partner car pool. We have one hybrid vehicle.

The other people round here LOVE their coal rollers.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why don't you join the transit movement and push for light rail in your town? You could make some persuasive arguments to the local government. Strong transit systems lead to higher GDP and more tax revenue

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I don't mean to be a doomer...but that would probably just be me yelling at clouds to a bunch of out of touch backwoods gangsters. However its worth a look into what is going on in my area. Also worth noting we do have a bus line for commuting into NYC once a day real early AM. So it's not all doom and gloom I suppose.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

@[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected]

It seems that you're all only thinking about servicing just the small town itself, and not a larger bus line that services multiple smaller towns to get them to a larger city area and back, or to each other.

The usefulness is not in traversing the rural town. It's to get the fuck out of one.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The larger city area will often be hundreds of miles away with not enough population in between to have more than one or two people at most in any given bus even stopping at multiple small towns. Mass transit it great in cities, but it desperately needs population density to be efficient.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The larger city area will often be hundreds of miles away

How large is large? How are people getting goods at all living hundreds of miles away from a population center? It doesn't have to be a giant metropolitan like LA or NYC.

The same idea @[email protected] is putting into words better.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Gosh, I think you'd have to be in the REAL middle of nowhere to be even 100 miles from a population center. Maybe out west in either of the Dakotas or Wyoming or something, but I imagine even then it's quite rare and represents a fraction of a percentage point of the population. "Never let perfect be the enemy of good"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How large is large? How are people getting goods at all living hundreds of miles away from a population center?

Usually you consolidate all your errands into one trip every week or two where you buy everything you need at the larger town of a few tens of thousands of people.

My grandmother lived in rural Kansas, and her town had a grocery store and a gas station. Anything else was a 3 hour drive to buy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's...not a place I'd want to spend my life at

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Ironically, in some ways it's actually a lot better place to live now than it was back then purely because of ecommerce, but the jobs issue is even worse now that it was back then, because all the farm work is now controlled by megacorps instead of individual families.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The final mile is always the killer. And the greater the number of destinations, the more complex and impractical a mass transit system becomes. This is the fly in the ointment that nobody ever seems to want to address directly.

Yes, a car is inefficient in terms of number of ass cheeks moved per square footage taken up. However, every single one of those cars can (and probably is) delivering its occupant to a different destination, and in most cases practically directly to it. A train cannot do this. A bus cannot do this. Trains are excellent at moving a large number of people from a relatively small high concentration geographical area to another single location with a high demand destination nearby. A bus is decent at moving a moderate number of people along a predefined corridor, provided the passengers do not have particularly specific requirements of when they leave or arrive. But the more stops you add for the bus or train, the slower and slower it gets. If you compensate for this by adding more routes, the number of connections a passenger must make to get from one specific destination to another makes the amount of time taken pretty much totally nonviable once you reach 4 or 5.

Single or limited destination mass transit methods can never be a total replacement for individual transportation. However, that individual transportation doesn't necessarily need to be a car. Bicycles, scooters, and motorcycles are more space efficient per number of passengers, especially if only 1 or 2 passengers need to travel at a time (see also: Southeast Asia).

All of these methods need to coexist to create a functional and balanced transit system. There is no silver bullet, and the issue is much more complex than a single smarmy bar graph.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

Putting in even a single stop at a rural town could easily add 30 minutes each way to the route. Probably more, getting from a hub city to these rural towns is a good amount of driving with not much of anything between. A bus that stops at a rural 500 person town once every hour or so isn't moving enough people to be more efficient than cars. Now you want to do that for every town surrounding a hub city? The economy of scale simply doesn't exist for rural areas. Even suburbs stretch that a bit.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So basically, they would drive to a bus station, just to get on a bus? How often do you expect them to need to into the city? And they already have a car at this point, why would they get on a bus?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So basically, they would drive to a bus station, just to get on a bus?

Are you for real with this? Have you even ever seen a functioning bus line like this before? No. That's not basically it at all.

You have a couple stops in the small town direct from the hub/city to pick up and ferry people to the larger area. From there they can walk/take another bus or other form of transport like a train. It's similar to light rail, but with roads and busses instead of tracks and trains.

how often do you expect people to need to go into the city?

It'd be a lot easier for some people to find jobs who can't afford their own car if they could actually get to the city where the jobs are. So every day.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Having grown up in a rural area, here's what I think the solution would look like.

  1. streetcars within towns
  2. Roads dedicated to cars that pass next to towns, and moving the bulk of parking to a ramp just within the town limits
  3. "Frequent" (think once every hour) bus stops from town to town
  4. A train hub for the local area to desirable areas like cities
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Why can't people in a 500 person town walk to the bus station? How is there traffic in them?? WHO IS PLANNING THIS

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

+1 to this. Buses might not be the best mode for most in rural areas, but they are an essential lifeline for those who can't or can't afford to drive.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because at that point you're just running buses for individuals at best, but mostly running empty. You'd have to stop at every house.. It would create more emissions that it saves.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ideally, you would be running a train instead of a bus. The train stops in the middle of town, which is a thriving mixed use area of medium density residences, corner stores, and restaurants. Everyone can walk to the train station.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You expect people to walk to a train station? Have you seen how far apart everything is in rural areas?

Hi, yes please, Id like to walk two hours to get on a train, and I like to walk two hours to get back home when do. And thats assuming you live fairly close to town, within 5 or 6 miles or so.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People have been walking through rural areas for 12,000 years. Because that's how long ago agriculture was invented.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except you know, horses.

Also, we have cars now.

And its not 12,000 years ago.

There is zero point in getting in walking two hours to a train station when you can just drive there.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of those options emits carbon and drives humanity closer to extinction and one doesn't. Do you prefer the time saving convenient genocide, or walking?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mate, so long as we ship plastic across the pacific, cruises still exist, and execs fly private planes, thats a non-starter.

Further more, those buses would run empty most of the time, causing more emissions than if people just drove. Have you even been to rural America?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why we should have electric trains going to every rural community

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Electric trains still have emissions. Not just power, but maintence as well. Overhead lines go down, pantographs leave metal dust everywhere, hell even just normal rail maintence.

Theres a reason why all the American passenger lines went bankrupt, and why Amtrak is funded by the government and still struggling.

And the best part is you'd spend a trillion dollars running lines everywhere, and almost no one would ride it.

Edit: its costs 75,000 dollars per year per mile to maintain electric track. Its completely unfeasible. http://rockymountainrail.org/documents/RMRABP_CH7_OperatingCosts_03.2010.pdf

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did your dumb ass really just pull numbers from the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority, a rail planning committee trying to figure out how to make a train from Denver to Vail and say their numbers are equal to what the rest of the country would experience?

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read and I’ve read several other comments of yours that are close to it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Its the first one i found that gave actual numbers.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Have you looked at a voting map recently? They would never go for it, not in America at least.