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
I wonder how it correlates with municipal spending per capita on public safety and walkability infrastructure. Lot of underfunded, red-state cities on that list; I imagine Republican cities in CA might similarly underfund their safety infrastructure.
I think that's part of it but it's also partly the legacy built environment. California leaned harder into auto-centric infrastructure than maybe anywhere else in the entire world. That's starting to change but rebuilding an entire transportation system takes time.
Especially when public funds are scarce. Prop 13 does have a part here since tax increases generally require a supermajority of voter approval to be implemented.
Even here in Sacramento (we're #20 on this list I believe) improvements have been slow despite there not being a single republican leader on the city council in recent memory. But they still won't put real funding into solving these things, instead focusing on symbolic improvements that don't address the problem.
That makes sense. I'm not familiar with CA policy specifically but in the southeast, all cities (at least, the ones I'm familiar with) have in common:
So, it's political safer to just continually complain about it than to spend one's capital on actually addressing the problem.
Yeah spot on here too I think. We do have a light rail but its reach is limited, most people live in spaced out suburbs, and the mode share is overwhelmingly car dominated.
The density issue is really hard to fix. There's been so much conversation and debate about a new light rail line and even as a public transit advocate I have to wonder if it makes sense when you're serving such a spread out population. The number of people within walking distance of the stations is so low when it's just single-story houses on 1/4 acre lots as far as the eye can see.
That's why I'd rather focus on transforming the urban core into a really great car-lite destination. This is more physically and economically viable, but the issue is most voters in the suburbs won't like this because it makes it harder for them to access. Our metro area is so huge that cars are really the only practical way to cover that distance, so I think we need to build more urban town centers in every suburb. But they won't want to do so unless they can see a successful example, which they're currently blocking. It's a thorny issue.