And there are a lot of great point there about mixed zoning, but nuance is important. Should small towns with nearly nothing available locally, where you have to travel outside of town for most things just not exist? Even if they do have train connections (as they often do where I live, in Europe), you usually only have one train every 1-2 hours unless there’s some specific significance to your town.
Improving things is a nice goal, but it often feels like here that people just want to eliminate anything that doesn’t conform to their ideals of how the world should be like.
You’re stating exactly what this community is about in your first paragraph. Why should they only have trains every 1-2 hours? That is the problem. What people here argue for is for the elimination of the need for cars. A car should be a situational tool, not an everyday need.
Nobody wants to eliminate small towns, this is about improving the quality of life for the people who live in them.
The reason they only have trains every 1-2 hours though is that that’s the frequency at which they’re operating at a desirable occupancy. You can probably popularize trains somewhat and increase it slightly, but not even close to enough to solve the problem that way.
The other option is smaller, more frequent trains. And yeah, automation could probably help there, but that’s the niche cars fill currently: personalized transport that’s effective and low-latency for your particular need. I do feel like this community has an affinity to reject that though, because the higher you scale each vehicle the better efficiency you get, but everyone who uses the system pays for that in scheduling and wait times.
It’s a chicken and egg situation. They don’t have occupancy because people already have cars. And while it continues like that, cars will remain the only option. The argument is when you’re in that situation, you don’t build more roads. You improve the public transport infrastructure.
I’m fairly sure it’s an equilibrium thing. Like yes, if you suddenly told a bunch of people that they have to use trains for the next year, trains would get more frequent, and things would be better for everyone. However, they likely wouldn’t be better enough to completely sway everyone, so after the year ends a bunch of people would switch back, trains would get more infrequent, therefore more inconvenient, others would switch back again, and you’d end up in the same spot. People who used trains before would think that one year was the shit, but everyone who opted out would cite the inconvenience even during that year of heightened frequency. (It would take a while to settle back though.)
Whether it’s this or a spiral depends on the magnitude of the change the popularity of trains would have on the experience of using trains. And the thing is, increased frequency still doesn’t solve all the gripes, so I don’t see it spiraling anytime soon.
For example, for my commute, I time it so that I leave the house at the exact right moment so I only have to wait 1-2 minutes at the station, a necessary buffer to account for imprecision both on the train’s part and on mine. On the return trip, I leave mostly randomly but trains are more frequent at that specific part of the day, so I have to wait about 6 minutes on average. Waiting accounts for about 8 minutes on average out of, let’s be generous, my daily total 110 minute commute.
The daily total by car would be 60 minutes. It would be free of annoying people who listen to music without earbuds, smoke in crowded places (and often around the only entrances/exits!), and push you around on a crowded train. It would have significantly lower exposure to adverse weather, require less physical exertion, and it would be free of the stress of being on time or paying for it with sometimes 15-20 minutes of your life. I don’t know how you can fix any of that with better public transport.
With all that said I do still use public transport, but I totally understand anyone who doesn’t. If you can replicate the convenience of cars with public transport without requiring everyone to live exclusively in large cities, I’m all ears, but until then, I don’t think you’ll be able to fully eradicate car culture. And that does come with the recognition that cars are way more popular nowadays than they have any right to be, often due to shitty zoning and city design, but there’s a lot you just can’t do with public transport.
You keep misrepresenting the position I’m trying to explain. No one wants to eliminate cars completely from the face of the earth (well I’m sure someone does, but that’s not what’s being talked about). As I said before, cars should be a situational tool, not an everyday necessity for everyone.
All that only further proves the point that current public transport infrastructure in your area is insufficient.
Yeah, that I can agree with. If new technologies can be used to have public transport rival the convenience of cars, I’m all for it.
Also, you won’t find many people praising Budapest’s public transport, lol, but at least they made sure that cars actually aren’t a necessity. I’m 26 and I never even had a license, let alone a car. But there are very few situations where cars wouldn’t be an improvement and almost all of them involve being around the densest central areas of the city.
That was a bit exaggerated, but tbh. areas where you have to use the car should be the exception, not the rule. Places where you have to drive to do stuff are a nightmare for everyone too old, too young or otherwise not able/allowed to drive or to afford a car.
![[meme] Why do people only seem to mean cars when they talk about electric and/or autonomous vehicles?](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8b4f07d2-ffe9-468c-a7da-0e970998b67f.png){kind=link}
That is exactly the problem. Areas that require a car to function shouldn’t exist. That’s what those “young urbanites” are arguing for.
And there are a lot of great point there about mixed zoning, but nuance is important. Should small towns with nearly nothing available locally, where you have to travel outside of town for most things just not exist? Even if they do have train connections (as they often do where I live, in Europe), you usually only have one train every 1-2 hours unless there’s some specific significance to your town.
Improving things is a nice goal, but it often feels like here that people just want to eliminate anything that doesn’t conform to their ideals of how the world should be like.
You’re stating exactly what this community is about in your first paragraph. Why should they only have trains every 1-2 hours? That is the problem. What people here argue for is for the elimination of the need for cars. A car should be a situational tool, not an everyday need.
Nobody wants to eliminate small towns, this is about improving the quality of life for the people who live in them.
The reason they only have trains every 1-2 hours though is that that’s the frequency at which they’re operating at a desirable occupancy. You can probably popularize trains somewhat and increase it slightly, but not even close to enough to solve the problem that way.
The other option is smaller, more frequent trains. And yeah, automation could probably help there, but that’s the niche cars fill currently: personalized transport that’s effective and low-latency for your particular need. I do feel like this community has an affinity to reject that though, because the higher you scale each vehicle the better efficiency you get, but everyone who uses the system pays for that in scheduling and wait times.
It’s a chicken and egg situation. They don’t have occupancy because people already have cars. And while it continues like that, cars will remain the only option. The argument is when you’re in that situation, you don’t build more roads. You improve the public transport infrastructure.
I’m fairly sure it’s an equilibrium thing. Like yes, if you suddenly told a bunch of people that they have to use trains for the next year, trains would get more frequent, and things would be better for everyone. However, they likely wouldn’t be better enough to completely sway everyone, so after the year ends a bunch of people would switch back, trains would get more infrequent, therefore more inconvenient, others would switch back again, and you’d end up in the same spot. People who used trains before would think that one year was the shit, but everyone who opted out would cite the inconvenience even during that year of heightened frequency. (It would take a while to settle back though.)
Whether it’s this or a spiral depends on the magnitude of the change the popularity of trains would have on the experience of using trains. And the thing is, increased frequency still doesn’t solve all the gripes, so I don’t see it spiraling anytime soon.
For example, for my commute, I time it so that I leave the house at the exact right moment so I only have to wait 1-2 minutes at the station, a necessary buffer to account for imprecision both on the train’s part and on mine. On the return trip, I leave mostly randomly but trains are more frequent at that specific part of the day, so I have to wait about 6 minutes on average. Waiting accounts for about 8 minutes on average out of, let’s be generous, my daily total 110 minute commute.
The daily total by car would be 60 minutes. It would be free of annoying people who listen to music without earbuds, smoke in crowded places (and often around the only entrances/exits!), and push you around on a crowded train. It would have significantly lower exposure to adverse weather, require less physical exertion, and it would be free of the stress of being on time or paying for it with sometimes 15-20 minutes of your life. I don’t know how you can fix any of that with better public transport.
With all that said I do still use public transport, but I totally understand anyone who doesn’t. If you can replicate the convenience of cars with public transport without requiring everyone to live exclusively in large cities, I’m all ears, but until then, I don’t think you’ll be able to fully eradicate car culture. And that does come with the recognition that cars are way more popular nowadays than they have any right to be, often due to shitty zoning and city design, but there’s a lot you just can’t do with public transport.
You keep misrepresenting the position I’m trying to explain. No one wants to eliminate cars completely from the face of the earth (well I’m sure someone does, but that’s not what’s being talked about). As I said before, cars should be a situational tool, not an everyday necessity for everyone.
All that only further proves the point that current public transport infrastructure in your area is insufficient.
Yeah, that I can agree with. If new technologies can be used to have public transport rival the convenience of cars, I’m all for it.
Also, you won’t find many people praising Budapest’s public transport, lol, but at least they made sure that cars actually aren’t a necessity. I’m 26 and I never even had a license, let alone a car. But there are very few situations where cars wouldn’t be an improvement and almost all of them involve being around the densest central areas of the city.
So vast swaths of the earth should be depopulated? Hold on while they open the camps…
Who’s saying that? Don’t put words in my mouth. Maybe read before kneejerking.
That was a bit exaggerated, but tbh. areas where you have to use the car should be the exception, not the rule. Places where you have to drive to do stuff are a nightmare for everyone too old, too young or otherwise not able/allowed to drive or to afford a car.