this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
2074 points (93.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

9682 readers
1699 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
[–] throwsbooks@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Because as much as trains and buses are great for everyday commuter movement (and having amenities within walking distance is key as well), there's two issues:

  • Changing the infrastructure and zoning of an existing city is much easier said than done. Ripping up concrete, tearing down existing business and homes to increase densification, that's a huge undertaking.
  • Trains never replaced the horse drawn carriage. You can never fully eliminate the need for cars because sometimes you need to move something big like a couch. Even if there's less cars on the road, it'll never be 0, as this also includes things like ambulances, and fire trucks that can't rely on schedules.
[–] CannaVet@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Changing the infrastructure and zoning of an existing city is much easier said than done.

Fun how we had zero fucking problem doing it to every city in the country for cars. 🤷

[–] tamal3@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Including destroying neighborhood-after-neighborhood with highway overpasses.

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It in that case the people with power wanted the change. They could profit from it, so it came easily.

Once those same people can make money by densifying urban areas into rental hellscapes and monopolizing public transit, you’ll have that. And it will suck.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Literally destroying buildings to build surface level parking.

[–] gramathy@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That’s what rentals are for. Yeah, there’s always going to be a need for low volume cargo transport and emergency response, but ultimately building cities so 90% of trips can be easily and comfortably accomplished via mass transit should be the goal. Nobody is suggesting transit can replace all cars.

[–] throwsbooks@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The image in the post is of a yogi of some sort stating that electric cars are here to save the car industry first, and my impression of it is that it's suggesting that exploring the idea of electric cars is unwise.

And hell yeah, efficient transit and walkable cities are the goal. But while we're working on that goal, we should also focus on electrifying cars! Tackle the crisis in multiple ways. Because there's no way we're gonna stop using cars overnight, and if we can make cars more environmentally friendly while we taper off of them, that's a win.

[–] Blackmist 6 points 1 year ago

If a solution involves lining a billionaire's pockets, he's unlikely to offer you an alternative.

Electric cars are palatable for most of us because it just involves a straight swap. No lifestyle changes needed. It's a much easier sell than lugging all your shopping home on the bus.

[–] Silvus@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually most cities had rail laid out and working commuter trains. The car manufacturers bought them up and purposely ran them into the ground to increase car sales. (Think Twitter) they were run like that.

[–] throwsbooks@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Some cities, yes. LA is an example, right? And how they wrecked the street cars.

But not my city. Calgary was built as a stop on the Trans Canadian Railway, and that still exists, and there's an (okayish) light rail train system here that's slowly been built over the years and not torn down. Fully wind powered, too! Edit: our public transit kinda sucks though, I'm not saying we're great. My commute to the office would be over an hour by transit and twenty minutes by car, I'm lucky I work remote.

A majority of North American cities that have grown within the last hundred years (coinciding with cars) were built from the ground up with cars in mind as the primary form of commute.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But not my city. Calgary was built as a stop on the Trans Canadian Railway

Calgary had a pretty extensive Streetcar network around downtown once upon a time.

https://saadiqm.com/2019/04/13/calgary-historic-streetcar-map.html

[–] throwsbooks@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Hey neat!

Just goes to show how history gets erased. Hopefully the green line gets built and we'll have even some of this coverage back.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, all of those things weren't problems at the dawn of the steam engine. Those are all problems brought on by the automobile and oil companies designing cities in the 40s.

[–] _spiffy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Lots of places can't support trains either. Kelowna area would not work well because of altitude changes and lakes.