this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
1241 points (96.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9500 readers
42 users here now

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 CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 79 points 1 week ago (53 children)

Absolutely both are needed. I struggle to understand how people think a rural area with 5 minute drives between homes could be connected to a public transit network that is timely and not astronomically expensive.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

You eliminate the rural area with 5 minute drives between homes. Japan has a much higher population density more generally, granted, and they do occasionally get older, offset, single homes that are miles from anything else. But they also have extremely rural villages with maybe 2000 people that are still about as rural as you can get and still go in for farming. Many other places (I would say, basically all of them?) do this as well, and not all of them have high population density. I think, almost definitionally, the land use I'm proposing has a higher pop density, but the style of development generally, you'd be hard pressed not to classify it as rural.

The solution here is to orient the land use radially. Also probably to use less land generally, but that's a separate issue. Most land use in america looks like having 20 different farms, that are each like 3 or 4 miles across, sometimes with multiple plots, with each house being positioned as far away from the other houses as possible, usually somewhere along the edge of a plot, and then running roads out to each of them, sometimes dirt roads, sometimes paved, usually some combination of the two for higher use vs lower use vs private.

Instead of that, you do what people have been doing for centuries. You clump the 20 different houses together in one contiguous strip that's placed along some sort of rail line or higher traffic road, and then you disconnect all the plots of land from the particular houses. Ownership doesn't necessarily have to correlate with one plot of land vs another. Then you gain all of the benefits that entails, and if everything is laid out sensibly, then you're only about 3 miles from your specific plot. Utilities become cheaper to maintain, emergencies like fires, medical problems, natural disasters, become much easier to deal with, you can start building some actual infrastructure, like, say, a rail line.

That becomes much easier to justify if you only gotta send that shit to like one concentration of 20 or 30 or houses instead of sending it to those 20 or 30 houses individually, most especially if that line is just passing through before heading somewhere else, which should generally be the case. Maintenance of that rail line also becomes less problematic compared to that of a road if we're considering that this rural area is probably mostly going to be farmland that demands larger industrial equipment shipments, and is going to be shipping back and forth things like grain, bulk goods which would do much better to be shipped by train compared to most other forms of transit. Slap that together with a multi-daily passenger rail line that passes through it as a stop and you're pretty much set.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (5 children)

If we were allowed to Sim City our way to goodness, I'd pretty much agree with you.

But my province, a fair chunk of that land is held and others aspire to it.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, my answer doesn't make any of those people happy, but it's basically just, fuck those people, if there's a correct way to do something, we should do things in said correct way, rather than capitulating to everyone's half-baked propagandized idiot desires

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure this is the reasoning espoused by every autocrat in history, many of whom thought they were doing things for the better.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, yeah, but the major difference is that they were wrong and dumb and I am correct

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

sounds more dictatorial by the minute

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

and I'm loving every minute of it jerry

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (49 replies)