this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
73 points (92.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9773 readers
88 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
73
fuck cars, rural edition (lemmy.basedcount.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

So suppose we don't like cars and want to not need them. What are the transportation alternatives for rural areas? Are there viable options?

Edit:

Thank you all for interesting comments. I should certainly have been more specific-- obviously the term "rural" means different things to different people. Most of you assumed commuting; I should have specified that I meant more for hauling bulk groceries, animal feed, hay bales, etc. For that application I really see no alternative to cars, unfortunately. Maybe horse and buggy in a town or village scenrio.

For posterity and any country dwellers who try to ditch cars in the future, here are the suggestions:

Train infrastructure, and busses where trains aren't possible

Park and rides, hopefully with associated bike infrastructure

No real alternative and/or not really a problem at this scale

Bikes, ebikes, dirtbikes

Horse and buggy

Ride share and carpooling

Don't live in the country

Walkable towns and villages

Our greatgrandparents and the amish did it

A lot of you gave similar suggestions, so I won't copy/paste answers, but just respond to a few comments individually.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, fair enough! I was thinking of places in the UK (and other areas of Western Europe I'm familiar with) where even 'isolated' houses are usually less than five miles away from a larger settlement. I've been in plenty of places where I'd just walk across or around a field to get to the nearest shop - which was more direct than taking the road!

In terms of the rural US, I think you're probably right that solving these problems with human-powered vehicles and public transport is, basically, too hard, and that cars are the best available solution. That said, it's probably still worth building the infrastructure so people have the option of not using a car for the whole of every single journey.

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

@frankPodmore @betwixthewires Here's a map of what the train network used to look like across rural Victoria (in Australia) in 1927: https://everythingismaps.github.io/img/historicvicrailmaps/1927%20Victorian%20rail%20map.PNG

And here's rural NSW in 1933: https://www.nswrail.net/maps/nsw-1933.php

And here's a video that @nerd4cities recently uploaded about the destruction of intercity train networks in the US: https://youtu.be/svao4PZ4bGs?si=K7zrMlZ4bvfmiRcC

So yes, many rural areas and small towns in the US, Australia, and Canada used to have access to frequent and reliable train services back in the first half of the 20th century.

Those train systems in many cases were privately run, so no direct taxpayer subsidies. At a time when overall populations were smaller.

So what changed? Car-centric government policies.

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

What else has changed? Cars became available and roads were easier to build than tracks.

I'm not against trains, I love them, especially the prospect of using them for long distance travel between rural areas. But people in rural areas use cars because there was a natural incentive to use cars: they're faster than horses and trains and the roads were already there, bonus they can be used for work on the land as machinery. Car centric government policies really are an effect of the widespread use of cars. They entrench the current way things work and create inertia in moving forward from it, but they didn't create it, at least not in the middle of nowhere.

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

@betwixthewires Cars faster than trains? If that's the case in your country, then you have a serious underinvestment in rail.

(Seriously, even V/Line trains in Victoria go faster than the 100 KP/h speed limit, and by world standards V/Line ain't a great train service.)

What happened in the US, Australia, and Canada was a massive investment in rural highway infrastructure by national and state/provincial governments after World War 2.

In the US, that was Eisenhower's Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

In Australia, it was Gough Whitlam's National Roads Act of 1974: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_(Australia)

Many towns in the rural western US were railway towns. They were quite literally built around a train station.

But after WW2, the US spent the equivalent of US$193 billion (adjusted for inflation) in just 10 years building new interstate highways.

At the same time, the extensive already-existing network of rural railways saw service cuts, was run down, and had privately-owned lines become freight-only.

Again, similar story in the other former British colonies.

That was a choice by government. And the result of that choice is many people in those railway towns responded by buying a car.

It didn't have to be that way.

In many parts of Europe and Asia, where leaders have invested in rail, you can live quite comfortably in many small towns without a car.

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

I meant when the development of transportation infrastructure started, cars were certainly faster than trains.

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

Thanks, that's interesting! Always like it when I'm provided with evidence that I am, if anything, slightly too sympathetic towards cars.