Submitted 1 day ago by Sine_Fine_Belli@lemmy.world to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://quokk.au/static/media/posts/8L/4e/8L4eFCNmnx9NzyK.webp
cross-posted from: quokk.au/c/fuckcars/p/550765/meme-choochoo
Can they run 24 hours too? I can’t tell you how fucking annoying it is doing something fun with friends that goes late and have to leave at god damn 11pm or some shit so I can catch the last fucking train for the night or have to sleep over. Also cars specifically for people who need to move large objects or all their worldly possessions or something.
Yeah sure they can. The main train line near me runs 24/7.
In advanced countries the public transport isn’t a problem, only the USA is 50 years behind.
Excuse me statesia isn’t 50 years behind. 50 years ago we were better. We’re more like 200 years behind.
Well, the US was always a third world country with too much money and weapons.
US: “Too bad”
I want teleporters so I can roll out of bed, shit on the floor and it goes straight to the compost, take a shower, mid shower grab some coffee from the good coffee shop, fart my way to work which is halfway across the globe and takes a hop skip and telejump to get to. I have dinner in Moosejaw and dessert in Ayacucho. I go to sleep in Rwanda and wake in Borneo. I really should do less drugs. Or more drugs. I can’t remember anymore. So it looks like more drugs.
This is already the case in many places where it’s possible. It would be a huge waste of resources though, in places that are thinly populated.
That’s weird. I thought it was everyone driving their own cars all the time that was a huge waste of resources.
With work hours being what they are, you don’t have set times where everyone needs to be at work or go home at the same time. It rural areas, having public transport so often that “you don’t need to check a schedule” would mean empty busses and trails most of the time.
For me, I can tell that I have lived in a city where this was the case. It was great! But where I live now, this isn’t possible. The narrative now is, that people should move into towns, to make this more effective. There is a very fine balance between effectiveness though, and industrialization of living conditions.
The thing is, with public planning, zoning laws etc. you can make it possible. People generally move to where the jobs are, and that tends to be cities. It’s basically why Spain’s population is so concentrated in the cities, much more so than in other similarly-sized european countries. In the US, zoning laws were a huge part of how it became so car-reliant.
Efficient planning could overcome that. A central hub with lines going to every other major hub nearby would be enough to connect all the cities. Then each route can run “express” services that only stop at major stations along the way, and “local” services, which stop at every small station. That way people can travel faster between hubs, while stilling giving access to less populated areas.
A few transcontinental lines for high-speed trains, and some major north-south routes as well, make public transit a viable optipn for long-distance travel.
Each city having its own metro system would make intracity public transit a viable option, reducing the need for cars and therefore reducing traffic congestion, simultaneously making it possible to make neighborhoods more walkable. A few spoke-shaped lines to reach out to surrounding suburbs, and loop-shaped lines to connect the outskirts without having to tranfer at the central hub.
Then all you need is a few well-planned bus routes to connect suburban areas to nearby stations. The only ones this leaves out are rural areas, who would still depend on cars, but that’s a much smaller portion of the population. Eliminating the need for a car in urban and suburban areas would go a long way towards reducing congestion and pollution.
Lots of places already have good public transportation systems, because they were built around the premise of using trains as a main mode of transport. Suburbs are built around train stations. Mixed-use zoning allows for as many residences as possible to be constructed within walking distance of a train station. And since there’s less need for parking lots, they can be built more densely to avoid wasting space.
The car lobby in the USA did a lot of damage, and now it would be costly to convert the infrastructure. But long term, it would be a worthwhile investment.
90% of the US has none of that. Nothing walkable. No trains. No buses. No sidewalks. I’ve lived in places with transportation pretty decent, but the only option where I live currently is cars. We are generations away from what you’re describing. Making cars more expensive isn’t accelerating the development of alternatives, it’s only making people suffer and more and more angry.
Yeah but have you considered auto makers profits??? Didn’t think so. /s
Meh. I hate trains, busses and trams. Always full of people… I would not give up a car for that, and I only drive like 3000km a year split over two cars.
Americans deserve the loneliness epidemic
I’m neither the one nor the other.
And the last time I used the aforementioned here it was a horrible nightmare of never being on schedule and costing a lot more than just driving myself. Even if I would take the “fun” car.
Very real
I already have public transit that comes so regularly I don’t need to check a schedule and fast passenger rail so accessible and easy it’s preferable to suffering airports and the city where I live was built centuries before cars were even invented. Is this post maybe about the US?
Plenty of European cities were built walkable and with public transit because they were made before there were cars. And then we half-demolished them to make room for cars, and THEN/now we spent decades fixing the shit we broke to make room for cars.
blarghly@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Downvoting because this doesn’t really have anything to do with science. Also because it isn’t funny. I support the message, though
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
The connection to science isn’t explicit, but there’s definitely an implicit connection. There’s the engineering it would take to design efficient rail systems and modern locomotives, there’s the calculation of relative emissions cost compared to reliance on automobiles, and all the science on the impacts of those emissions, the calculated benefit of converting infrastructure to rail-based, etc.
It doesn’t out and say it, but anyone with the basic knowledge should be able to draw the connection.
nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Science != Engineering
blarghly@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
You could say the same thing about a picture of a cow with the text “Cows have feelings. Stop killing cows.” Yes, science can validate that cows have feelings, and it can discuss the ways in which animal agriculture contributes to climate change. But we could all tell that the poster has less interest in making jokes about science, and more interest in spreading heavy-handed vegan propaganda.
And again, I personally am in favor of reforming urban design to lessen our reliance on personal automobiles (though I will note that, contrary to the emphasis of the meme, the more research-supported position is that the primary transportation alternative to cars needs to be walking, not trains). But this meme is clearly not a science meme.
Also, it isn’t funny. So I like it even less, because I think getting people on board with improved urban environments starts with being likeable - not whiny.