this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
193 points (96.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

12785 readers
1060 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
193
This "small" $1.2 billion dollar road expansion project exceeds all funding for public transit in my state. I don't want to hear anyone complain about "subsidizing public transit" ever again. (www.ksdot.gov)
submitted 4 days ago by 52fighters to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I guess free government money for your car to be stuck in traffic on a wider road is somehow exempt from complaint?

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 26 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's a similar thing here in Austin. Rather than expand the light rail system, the state is expanding I-35 through downtown.

However, it's not so cut and dry. See, the city has to fund the light rail expansion, while the Texas Department of Transportation funds the highway expansion. Both have access to the same data, but the latter is restricted by law to only spend money on expansions to alleviate traffic on highways. Alternative modes of transport aren't even considered because it would be against the law to spend any money on it. So if the data says there's too much traffic, the state has the money to fix it and they're only allowed to fix it in precisely one way.

It's ridiculous.

[–] The_Hideous_Orgalorg@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Expanding public transportation would alleviate highway traffic.

[–] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 7 points 4 days ago

Of course it would, but the state department of transportation is forbidden from spending any money on anything but roads. The people in cities are already taxed to hell and back, so it’s a tough sell for them to be taxed more for a light rail system that wouldn’t be finished for another 20 years.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

“PUBLIC TRANSIT HAS TO PAY FOR ITSELF!”

Query when private transport has ever paid for itself.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I was just reading a similar article about California High Speed Rail. One of the problems with that infrastructure project is the state had to fund most of it, while the federal government tends to fund 80% of highways.

And even then Trump screws up the funding every time he gets in office

[–] DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I don't buy that at all.

Thus far, Feds have provided some $15+ billion to CA for various projects related to HSR. If the state hadn't completely blown its budget and schedule, that is more than enough to have gotten the starter line going. As well, we can look at BART-SJ which is getting $5+ billion -- again more than enough to build that project if VTA hadn't gone off the deep-end with its deep bore design alternative (current budget is now $12+ billion).

Which isn't to say there are major issues with road vs. transit funding at the Federal level, but California's problems are largely its own doing.

[–] mhague@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

If a comment like yours is unpopular here then this community must be shit. You weren't rude or making a joke or anything. Is fuckcars like a religion?

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago

Yup. Spend hundreds of millions so that more people can sit in traffic? No problem, we'll start work tomorrow!

Ask for a 100m multiuse path so that cyclists don't get killed by crazed SUV drivers? "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GODDAMN MIND?? Who is going to pay for that? What about the kids? How will seniors survive?! What about my parking space! Cyclists don't follow the rules! Where's your helmet?!! I didn't see you!!!!!" 😒😮‍💨

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Looks like they are expanding what looks like a "decently designed" road into a full scale hwy?

Seems a little hasty and not understood tbh as roads should ideally not exceed 3 lanes. Road should also serve as a "connection", where hwys empty out onto roads, and then roads empty out into streets.

Seems with this redesign you might get a full scale hwy emptying out onto a street which then will probably get redesigned into a "strode".

Roads are throughways, streets are destinations.

What a road looks like:

1000029692

What a street looks like:

1000029693

Or my favorite, pedestrian only streets with tram lines.

1000029694

[–] misterztrite@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No it is already a full scale highway. They just want to add one more lane.