this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
721 points (98.8% liked)
Fuck Cars
15667 readers
1094 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 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:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cities in the US are far apart because of car-centric design, not the other way around. If we just invested more in other forms of transit, then our cities would not be so sprawling.
Okay, dropping the act here, that's not actually true. Cities in the US aren't far apart when you consider the population-dense coastal areas (where large portions of the historical rail network are concentrated). That was my intended joke. You've got numerous large, increasingly dense suburbs all concentrated along highway corridors that run through urban centers. Like, we have everything you need for a successful rail line. In some cases we even have the rail lines. We just don't have terminals with commuter trains running on a schedule.
Oh, it was a bit. Yikes you had me triggered lol
Well, for context, I come from the Chicago area which does have commuter trains but is still a massive sprawling hellscape because everything - including the train stations - is designed for cars. So it's true that everything is too far apart there, because the car-centric design itself makes it so.
I guess I should specify - everything in the US is too far apart to be a good environment for people, because we built it that way. It is not too far apart for public transport to be built, though. Building public transport (as well as walking and cycling infrastructure) and specifically building less car infrastructure is the way to make it less far apart and make it better for people.
I'm gonna be honest: you fooled me and I almost removed your initial comment as misinformation.
Cities in the US are spread apart because of car-centric zoning. It's the laws governing land use that drive the infrastructure design, not the other way around.
(Note that I said "spread apart," not "far apart," by the way. I'm talking about travel within cities, not between them. Intercity travel has no excuse to not be rail regardless.)
This thread was started with a post on intercity rail. There are many parts of the US where highways have chronic congestion because they just can’t scale enough, nor could we afford to maintain them, where intercity rail would be a much better choice.
And effing Texas, are you really widening the Katy freeway again rather than consider a train?
The examples I can think of chronic congestion are pretty much all intracity (which I consider to include between the central city and its suburbs), not intercity (the long rural stretches between metro areas). Intercity rail is better than freeways (but more importantly, better than airplanes) for efficiency's sake, but doesn't necessarily have much to do with reducing congestion. Intracity rail (commuter rail, subways and streetcars) is what's needed for reducing congestion.
The northeast corridor is an existing example of- both highways and airways are so over congested, you couldn’t get anywhere without train. Ever since Acela stared 20 years ago, I refuse to travel Bos—>nyc any other way. It’s too much hassle
There are compelling arguments for Colorado front range rail, although that’s closer to metro distance, and cascadia - Vancouver—>portland. Even Texas needs more than commuter rail: you have three major cities in. Nice triangle that would do better if you could connect their economies. And of course this where I claim California high speed rail is necessary at any price. Send all mY taxes there. Let’s make it so
Zoning and laws like parking minimums are part of it, but it's also literally the government paying for car infrastructure because that is a routine and unquestioned part of government budgets while any spending on other forms of transit is heavily limited and it's expected to turn a profit from fares, which roads never do. The spending on roads should be questioned, and spending on other forms of transit should be seen as an important public service.