Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
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.
Posting Guidelines
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:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
That's the point of improving things, then it wouldn't be like that. But the previous sentence you said it was a pointless endeavour so I'm not sure what your point is.
If you have bad public transport you can't argue against making it good based on the fact that it's bad now since if it was good then it would no longer be bad. I really don't know what else to say.
That's why I think the focus should be on grade separated rail, a bus in normal traffic is only for people with no alternatives, whereas I have a car and I use thr park and ride and subway sometimes by choice
It doesn't have to be an either/or; a good bus network reduces traffic and reduces the land needed to be used for roads and parking spaces, creating a nicer, safer environment to live in. Also more buses mean less traffic which mean more reliable buses. Rail has its place too of course, they complement each other.
They argued you cant make it better cause the improvements impact does not scale with costs. As an example they mentioned, implementing sidewalks would make walking safer, but cost ridiculous amounts of money that tax payers would have to fork over. Something they likely won't do because costs will likely outweight the benefits for a lot of people
But the person is assuming the result would still be poor public transport. In a sense they're right, spending a lot of money to still take "an hour to get somewhere that a car will reach in ten minutes" would not be worth it because that would be a failure, but assuming failure isn't a reason to argue against it when lots of places do it well and benefit greatly from it. Reaching for an analogy, it's a bit like saying we shouldn't make an omelette because it'll be raw if we don't cook it and that would be a waste of money.