• 6mementomori@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    People here are saying a lot that cars are convenient because there’s more roads… like… let public transport run on those roads? People seem to literally be unable to realize that things are the way they are now solely because you refuse to believe they can be in any other way and don’t solve problems because “it’s not practical”. Short termed thinking runs too much

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Public transport do run on the roads, too. It’s not “private car only”.

      • 6mementomori@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        never said it’s private car only, but i did use wrong wording, sorry. what i meant was, those are the same roads public transport runs on, so the “cars can go anywhere” point kinda falls unless we’re talking offroading. mildly inconveniencing, but that’s just a tradeoff, it’s the entire point of fuckcars

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem with public transport is that it only goes on pre-planned routes. If you want to go elsewhere, you can’t without a car. And replacing all nature with rails and asphalt is a very bad idea.

          • 6mementomori@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            you don’t need to replace anything, the roads are already there. and if you wanna go somewhere super specific, just walk, keep in mind that if transport is more invested into, it will barely be different from car travel. the mild convenience created by cars isn’t worth the clutter that 10 times the volume of automobiles will create. also parking is already a problem now.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The problem isn’t the roads, but needing to create a route that touches every single road. Public transportation can’t really do customization, it’s a one size fits all deal.

              • theplanlessman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                My city has a door-2-door system of minibuses that are a bit like the missing link between taxis and buses. They pick you up from wherever you are and take you to wherever you’re going, they just pick up other people on the way too. It’s generally marketed towards the disabled/elderly, but I don’t see why it couldn’t be scaled up and be marketed as either a bus+ or a taxi lite.

                • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This is actually the first I’ve heard of this, and it’s actually the perfect solution. If 1/3 of the fleet is dedicated to first come, first serve transportation, it helps a ton with what’s otherwise the use case for cars.

          • theplanlessman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Taxis exist.

            A quick search suggests that here in the UK the average driver is spending up to £200 per month on their car (excluding any financing to pay for it in the first place). That much money would easily cover a monthly travel pass in most cities I’ve lived in, with plenty left over to pay for taxi rides when you need the convenience of door-to-door travel at a time that suits you.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I live in London zone 5, travelling to Zone 1 will cost me £267.30 monthly. One of my colleagues lives in Petersfield. His monthly ticket would be £613.70. You don’t know much about train fares in the UK, do you? If you live in Scotland and need to travel to London, it is always cheaper to bloody fly! Sometimes it’s cheaper to buy a car for one trip and then just dump it, or, even better, sell it and recoup your costs!

    • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      there’s more roads

      Which, by the way, would not be there like without a government making it so. And if those governments went “nah” to the idea of a stroad and any highway expansion beyond 6 lanes, and threw it all into railways in the '70s, the USA may have had a bullet train network today that’d make Germany jealous.

    • Alimentar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the path of least resistance. If public transport was more effiencent and faster, people would opt for that.

      But then you’re also dealing with the weather, or some people like the privacy or they enjoy driving their own car. Or not having to worry about time tables and waiting.

      All these factor in, and that’s why many prefer cars.