I hope to some day live somewhere that allows me to take a train to where I want to go mid to long distance and the ability to walk short distance to the rest.
Here's the thing: I live in a mid sized city in Brazil. As in America, Brazil is very car centric (thanks, Kubitschek). But there's no trains. The capital city of my state has a single urban train line, and I think it's the only in the whole state, that's as big as France.
Your options here are:
use a car and endure the traffic;
get a poor planned, crowded and falling apart bus, and endure the traffic, because they rarely have exclusive lanes;
get a motorcycle, so you can split lanes and get through the traffic, but risking your life and not being able to carry more than one (adult) person and a handful of small items;
or use a bicycle in this very hilly and mountainous place, with close to no infrastructure to make it less risky.
I chose to use a motorcycle (although I couldn't afford one yet because we're poor), but I understand that for anyone with a family, owning a car is not a choice, it's a necessity (and it's a very expensive one)
First we have to convince people here that this is a problem at all. Most people think that the solution to the traffic problem is more roads, more lanes, cheaper cars, and better buses.
The buses are bad? Just make them better. There are too many cars in the streets? Just make better streets
Buses are that bad usually because they are a monopoly or very close to it. The government chooses which company can do public transportation by rigged licitations, and no other company can do it. Then they have no reason at all to do a good job.
Most people seem to have given up on the idea of more train lines. No company can do it, only the government. Every politician promised it, but adding train lines to an existing city is very hard, so none do
Even while having a car, I found my self taking transit anyways. To the point where both my daughters (15 and 17) have absolutely no desire to get a car or their drivers because not only do they see what's happening to the climate, but know transit well enough that vehicles are next to pointless for them. My understanding is that many, not all, of their friends thing the same way, too.
That, and I don't care if you drive a BMW. My ride costs 150k, and comes with a driver who opens the door for me. Fuck cars and the status that goes with 'em, too.
Also, it's ironic that cars are supposed to be a status symbol because "public transit is for poor people" but cars are practically mandated and cities where public transit exists are expensive to live in thanks to high rents.
Actually, it's public transit that should be the sign of wealth and cars that are "for poor people" but something tells me that by some strange alchemy, that means a car is a sign that one is a salt-of-the-earth working class type now.
The only issue I have with this take is how it ignores how the changes happened over decades, not overnight. Of course no one would choose any of these pictures, but that's not how it started out, and the slow changes is exactly why we bought into the idea. It also can't be easily undone or changed, even in a progressive society.
the slow changes is exactly why we bought into the idea.
And slow changes can bring us back.
It also can't be easily undone or changed, even in a progressive society.
Who said it had to be easy? Most things worth doing aren't.
It is more important that the goal will serve us and that it will bring us value. That we are unwilling to postpone longer before it becomes even harder.
The Netherlands chose to do this when it was easy (easier anyway). Canada and the US made the choice to postpone then.
Other nations are chosing now, should we join them now? Or should he wait until the damage is even harder to undo? How many more must we slaughter and maim in the streets? How much more must we pollute our environment? Do we chose to act, or do we wait until action is forced upon us?
Evey road in north american must be resurfaced every 10-50 years. Car don't last much longer that 20. That means without any additional resources, this can be done in about 15 years.
I get this is absurd on purpose, but I don't think having a decent amount of groceries on hand is crazy. I don't drive and I aim to not have to go to the store every other day. 2 weeks seems about right for grocery store frequency.
Not really sure if this is for or against my comment (or just neither), but to clarify, I'm saying I do load up on 1-2 weeks of groceries without a car and I don't think it's unreasonable with or without a car.
When grocery stores are close (walkable) it becomes super convenient to just go there every few days instead of managing a stockpile of food. Works way better for small spaces and for eating fresh foods. Don't knock it til you try it!
I'm not saying that's unreasonable either, tbf. I don't live in walking distance to a grocery store, though, and neither do most people I suspect, so bigger shopping trips just make sense. It would definitely be nicer to have a store nearby, though!
From my perspective it's sorta crazy. How does one even have the space for several weeks of perishable groceries, or move them effectively from the store home. It all seems like so much wasted space.
Also how does one plan buying all you potential cravings for two weeks. I sorta don't get it, emotionally I don't.
I encourage you to try living a <10min walk from a grocery store if you ever get the chance. Right now I'm at< 3min to walking to the grocery store. It's the best. Especially if it's open till midnight or god forbid 24/7.
Are there any non-extremist anti-car communities around? I hate cars too, but I also hate simple, blanket solutions like the world is easy or something.
For some people, not driving is just death from starvation. So, no. Thanks though.
I don't see anything extremist in this community. It's mostly complaining about problems with cars and a few memes like this post. Talking about alternatives is fine here, as per the rules. There isn't much as far as other communities to discuss alternatives, at least not that I've found. Here's what I can point to:
The ironic thing is that there really is a "simple, blanket solution" in this case: changing the zoning code to stop outlawing density.
It's not a fast solution -- the law can be changed at the stroke of a pen, but the redevelopment enabled by the rule change will occur over years and years -- but it's the only one that actually solves the problem.
For some people, not driving is just death from starvation
That seems like the exact kind of thing many people are against. All of this was by design in order to create a dependence on cars. This is not how it has to be. There are a lot of alternatives that are worth investing in.
I don't believe anyone would suggest to immediate destroy all cars right this second without putting in any kind of necessarily alternative infrastructure. That would be a pretty extreme stance on the matter.
I would like to see the US government stop subsidizing cars and start subsidizing alternatives such as trains so that maybe in 30-50 years we can start to see that it is possible to live without driving a car.
This toxic ass community is the same as BLM and anti work. Both have good intentions but alienate most people with their terrible names.
At least anti work had a better named workreform equivalent. But BLM shoulda be accountability for killer cops or something. I bad at naming shit too but hopefully you get my point.
Fuck cars is about infrastructure and mostly just cities. But it's so terriblely named it will never catch on.
Fuck cars is mostly a meme community spreading ideas from the larger urbanist movement, which has the benefit of having a less hostile-sounding name.
The meme community inarguably manages to recruit new people into the urbanist movement, and I haven't seen strong evidence that it's alienating more people than it is recruiting, fwiw.
I get that you are being snarky, but in Japan, they have trains that take you to the middle of nowhere. So, yes, a train can. At least, to your last mile car option.
Utter bullshit.
It's not about driving from a to be.
Have you ever brought your old and ill grandparent to a doctors appointment 20kms away when he can't hold it anymore - via train/bus?
Have you ever took your grandma to the grocery shop via train/bus? Have you ever get home as fast as possible because of a accident at home? Have you ever done anything outside of a big city?!
People who advocate for better public transportation usually also advocate for walkable neighborhoods. Your grandparents would not need a car to go to grocery, it'll be at a walking distance. Same for doctors.
As for emergencies, yes, a car would be nice. But you can always get a can in that situation. No need to destroy the planet every other day.
Let me ask you this, have you ever done anything outside of a car only dystopia?
My god are you privileged. 2 towns 30km apart. Less than 10k population not trainstation, no doc, no hospital. Calling people words that just live and work for others is such a cunt move.
In places designed before/not for cars you'd have places within walking distance like groceries. In the doctor scenario, we've had adult diapers for a long time. Your solution is you let them pee in your car?
In the doctor scenario, we've had adult diapers for a long time. Your solution is you let them pee in your car?
And your solution is they shit themselves on public transportation?
I mean, I'm 100% for better public transportation and urban centers designed around walking, but let's compare apples to apples here.
They didn't make a straw man argument, they had a point. It's a genuine issue and they deserve better than a flippant remark telling them to make grandpa wear diapers so he can piss himself on his walk from the bus stop.
The photos OP is sharing are depicting 10 or more lanes. That's precisely about a big city. Meanwhile the situation you describe, e.g doctor 20km away, no train/bus access, seems to be about not a big city. I believe you two are not talking about the same problem even though both are valid.
Even cities below a population of 100k have their own hospital and dozens of doctor's offices all within a ten minute walking distance from each other.
Sure, if you live in that ten minute walking distance. Sometimes I think progressive movements are their own worst enemies. The nearest urgent care facility to me is 26 mins, by bike, on main roads that are used by cars and trucks. Some spots have a bike lane (which is its own joke and hardly safe). I'd love to see how many actually fall into the "ten minute walk". I don't even have a pharmacy that close, and we've all heard the meme about a Walgreens/CVS at every corner.
Point is, those who are able to use mass transit or are in places where things are conveniently close seem to always chime in with victim blaming of those who aren't like them. It's a subtle version of the "if you don't like it, move".
I would love a world where everything is local and self-sufficient, but all the calls to action never talk about how to get there from here, they only say we should do "something" now. A trip without a roadmap will just get you lost.
I have done most of those things, ~95% of everything I have ever done was in small rural towns/villages. I don’t have a car, refuse riding as a passenger, and no license either and don’t feel the need to get one at all. Admittedly I live in a 15k people city right now but that is just way too much so I’ll go back to something smaller as soon as I can. And I don’t live in the US so I got that going for me, which is nice.
this is a weird instance, to be sure. I thought it was satire, but there's a lot of people who seem to lack the ability to think critically about transportation in general.
your comment isn't even irrational at all. but you're being downvoted because you don't ascribe to the theory that the world should be all butterflies and rainbows and everyone can just walk everywhere or take public transport.
public transportation can be great. but it can be so bad it's basically unusable.
all stuff I read in here sounds like a bunch of kids preparing for debate team about whether cars are "good" or "evil"