this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
589 points (98.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

13518 readers
1431 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
589
February 20, 1927 (cdn.masto.host)
submitted 11 months ago by lnxtx@feddit.nl to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://mastodon.uno/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/113485559637864463

La soluzione al #traffico era già nota nel 1927

In un manifesto dell'azienda di trasporto di Wichita Falls, si chiede di dare priorità al trasporto di massa, perché molto più efficiente: in un #tram possono sedersi comodamente le persone portate da ben 28 #auto (con 2 persone per auto, stima ottimistica).

100 anni fa era già tutto li: problema e soluzione

@energia #mezziPubblici #mobilitaSostenibile

Trovata qui:
https://www.facebook.com/100033858551663/posts/1365019054636700/

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 52 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yea but the street car won't drop me off directly at my door in the suburbs 20 minutes out of town where I pay cheaper property taxes. Why should my taxes pay for something only the city people can use? Once my car is parked downtown it isn't in anyone's way while I'm at work. /s

[–] kozy138@lemm.ee 32 points 11 months ago

It's extra funny cause city ppl are actually subsidizing car infrastructure in the burbs.

[–] DakRalter@thelemmy.club 36 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Most on the main road in my area is one person. How many times have I missed the bus and had to wait 20 mins for the next one, because I can't cross the road to the stop, because 4 people need to get by in their cars.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Or your bus is late because impatient drivers won't let it merge back into traffic, and it doesn't get signal priority so 20 people on a bus could be wating at a red just to let 4 cars make a left turn. Since these factors slow the bus down, people find other ways like getting a car, and then the bus doesn't get used and the city can't fix it by just throwing money at.

Bring back dedicated transit lanes and transit priority. Lets make transit faster than driving because it really should be.

[–] yonder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Transit wins even if it's only slightly slower than driving since it's cheaper, more relaxing, can be used by children and blind people and can bring you directly downtown without needing to park.

[–] DakRalter@thelemmy.club 2 points 11 months ago

We have bus lanes here. But during a tube strike, my bus was stuck at a traffic light for about 20 minutes, I'm not exaggerating. This was central London, and yes, it was all because of the cars clogging up the roads.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

I'm a fan of the overhead railways that have gone out of fashion. A few places still have/use them afaik, but I don't think any area has put in a similar train/trolly system in decades.

By moving the tracks away from the road entirely, car people can have their ever important streets (/s) and everyone else can continue unimpeded by vehicles.

I mean, I'd rather have it so that we just replace roads in cities with public transit like LRT, but there's just too many drivers that wouldn't agree with the proposal and so it would never pass.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Capitalism thrives on violently enforced inefficiency.

[–] VonReposti@feddit.dk 17 points 11 months ago

You might even be able to sell a "solution" to the inefficiency you created out of profitability.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Getting rid of trolleys in the U.S., at least in this town, involved a level of stupid you probably wouldn't have imagined:

They just paved over the tracks. They didn't take them up, they paved over them.

Decades later, the roads started to collapse and the city is now constantly doing work to fix them at great expense.

Stupid fucking people.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How quaint, imagine people sharing their cars with others.

[–] oo1@lemmings.world 1 points 11 months ago

If the 1 and 3/5ths interpretation commented elsewhere is right, they might just have ran into a few pedestrians. Now the driver is giving an involuntary lift to a few dismembered body parts.

[–] flavonol@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How do you interpret "averages 1 3-5 passengers"?

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's country of the freedom, so it's weird.
My interpretation: 1 3/5 = 1.6

[–] jwt@programming.dev 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'd advise against using the phrase '3/5ths of a person', but I guess you can always count on Americans (and Texans in particular) to make stupid decisions.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 1 points 11 months ago

Going by that interpretation, 1 + 3/5, all the cars are Driving Miss Daisy.

That is obviously a bad comparison, because there's no way that old hag would ever set foot on a tram.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

3 to 5 on average

I think it's a speech thing that got written down, but then also written as the number instead of the word.

Like they use of the word "one" like this:

That's one weird thing to do.

That's a weird thing to do.

So I read that as:

averages 3-5 passengers

averages a 3-5 passengers

averages one 3-5 passengers

averages 1 3-5 passengers

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It seems odd that the average would be a range... Or that the range would include 5! I think 1 3/5 = 8/5 is more likely. Especially since they go on to assume 2 passengers, which would be pretty disengenuous if the average was higher than 2.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

I can totally follow that logic. 1 and 3/5ths, rounding up to 2 for the next hypothesis. Very plausible explanation.

[–] AquaTofana@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Weird to think that a conservative ass tiny Texas town with absolutely NOTHING in it besides an Air Force base was once pushing community benefits like street cars.

I wonder what it could've been today if they had gone with this plan 100 years ago. 🤔

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

So true. That's a huge fuckin street car

[–] udon@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I agree we need fewer cars and more pubic transport, but these comparisons always assume maximum efficiency in bus use and minimum efficiency in car use. What if we only have 3 people on the bus? Maybe people prefer cars to an extent because they are not all crammed up? We need to make buses/trains enjoyable to use for those people who are now using cars (not me, who is already on the train anyway)

[–] iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In the city where my mother lives they are repeatedly cutting down on the number of public busses, to the point where there is one bus per hour on Sundays. This is the 3rd largest city in the country of Denmark. The thinking goes: Well nobody is using the busses so why have so many. Then as less busses serve the city, less people use them. And round and round we go.

[–] udon@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Same dynamic as "well, the streets are too full, let's build more streets!" which has worked great over the past century to fight traffic jams!

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is a good point. Especially because public transport comes out on top even if you consider them half empty, or cars full.

[–] udon@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Meh, I'm not in for comfortable as in "I have two seats for myself". More like: It's fucking awesome to drive by bus, because you can sleep (horizontally!), have a meal together, work/have a video call, have sex, store your gym bag, whatever you may come up with. Luxury for the masses at a higher quality than you can do all these things in cars at the moment. That is what I want to see, not the sad future where we all just sit on regular buses like we do now. I think we need to demand higher standards.

Japan is experimenting with some of those things much more than European countries. The "luxury" type night buses are quite comfortable if you're not over 1,80m and thus exceptionally tall. Switzerland has panorama trains to enjoy the alps while having a snack with your friends (even if you're 80+ and can't hike anymore).

That, not the village bus that comes once a day, is full of vomit, girls get harrassed and all the other shit

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't really want to be involved in public transport people fuck on. But other than that you're describing trains. Busses are for short distance travel which I don't personally think requires much more luxury than a seat and a window.

[–] udon@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Well, let's put it differently. Cars are not just about going from A to B. Most use people get out of them is storing stuff and moving it without effort, safely. Public transport doesn't offer that. "Fucking" here stands more for a bunch of stuff that people do otherwise in cars that requires some privacy you don't get on trains.

The point is, trains are the minimum tolerable environment for most people, and already not tolerable for others

[–] lgsp@feddit.it 3 points 11 months ago

Actually the ad mentions

  • 56 people can "seat" on the streetcar (and many more could stand if needed)
  • cars are pretty full with an unrealistic occupancy of 2 people per vehiclr

And finally 3 people in a bus occupy less room than 3 cars and consume more or less the same amount of fuel...

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

well the expectation is if more people prefer public transport over cars, the average number will increase to a level comparable to max capacity on busy hours

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

well you forgot about the part where oil companies make more money when more cars are used but apart from that yea

[–] door_in_the_face@feddit.nl 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And where car manufacturers literally buy up public transportation companies and run them into the ground.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

or Elon wrecking the railways industry with his idiotic fantasies

[–] bountygiver@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

It recently came upon me when crossing a crosswalk that during the entire duration of the green light cycle, the one streetcar has carried more people than the rest of the cars that crossed.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.vg 3 points 11 months ago

COUCHES THO

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the Italian translation, it was very helpful.

Bene!

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 1 points 11 months ago

Credits to the original poster 😅