I think the most important thing to remember is that even if 100% of rural folks drive, that's still only 20% of the total population. The notion that transit doesn't work for them does not excuse failing to provide it for the other 80% that it would work for.
Saying "but whatabout my special-snowflake rural lifestyle" to attack transit in general is always dishonest concern trolling.
Not only that, but how many "rural lifestyle" people are actually living an urban lifestyle from a house in the countryside, enabled by heavily-subsidized roads into the city for all of their daily activities?
That was certainly the case for the county road that my parents lived on for years. They, and their neighbors, would drive into the city every day for work, shopping, entertainment, et cetera. While it was a free county, why should we subsidize that choice?
Utter tripe.
Where I live it's dozens of little villages scattered about here and there, with four sizable towns.
Weaving public transport through all of those places is impractical.
I can't function using public transport that'll take me an hour or two to get between appointments in different places when it's a fifteen minute drive.
To get close to that you need so many buses running empty and so many routes it's insane.
Maybe let local people decide what's right for them instead of making blanket proclamations for everyone and every place?
You don't need to bring car usage to zero. It's a win to bring it down.
Maybe let local people decide what’s right for them instead of making blanket proclamations for everyone and every place?
Local, non-expert, people are famously wrong. You'd have everything paved over for more parking if you listened to them.
So, basically, you're living in a geographic area that's incompatible with your lifestyle, and it only works with taxpayer subsidies for the roads.
Nah, lifestyle is well suited to the area.
We have roads here older than every American country and traditions even older.
The land and the people are one.
Then get rid of everything with an internal combustion engine and live like your ancestors did on that land, don't expect modernity to be delivered to you by truck while you live your stupid medieval peasant fantasy
Yeah we don't have trucks here. Except for a few industrial people so you're not making sense.
Hands up anyone who thinks my ancestors had public transport?!
Ok, that was definitely the point of what I was saying and you aren't being disingenuous at all.
How many of those ancestors wound up marrying their cousins, do you think?
Has that got anything to do with whether I need a car or a bus?
You're getting downvoted because it's a fuckcars com, but you're not exactly wrong. Plus, I don't see how we could effectively get rid of cars without making everyone move to the cities.
Plus, I don't see how we could effectively get rid of cars without making everyone move to the cities.
80% already did, and the other 20% can be ignored.
I agree.
Rural public transport could absolutely be way better, especially if it was viewed as a public service, not a business.
There's plenty of places where even an optimised solution would mean cars aren't needed.
You can definitely do public transit out in the country, but isn't the Netherlands one of the most densely-populated countries in the world?
No, you can only do public transit in rural places inthe Netherlands if you go to a big hub city. If you have to go 3 towns over, you have to take a car, or be prepared to double or triple your travel time.
If you have to go three towns over in rural NL the car may be the best option, but going by bike is a very close second.
The busses in the NL are often mainly for transporting you to and from the city, though some provinces also offer halfway decent local connections.
Even within a city, bus travel is usually much slower than a car. Because you have to wait to get on the bus, and then the bus is making many stops along the way to load and unload. And it probably also isn't going directly to where you need to go and probably doesn't stop directly in front of where you live, so you need to add walking/bike riding to the beginning and end of the trip.
I'm a big proponent of bus travel, but let's not kid ourselves here -- choosing the bus can easily make a 30 minute car ride into a 2 hour bus ride overall.
That's because you compare both in a car oriented setting. In a public transit oriented setting you won't be faster by car.
Are you also saying that walking and cycling in a city is impossible and cuicidal because you judge it also based on a car oriented city?
A city designed for PT can be much more compact. A city designed for cars has to be much more bloated. What you are faster by car you have to drive further.
Okay, but every real city I've ever been in is a car-oriented setting.
Yes, we could imagine a fantasy world where going by car is slower, but I'm talking about the real world here.
There are vast differences. Not every major city in the world is car-oriented, as in cars being given strong priority over all other means. What is true is that most cities are accessible by car. That is not the same.
Have a look at the density of various cities. Vienna for example has a population of around 2 mio within municipal limits within an area that is tiny compared to any actually car oriented city with a much smaller population. Also the urban area is organised along hubs and spokes to work well with public transportation but not so great for cars, at the same time, highway coverage within municipal borders is pretty poor. Most neighbourhoods, also outside of the centre have good walkable access to all sorts of local infrastructure, including supermarkets, gastronomy, health services, schools etc.
That is reflected in the modal split: 25% of all journeys in the city are done by car (not merely the city centre, the entire city which includes a population of around 2 mio, the large majority of people living in the metropolitan area), 34% are done by transit, 30% by walking and 11% by cycling.
Compare that to London, Ontario for example and if you don't see the difference I don't know what to say. And before you say that this comparison does not count as London, Ontario has only ~400k inhabitants. Yes, but both cities consume a very similar area in km2 and that's the point.
The solution, as it often is, is to use more trains. Also, walking and bike tunnels. Weather is often a reason why I don't walk or bike.
The solution is a cohesive well integrated system, of a mix of modes (local/ mid range/ rapid backbone) in a city that is optimised for public transit, cycling and walking. Buses have their place in that, so do trams, light rail and heavy metro and heavy rail.
Linking towns to nearby cities sounds like the job of an interurban (Short one or two car length light rail / trolly that makes one stop per town, traveling the countryside between each at grade and at relatively high speed), but almost nowhere has those anymore.
Switzerland also manages it in rural areas.
Yes, but the service isn't always sufficient in the countryside. If you live outside the city you still often own a car. But you can easily travel and visit any place in the countryside with a bit of time.
Ultimately, use the right tool for the task. Public transit is great for living ihe city, but if you work in servicing or out in the sticks, you're going to need a vehicle that carries stuff. Also, good luck getting fridge/freezer perishables home in time if you have a long walk/ride
I find it entertaining what people think is an issue with a car free life style. In reality transit oriented places make it much easier to have fresh produces at home. You can simply get them daily on your way home, by investing maybe 5-10 min extra (not travel time, for everything incl. shopping). You rarily need to go to a hypermarket and even then, cooler bags are a thing. So are shopping trolleys.
Cooler bag. It helps when the transit is more frequent too.
British empire colonies suffer from the settler land-race problem of sprawling takeover. When they talk about "rural", they don't know what it means as they're just referring to the sprawling frontiers of "homesteaders." Normal rural design is what you see in most of the rest of the world (and there is variation and some sprawl too.)
I grew up in county town Australia. I definitely noticed the lack of car, but I also got by fine without one.
Western Australia i'm guessing?
North West New South Wales
This is varies a lot by country.
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags: