1619
Yes please
(lemm.ee)
Developed high speed rail since 2008 in China vs the US:
Yeah that's what happens when all your manufacturing is outsourced there. China is insanely insanely rich now
Still not as rich as the USA.
China's GDP is 17.79 trillion dollars compared to the USA's 27,36 trillion.
There's plenty of money to invest in public infrastructure, but no one wants to do it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
One of the most annoying things is cities that were designed pre-car being retrofitted for car, and then people acting like that's the city's fault for not making the city better for car, rather than the city's fault for not assessing their situation and emphasizing other methods of getting from place to place
Or similarily, the whole world being walkable before the incredibly recent invention of cars and yet people still act like there’s no way to be without a vehicle. Like, even when cars were first coming out cities were already dense and had public transit that was working fine and many still do today.
Or “my town is small that’s why everything is far apart” my friend you have fewer things than I do in the city, within walking distance, and need a car to get to them all like how does that make any sense?! Put that shit together into a nice little walkable village! I’m from a village like that and I’m from goddamn Ontario! It’s awesome!
I hate when people who live in some crap suburb cannot even imagine—not even imagine; simply see—that there are better ways of doing this shit.
So many cities in North America had electric trolleys going through dense neighborhoods. Most of them got ripped out and many neighborhoods knocked down to make room for ~~highways~~ rush hour parking lots.
I watched an interesting video recently about trolleys / trams.
Originally, the form of mass transit in cities was "omnibuses", which were horse-drawn carriages on wooden wheels with seats for many passengers. Horsecars, or horse-drawn trams, were an improvement on that. Because they used steel wheels on steel rails, they were much more efficient than wooden wheels on cobblestone streets. They required much less "horsepower" to run.
An American with the unlikely name of Mr. Train set up the first horsecars in England. What's crazy about this first tram system is that the rails were above the road surface, and at that time there was no permit system or anything, so he'd just been installing them wherever he thought there was good business. He was eventually arrested for "breaking and injuring" a road in London, which basically stopped his efforts. Can you imagine that? Some dude just came and put regular raised railway tracks on a road and started running horsecars along those tracks and nobody stopped him until more than a year later.
Eventually they settled on grooved rails so that the trams were less disruptive of other kinds of traffic (but they can still be really tricky for bicycles). They also switched from horse-drawn trams to steam-powered trams and then to a variety of things: fossil-fuel engines, cable cars, electric, etc.
Part of what killed the tram was the rise of the car, and the push by car companies to kill their competition. But, another part of what killed them was simply rubber tires. Remember that the original advantage of trams was the superiority of steel wheels on steel tracks vs. wooden wheels on cobblestone. Modern roads and modern tires also meant that the advantage of a tram was really diminished. That meant that a lot of places started replacing inflexible trams with more flexible diesel-powered (omni)buses.
But, of course, there's a hidden drawback that those people might not have considered. Trams use different kinds of wheels so they can get their own lanes, sometimes get their own bridges, sometimes even their own traffic lights. It's much easier to give them priority when there are shared lanes, because they're clearly a different kind of vehicle. When you switch from a tram to a bus, the bus is just another vehicle with rubber tires, so it gets caught in traffic in a way that trams didn't.
And, of course, if buses have to stop frequently to load and unload passengers and they get stuck in traffic, they're going to be much slower than cars, so it convinces people that public transit doesn't work and they need to have a car.
In the end, we don't necessarily need trams / trolleys / streetcars, we just need a public transit vehicle that has either dedicated lanes or priority over other traffic. Zurich, for instance, has trams, but it also has buses that get their own lanes, get their own traffic signals, and get priority over other traffic, so that drivers get out of their way or risk big fines.
Sometimes trams are the best solution. Rails means you can have multiple cabins in a row and not have to worry about how to steer around corners. With buses they can sometimes have one extra "trailer", the famous articulated (or better accordion) bus. But, one "trailer" is really the limit. Rails also means a predictable path, which means it's easier to make them fully electric, which generally makes them much quieter than a diesel bus. (That is, until they have to take a sharp turn).
In the end, I like trams, but trams aren't really necessary. What's necessary is rules that give priority to public transit vehicles. You tend to get that by default with trams, but you can do it with buses, mini-buses or even mini-vans.
Dense neighborhoods that were often similar density to suburbs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I’d like for where I lived in Denver to be simply walkable. Or safely bikable. I was living in a pretty urban area in SW Denver proper and my car was lost to a collision, so I started walking everywhere. Great area for that, theoretically - I was surrounded by Asian and Central American markets, convenience stores, liquor stores, dispensaries, local restaurants, all within about a mile. However, the major roads nearby were stroads. Crossing at crosswalks was much more dangerous than just wiring for cars to disperse and running across in the middle of the block.
Worse though, I was near a kinda fun hipster shopping and bar area, but there was this horrific freeway/highway/stroad exchange where you had to go across something like 6 roads and exit ramps. It was the most pedestrian unfriendly thing I’d ever seen, and coincidentally it divided a more affluent white section of town from the Hispanic area.
"Coincidentally"
I think Denver is the least walkable city I've ever been in. Was there a few years back and was floored by how hard it was to get anywhere as a tourist without a ride share
Really depends on the part of town. It definitely wasn't built with pedestrian or bicycle access in mind when Denver expanded in the 60s-80s, but no city in the US was back then, really. If you're in a dense area like Cap Hill, it's great. Overall Denver is set up the same as most western cities, like LA, Phoenix, Albuquerque, but for the most part is better than those. If you want something really horrible try suburbs of Houston where they don't even have sidewalks.
load more comments
(1 replies)
For anyone who really likes driving:
More public transport = less people driving = less traffic = win-win situation for everyone
Fully agree and the US public transportation system is fucking pathetic.
Wouldn’t it be nice if this was people attitude and not “WHY SHOULD I BE PAYING TAXES FOR STUFF THAT I DONT USE”.
“WHY SHOULD I BE PAYING TAXES FOR STUFF THAT I DONT USE”.
I'm on a citizen's advisory committee for a county's planning and development board... this can be answered rather easily in a way most posing the question haven't even considered. Approach the person like this: "So, you'll never use this thing, you like driving, but I'll bet you don't like traffic... every single solitary person riding on that new bus/light rail line, cycling on those new bike lanes, and walking on those new sidewalks is another car you're not going to be stuck behind in traffic. You personally come out ahead in this as well!"
Usually, they've never considered that traffic calming and alternative transport modes actually IS infrastructure from which motorists benefit. It's true that private vehicles aren't efficient as a means of mass transit, but they are convenient... it's the convenience factor where you can get car-brained folks to have a change of heart. The more you can emphasize that these improvements to other modes can make driving even slightly more convenient, the more they'll get on board with spending on them. Remember, these folks are already used to telling each other "I don't mind all the construction, that extra lane on that highway is needed." Half the time, this line of reasoning gets them on board or, at the very least, to stop outright opposing improvements.
America, the land of "i got mine"
load more comments
(1 replies)
I mean I can want two things.
Not having to drive myself to the hospital in a minor emergency where I'm alone would be nice, but even the friends and family discount at the local ambulance company is too expensive.
Maybe, you know, get universal healthcare instead of people relying on self driving cars for their emergency trips to the hospital?
Lmao never saw that, it's great
load more comments
(1 replies)
Sorry, best we can do is shitty robotaxis and electric cars that lock you inside when they explode.
I watched a few episodes of that recent show "Paradise," and as soon as I saw that they chose to make their giant bunker inside a mountain a fucking suburb with cars as the main form of transportation, I was like "fuck this..."
Then I remembered what time line we were on, and of course that's exactly something that the US government would do.
Could fit several times more people by building vertically, but instead fill it up with one-family homes with a quarter-acre backyard and swimming pool. Sounds about right.
.
I want something that takes me straight to my destination so my hurting ass self doesn't have to walk far. Driven by me so I won't get motion sickness. With a trunk so I can put a bunch of crap in there and not have to carry it all the way back while walking and riding a goddamn train.
Oh, right, I want cars. Anything else is short-sighted and ableist. I'm sure you're going to hate me and mod me down and silence me and all sorts of crap for this viewpoint, but holy fuck, how do you not understand that this is a perfectly valid view? If you're special and can walk and carry tons of shit, good on you, I'm so proud of you. Many are not. And when you destroy the ability to drive and park somewhere in your urban "utopias" because they cater to your special ass, it screws US over.
Wait, but both can coexist. This post is only hoping to abolish the "cars as default" mentality as it says. And it's not even a utopian dream when many places have both options readily available and well-furnished. I think you're going off without need there. But honestly, valid points. Some people do need personal vehicles and it's good to aim for a comprehensive view of transportation.
You're right, not building society around your preferences and convenience is literal fascism and anybody who care about safety or the environment is just fundamentally evil. The cruelty is the point.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I still want self driving cars
Safe and reliable self driving cars, affordable and accessible high speed public transit, a smart grid that can handle a nationwide shift to renewables... I want so many things. But my expectations have never been lower for what we'll actually get.
it's taken a few decades but seattle finally has really good light rail. every 10 minutes. you can get from the airport to the other side of the city for $4. it's not perfect, and doesn't go everywhere, but holy hell is it a giant upgrade for living in town.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The US had voted against having this
You are going to get cities that allow oligarchs to extract as much money as possible from you. That's what you are going to get.
That's great. If you are in the US it isn't going to happen at a meaningful scale. Best we can do is larger scale self driving mini busses for public transport and single user self driving vehicles for expediancies. Use existing infrastructure but work to eliminate human driving (save that for track driving for pleasure) and enforce heavy pedestrian priorities so foot traffic and bicycling becomes easier and safer.
I've heard this said a lot, and I'm not necessarily doubting its true, but what's the reason behind the richest country in the world not being able to build good public transport? Large countries like China yave good public transport, and the continent of Europe has great trains- is it just the USA's size combined with its lack of public infrastructure in general?
All the wealth is concentrated in the hands of selfish pricks who don't give a shit. Why advocate for high speed rail when you have a private jet?
Also making people waste time in traffic is probably good for the ownership class. You're not organizing if you're stuck in your car.
Low taxes so nothing goes to infrastructure
It's the fact that our cities were built around cars. Kinda bad timing really.
Many european cities were too, after they got leveled in ww2. Changing that is possible, but it requires actually starting.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you are in the US it isn't going to happen at a meaningful scale.
Your defeatism mindset is a large part of why it's not happening right now. Stop posting this shit so that progress can actually be made.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
1619 points (100.0% liked)
Public Transport
534 readers
3 users here now
Everything about public transportation!
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS