A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
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.
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:
A researcher asked people who live in car dependent areas to go without theirs for 20 days, none of them were able to overcome the poor infrastructure.
Fixed Headline for them.
I couldn't do it where I live without just taking 20 days off work. I've got a grocery store a couple of blocks away so food wouldn't really be an issue. The problem is that I work about 5 miles from my house down a road that doesn't have sidewalks most of the way and you'd have to be crazy to ride a bike in a lane. There is no public transportation anywhere between my house and work.
“It demonstrates that in low-density, sprawling cities like Brisbane, people cannot be expected to permanently give up driving unless there is significant investment in public transport.”
However, researchers found given participants were likely to slightly reduce their reliance on cars, it showed experiencing car-free living, even briefly, could help people break away from automobility.
In Brisbane, 89 per cent of households own at least one car and 48 per cent of commuters drive to work.
This was essentially the goal of the study, to demonstrate that more investment is needed in public transport to increase public buy-in, and that even just being forced to try it for a few weeks increases usage and lowers car use longer term - so if there can be incentives to try public transport that could also increase its use long term and reduce cars on the road.
The headline is not what people here (myself included) wanna read, but the study succeeded in its demonstration and will hopefully drive positive govt policy outcomes.
I've been to Brisbane, it is really drawn out. A bit like LA. Tiny CBD, lots of sprawl.
The same was done in Vienna. People did not use their car for 3 months.
Results
Considering it was founded, like, 2000 years ago, that isn't really surprising. Turns out, being a pedestrian in a city which was established in a millennium when being a pedestrian was the norm is quite easy compared to the same effort in much more recent municipalities. Have you ever really paid attention to the plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Spotted the American.
You have very little understanding about city development and planning. Otherwise you'd know that most of the transport corridors that are in use today were started in the Industrialisation period when trams were introduced.
A city with millions of inhabitants can't be explained by looking at the small population in the centre.
Vienna has an amazingly good and inexpensive public transport system and quite good bike routes combined with fairly inexpensive housing due to good city governance over several decades (social democratic party by and large).
The difference between most North American and European cities in terms of availabke transport choices is not what happened hundreds of years ago, but what city planners did in the post war period (50s to 70s).
It's not too late however, if you look at the incredible progress Paris had in the past 5 years.
After World War 2, the Netherlands was bombed to shit, and they rebuilt their cities For The Car! Then in the 90s they realised cars suck, and they started rebuilding their cities for people. Now it's the best country in the world to drive a car, because there are so few cars on the road.
The moral is, Europe isn't winning at urbanism because their cities are old, they're winning because they're trying hard. Brisbane isn't trying hard.
This didnt start in the 90's, but in the 60's
Also, the Netherlands wasn't bombed to shit. There was some bombing here and there with low to moderate damage. Only Rotterdam was pretty much levelled just to make the point during the invasion (and because of a number of other stupid reasons)
The point though is that, yes, the Netherlands decided that levelling Amsterdam to make it a giant car parking lot was a bad idea and they went full bicycle. And yes, its been the best decision ever.
Having said that, i live in Vancouver now and they've made some great strides in improving the city for bicycles. If Vancouver can do so, a y other city can do so too..it's just a matter of wanting
In the Netherlands, this change caused a huge change in architecture as well, because when you restrict cars and push bicycles, you start also making local communities better, making sure that there are smaller local stores, bars, restaurants, within each community, at walking on cycling distances. It has transformed the country over these decades.
Here in American continent countries this can work too, even though the architecture has been messed up so badly because of so many decades of car brain designs. It will take decades to undo the damage, but it can be done
The only necessary ingredient is the will
Vienna is very walkable but also really big. The answer is, mostly, public transport, a lot of it and cheap. Public transport costs ~ 400€ per year if you have the annual pass for Vienna (you can use all public transport). Also at the moment a build out of bike lanes makes a combination of bike/public transport very interesting for big parts of the city.
P.s. Can't really remember the plot if Rodger Rabbit.
Los Angeles was founded in 1781. They didn't have cars then.
They did, just not with engines.
I think this small experiment simply demonstrates that ditching cars is not a matter of personal preferences, but a community effort
And a matter of traffic design. You can design places to require a car for everything, or you can design them with bike paths everywhere and a good public transit system.
Ask 10 people in Amsterdam and half would tell you they already haven't used a car in weeks. The only ones who'd have a problem with it are those who work far away from Amsterdam.
I live in a busy city too and i haven't driven a car in 8 years. Wouldn't know where to leave the damn thing either.
I still have a license but I love not having to drive anymore. It was always so stressful.
I was amazed by the transformation in Amsterdam when I visited last summer. I've been visiting Netherlands for 40 years and always admired their cycling culture but lately they seemed to have almost eliminated cars from the city. As a result it is incredibly quiet, serene and there is no vehicle soot on the buildings, as is the case in London. I could often choose among many different modes of alternative transport in any given location.
The English solution to this problem is ever more stringent penalties on the driver (e.g. ULEZ) which may be profitable but they have been ineffective at reducing the volume of vehicular traffic, pollution, accidents, ad nauseum. We pay a huge price for car culture.
and fat people in Amsterdam are rare, coincidence?
I lived in Amsterdam for 10 years and only got a car when I married someone who lived in the suburbs. Well, actually I still don't own a car but I can borrow one as needed!
Ive been car free my entire life and I will continue to do so for the rest of my life
Yeah, that's bcz most towns/cities are not set up to be walkable. And nobody wants to carry groceries miles back to their house. We've set up society in a way that not owning a car is a nonstarter.
You get the mobility you build your cities for. Cites were not built for cars (most of them at least), they were transformed into car cities (which took decades). Thing is, cities can also be transformed back into transit oriented cities. Both takes time and commitment though.
The Dutch were on the same "train" to total car dependency in the 1960s. But during the oil crises in the 70s they put a hard stop to that and reversed course. Now half a century later, most of the country is designed to be attractive for multiple modes of mobility, among others cycling but also transit and yes even driving by car. The latter does not dominate everything however.
10 is not a statistically significant sample size
I went without a car until my very late thirties. Then I got married, had a kid, moved to a suburb and the city I'm in can't unfuck its public transportation to save its life and thus I was forced into buying a car.
I live in Ottawa, Canada and the polite term of our public transit (OC Transpo) is NO C Transpo or OCCasional Transpo. Seriously, they bought a train that doesn't work in ice/snow and also doesn't work in summer heat. They don't have enough resources to perform proper maintenance on the buses. And final cherry on top is that they went with the decision to buy zero-emission buses (a good idea I'm supportive of) but had no plan to transition between the gasoline powered ones which are now at end of life while their replacements are still years away from becoming operational.
The only other organization I've seen fuck up major projects this bad is our Department of National Defense.
We went involuntarily car-free for a month after a heavy rain flooded my family's car. It was much more manageable than expected, due to both the walkability of our suburban neighbourhood and commutes that aligned with nearby bus routes. But if we lived even 1km further from the bus stops, it would have been unpleasant. The alternatives to driving need to exist with reasonable frequency before more suburbanites consider ditching their cars. But I also believe that people need to be receptive to trying something different that may not always be as comfortable as getting into a climate controlled, sound insulated private box to get around.
Despite how close we are to amenities, almost everyone drives to the grocery stores or to work regardless of age or physical health. One factor is 30+ minute bus headways even at peak times. Another is that 2+ buses are needed to get to the nearest commuter rail station, which has free parking and again 30+ minute headways. So to make it to the station on time, people just choose to drive there. That lack of integration with regional rail schedules is another thing that may be limiting bus ridership. An interim solution to low built densities affecting bus routes is more bike infrastructure that is transit compatible, like bike racks at bus stops instead of awkwardly using utility poles. (Also, why are we not allowed to use both bus bike rack slots when they clearly have the space for it? It seems asinine.)
While we are not really a car-lite household, many grocery and commuting trips have been replaced by transit. I realize there's a degree of discomfort that comes with a change in travel patterns when the alternatives are not as maturely developed. Waiting 30 minutes for a bus or walking 20 minutes to another bus route because the last bus came early can be unpleasant, but on the flip side, the ride itself unlocks the ability to relax or get work done that driving does not permit. Walking or biking to the grocery store can be a workout on the way back, but it's free cardio through 'the gym of life,' as Jason Slaughter of Not Just Bikes would say. We need to be okay with some discomfort before ridership can increase enough to improve transit frequencies. Or, you know, hope that 40% increases in gas prices in 2 weeks is enough of a price shock that people start embracing the alternatives on their own accord.
The Brisbane public transport is pretty bad, but there are more reasons: the bus network is owned by the council while the train network is owned by the state government. As a result both tend to compete with each other. This is especially bad when the busses don't even cover some areas. Partner went for a course there recently and their best option to reach the place on public transport was to just walk 40 minutes from the train station! I can't think of a single area in Sydney that wouldn't get a bus service at least once a day on a work day. (You know things are bad if you're comparing to Sydney busses because these things are terrible)
Absolutely, although as a Sydneysider, I generally have pretty good bus services where I live. The only thing that makes my blood boil is how awful the bus drivers can be to children. There was one day I had to catch the bus to the library after school, and it was storming a fuck ton. This group of highschoolers get on, and some of them don't tap on and go and sit down. The bus driver, an old grey haired lady yells her head off at the back of the bus, but since they had already sat down, she couldn't find them. So she decides the only thing left for her to do, is to stand by the Opal card reader, and force every single person to tap on. You might be thinking "well fine she's pissed, but those guys should've just tapped on right?"
Well this little kid jumps on, and he looks no older than 12 years old. He asks, in a voice I can barely make out over the raging storm outside "can I come on? My family just moved here and I don't have a card yet" - to which the decrepit bus driver yells "Not on my watch, get out of here! No one is allowed on this bus unless everyone taps on!", she then proceeds to shove him to the middle of the entrance before shoving him outside.
I remember kicking myself the rest of the trip to the library - I was furious at myself for not having recorded what she had done, and I couldn't stop thinking about it for the rest of the week. No one, especially not a child, deserves to be forced out of a bus in the middle of a thunderstorm.
So every time someone praises public transport here, I'm grateful for the comfortable experience I get to enjoy. But each and every time someone praises the buses, the first thing I can think of is that little boy, and how despite confessing to the bus driver he was new to the area, was pushed into the middle of a raging thunderstorm.
20 days isn't really enough to judge. If you didn't own a bike at the start of those 20 days, could you really get a bike and all the clothes, safety gear, etc. you need and get used to biking before the end of the experiment? If you're using public transit, can you really learn the routes and schedules for the places you need to go in just 20 days?
Also, assuming these people all owned cars, they were still essentially paying for their cars the whole time. They might not have paid for gas, and the wear and tear would have been very slightly less, but any car loan they had still had to be repaid on schedule. If they rented a monthly parking pass or something, that would have to be paid. Not only that, but when you don't own a car, you tend to make different decisions on where to live, and sometimes where to work too. So, they're living in a place that's car friendly (and maybe not public transit friendly).
I would bet that if you took someone who didn't own a car and intentionally lived next to a major transit hub and asked them to get around by car for 20 days, they wouldn't like it either. They wouldn't have a place to park at home, rush hour traffic would probably be extremely stressful for someone who didn't do it every day, and so-on.
What this really needs is something like what you get in one of those "wife swap" TV shows. Someone goes to live in a completely different place with people who live very different lives. Instead of living in the sprawling suburbs and getting around everywhere by car, you now live downtown in a high-rise right near a great public transit location. In addition, calculate how much someone would save without a car, and give that to them as a cash payment every day/week so they understand that positive side of not owning a car as well.
could you really get a bike and all the clothes, safety gear, etc. you need and get used to biking before the end of the experiment
Most people don't wear special clothes to ride their bikes.
The average claim per person for all their travel expenses during the experiment in Brisbane was $125 – but they saved $300 in car costs. “I hadn’t realised how much money my car eats up,” a 43-year-old man from Brisbane said.
Those $300 for 20 days look like just fuel costs. Add the yearly depreciation value of the car (especially bad for new cars), insurance and maintenance costs and it gets even worse.
Even limiting oneself to only a financial viewpoint (which is quite reductive since the are also big Environmental, Health and Social costs), for most people (especially those who live in cities) cars are stupidly expensive for the utility value that they deliver.
"However, researchers found given participants were likely to slightly reduce their reliance on cars, it showed experiencing car-free living, even briefly, could help people break away from automobility."
I think this is an important secondary take away here. Reducing car use is still much better than continuing at current rate. (Similar to eating less meat vs going vegan cold turkey).
Owning a car does come with large sunk-costs tho - so you won't feel the full financial benefit from just reducing car use (still have to pay rego, insurance, maintenance etc.)
The system is rigged. If you're dependent on the bus in a city where everything is miles apart, the buses run every hour and only daytime hours, of course it's going to suck.
Hopefully they got action items out of it - what do they need to work on.
Personally I loved the freedom of not having to deal with a car on a daily basis, but there was too much I couldn’t do.
One of the shortcomings that seems to surprise people is a lack of long term car storage. There will be an extended transition where many people can not give up their cars or think they cannot. Why not help with that? At one point I was driving my car mostly to move it for street cleaning because there was no permanent place to store it. We want the cars off the street to make room for more important road users. Garages in apartment blocks are too convenient and for-profit garages too expensive
You’ll get more people willing to try car-free if you give them a slightly inconvenient place to store their car, until they realize how little they need to use it. I wonder if making it cheap and easy to leave your car at a park and ride at the end of a transit line would work
It depends on where you live. I wouldn't be able to get around without my whip.
Brisbane is a shit city for cycling. Who is surprised?
None wanted to continue what? Driving cars? Continue the trial? I can't read the article due to a pay wall
Here is an archive link.
Almost a dozen regular Brisbane people took on a challenge to give up their car for 20 days, but by the end of the experiment, they decided it was unrealistic for them to go totally car-free.
Urban planners from The University of Queensland recruited 10 car-owning Brisbane residents – five men and five women.
They were asked to follow their regular schedules, but use public transport, walk or ride instead.
What they found is that the city and it’s public transport options are antagonistic toward people who do not or cannot drive themselves.
there is a reason they dont use a bike in the first place
Yeah, seems like a study ripe for bias.
If you ask a person who lives near decent transport infrastructure (or near work) to take public transport, it's no big deal.
Honestly, biking is a problem for showing up to work sweaty.
As someone who has been without a car for a decade now I'm not sure I could go back. I love walking and biking too much.
My understanding of the study is it is highlighting that without good public infrastructure it is difficult for most people to go car free.
For example, for me, my daily commute is ~20 minutes each way by car. Or ~3+ hours one way by bus, ~5 hours walking, ~90 minutes biking. The closest store to my house is a 20-30 minute bike ride, or hour walk, without sidewalks or bike lanes for most of it, making it rough and dangerous to traverse (Dont get me started on how its an over 1 hour bus ride [yes for a route that takes 40 minutes to walk]) It is its own chiken and the egg, poor infrastructure is justified as not even enough usage but people dont use it because there is not enough non-car infrastructure.
