• kameecoding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    not sure about environmentally friendly,friendlier sure, but a well developed public transit system and biking infrastructure beats any kind of car based infrastructure

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Complements. The reason we’re stuck in this auto-dystopia (are we auto-asphyxiating? ;-) is people wanting one size fits all infrastructure. Let’s apply this more intelligently this time - recognize that some areas are more built up than others and different solutions scale differently . In general that can be a good thing, but we need interconnected services for everyone. That does include cars in many areas, although I agree a worthwhile goal for cities/town centers is that people not need a car

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        The reason we’re stuck in this auto-dystopia (are we auto-asphyxiating? ;-) is people wanting one size fits all infrastructure.

        The reason the US is a car dependent dystopia is because they let the auto industry dismantle a shitton of public infrastructure.

        Just because you build public transport infrastructure doesn’t mean you can’t have your car, look at switzerland, netherlands, they have good public transport/bike infrastructure and still have cars.

        Having great public transportation actually makes it better for people who only want to use cars, because it takes off a lot of people from the road who now have alternative options.

              • Zink
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                They may have been talking about economic inefficiency, if you don’t have a busy enough route to justify the initial investment.

                And in the US at least, there is a LOT of land, and huge amounts of it are sparsely populated. But that still adds up to a lot of people.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                The more stops you have for a train, the slower, more expensive, and less efficient it is. They like hauling for long distances without stopping.

                • kameecoding@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  still more efficient than anything else…

                  and then usually how it works is that some trains go local and stop everywhere and others are intercity and stuff and stop at less stations etc.

                  • frezik@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    “Efficient” covers a lot of things. There are often reasons to avoid what is technically the most efficient solution by some measure. For trains, their high up front cost has to be made up by low marginal cost, which typically means having a high number of passengers for each stop.

                    And before you say it, no, I’m not demanding they be profitable, just that they be cost effective.

                • kameecoding@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  you do realize trains are part of the public transport and no reasonable person would think you can’t take a car to the train station?

                  what do you think I am talking about? a bus going every 30 minutes to every house in bumfuck nowhere on the off chance they get a passenger?

        • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          I also want to add that if public transit was more more common; it would EVENTUALLY spread to the rural areas just in a more limited fashion. Also, towns do build up as they age, it’s not like they are static.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      We need the incrementally more eco-friendly options as well. Most pickup truck driving office workers won’t suddenly get a bike and change their ways, so a more eco friendly personal vehicle is probably a lot more likely to reduce emissions for that demography.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I am not sure that buying a brand new car offsets more than just using your existing car, so there is time to make those people change their ways

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I’m sorry but if maglev trains are an option I want my damn maglev train.

          Anyways since we already don’t have public transport we might as well not have magic magnetic levitating public transport.

    • const_void@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Don’t forget working from home. Proven by the lockdown air quality to be the most environmentally friendly option. Remember this when you’re employer is asking you to “return to the office”.

      • Franklin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Trains and trans are a more cost effective and environmentally friendly way to transport the masses. It can work to a surprisingly small populations as evidenced by all of the small disparate towns in Switzerland, Norway and Denmark that depend on them.

        Of course no solution works everywhere but cars should never be our first option.

      • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Most people live in a city. In Australia and NZ it’s around 90%, in China, Europe and Canada for sure over 50%.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t actually, I live in a small town, and I see american style suburbs popping up and it’s fucking disgusting

      • Strykker
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Man over 90% of the population is most countries lives in a fucking city.

        Helping them get off cars would be a massive improvement.