Image transcript:

Calvin (from Calvin & Hobbes) sitting at a lemonade stand, smiling, with a sign that reads, “Trains and micromobility are inevitably the future of urban transportation, whether society wants it or not. CHANGE MY MIND.”

    • Scrof@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah that’s a bold assumption. My bet is on “it’s going to get progressively worse and never better”. I have yet to be proven wrong. Since the day I was born everything’s been enshittening with only inconsequential cosmetic improvements (lol technology, what a joke).

      • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        My plan is to work from home, be completely self sufficient with minimal transport and do all I can do online.

          • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Eh, I guess? Partially. I have stores nearby that I can go walking, and WFH so yeah internet reliant, but I’m a programmer so that’s already a given anyway.

            I did say self sufficient with minimal transport though.

            • Blooper@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I live mostly this way. I have an electric car but I live in a very dense urban area and don’t drive much. Looking to get myself an ebike or scooter to use as my main mode of transportation.

            • Agent_of_Kayos@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah…being a programmer, it doesn’t matter if WFH structure falls because around the same time most technology might fall. We just gotta hope that it’s multi-decades away at this point

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Internet infrastructure is best infrastructure humanity made. To be fair, this is only infrastructure entire humanity made.

    • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If nothing else, car dependency is fiscally unsustainable. We might go kicking and screaming towards the solution, but eventually people will have no choice but to abandon the financial suicide that is making your city car dependent.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, and I wish my city would realize it harder, sooner. On the other hand, I just read an article the other day that claims that the collapse of civilization has begun. A lot of societies throughout history perseverated with maladaptive habits after the local environment changed, and thus collapsed. A lot of them didn’t, though, and I hope that we’ll wise up in time.

        • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          [email protected]

          But yeah, honestly, I’m worried myself that our society is starting to unravel if we don’t get our act together. Unmitigated climate catastrophe may well prove to be the greatest disaster in human history, if you count all the wars, famines, genocide it may cause. I sincerely hope it doesn’t turn out so dire, but so far humanity is stubbornly refusing to do anywhere near enough to stop it. Whether that’s civilization-ending or merely really frickin bad remains to be seen, but it’s also worthwhile noting that collapse doesn’t always mean post-apocalyptic; for farmers in ancient Rome around its collapse, life probably didn’t seem all that different day-to-day.

          • Dharma Curious@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve thought about that, too. How very rural people way back when may not have known or cared what empire they belonged to. I read years ago about a region France that routinely got double taxed because no one was really sure if they were French or German, and it was just easier to pay your taxes to both collectors than fight it. A society like that, yeah, they may not care so much about the empires collapse. But us? Even in the most rural areas of any ‘western’ country, the difference would likely be huge. No sanitation department, no internet, no electricity. And because, especially in the US, we have never developed a sense of personal responsibility to our communities or any kind of solidarity, we are unlikely to weather that particularly well. There’ll be no spontaneous eruption of communal gatherings and a sense of building a better community. They’ll be bastards hoarding shit and people shooting each other because there’s no one to stop it. :(

            • uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s wierd. In country where internet was created(on tax money btw) not everyone gets internet.

          • AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s no getting our act together. We’ve already passed the point of no return. Now we can only try to mitigate how bad it could get.

            I don’t think we will take any serious steps toward that, either… I’m worried we’ll pull the Clathrate trigger in my lifetime

        • Agent_of_Kayos@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A percentage of people will, like they always do. My pessimistic view is that we just need to see how bad it gets before the pendulum starts swinging back the other way

      • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Let me remind you that there are rural areas where people life in farms and need to drive to the factory they work in, there’s no shuttle bus, no train no nothing, and while isolated factories exist this will still be the case. They can’t really arrange a bus that goes to pick up their employees, since the roundabout would make it more gax expensive and some people live in places where a bus can’t even dream to get in.

        I wish things improved, and that this became a reality for cities, there’s already cities in holland where getting the car in is prohibited, you need to leave it outside the city, but making car dependency fiscally unsustainable is punishing people that can’t have the privilege to work on other stuff. Imagine electrical technitians, they can’t take a bus/train/tram with machinery, even in a city. I’m all in for improvement and punishment for whim driving, but it needs to be regulated well not to fuck again poor people, because factory workers of rural areas aren’t partcularly rich.

        For reference, I live in a mountain area, Europe.

        • kameecoding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          OP mentioned Urban in their post, City in their comment, why do you need to come in with the “but muh rural” argument?

          • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because apparently I can’t read.

            Again, for reference, I don’t even own a car, I WFH and life in a town where public transport is excellent, but most of my family members live in the situation I described. Anyway, even though this post is about urban areas, there are plenty comments talking about cars as a whole, and usually policies done to fix car usage, things like gas prices and such, affect everyone, not only urbanites like me.

            • Agent_of_Kayos@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In a perfect world/scenario…which would never happen…

              If urban centers immediately dropped their reliance on cars and individual transport systems, then there would be more gas to go to rural centers where individual transportation makes more sense (going to the store) or is mandatory (farm and other industrial equipment) making prices drop for rural gas and urban center be more self sufficient and environmentally friendly.

              …one can dream

              • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Urban centers dropping their car reliance isn’t achieved by making it expensive for everyone, but by banning it’s use and increasing the public transport support.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Depends on society. Here in Europe we build more and more railways even though we already have shitloads (compared to US).

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But build very slowly. Compare to USSR where shitloads of railways were made in 70 years.

        Although “better less, but better”

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, USSR was a different beast. You can’t build that fast in a democratic society.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            After around 1919 and before Stalin USSR was democratic. And from 80-ies to the end. And democracy ended about 1996. Then shooting parlament from tanks, then Eltsin names his successor, then his successor wins, then removal of gubernator elections in 2002-2003, and everything else.

            And in comparasion USSR was more democratic than empire except Stalin time. Stalin time managed to be even worse.

              • uis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You want to say that Russian Empire that was monarchy had more democracy? THAT is delusion.

                Or you want to say Stalin was good? That is delusion too.

                • Aux@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Where did you get the Empire from, mmm? The fuck are you talking about at all?

  • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I especially like that this format of the meme removes the d-bag that is in the original.

    • thrawn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Memes are so much better without the backstory. This was the first time I’ve seen it mentioned so I looked it up, and holy shit. Had no idea that was him, I’ve seen the name but not the face.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m still not 100% on board with it because it still made me immediately think of that mentally, sexually, and maybe even physically abusive fuckhead.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    We shouldn’t take anything for granted. The US has happily killed it’s cities for decades instead of investing in public transit. If we don’t push for it, car companies and rich people will keep public transportation from ever taking off.

    If remote work takes off, and ordering most everything online, I wonder if urban sprawl will get even worse.

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I live in a conservative state, and the state department of transportation stepped in and blocked my city from adding a few blocks of bike lanes. They want to get rid of everything “public;” transportation, schools, health, etc.

        • EnderMB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I find it funny how there are often lots of people that live in the US that would love to move somewhere like the UK, while there is also someone in the UK that would love to move to the US.

          While the former is far easier than the latter, I wish that there was a “The Holiday” style visa where you could swap status with someone for a year.

  • Hikiru@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The more people try to “innovate” transportation the closer it gets to going back to trains. Driverless cars, for efficiency have them communicate with eachother, to accelerate and brake at the same time, for example. That’s just less efficient and more expensive trains.

    • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a massive failure condition for your example - sure, autonomous cars behave like trains when they communicate with each other to sync acceleration and deceleration, but they can also separate themselves from the collective to drive you to the door of your home. In the train metaphor this would be like you sitting in your own train car, and the train car separating from the rest of it and driving you to your doorstep.

      • Hikiru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or you could have a train that drops you off either close to your home or close to a bus station that drops off near your home. This would require a walkable city, so it’s definitely not as simple as just building tracks and bus stations. The issue is that Americans are so used to car dependent infrastructure, that when they try to imagine what public transport would be like, they think of it in the context of where they live. That’s why I think so many are opposed to the idea. It’s not an impossible task, it’s just that it’d require money and effort, so it probably won’t happen.

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It also won’t happen because not all of us live in cities. The “fuck cars” crowd never has any solutions for rural locations other than “don’t live there” as if rural areas serve no purpose. As long as farms are a thing there will be people out here, either farming themselves or supporting farmers,and things like scooters and trains either won’t work or only partially solve the problem.

          Anyone who thinks getting rid of cars is a viable strategy in the US of all places is delusional.

          • kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You are talking about a minority of vehicles though. 77% of US personal vehicles are non-rural, hence, fuck them.*

            I also don’t think many people want to get rid of every single car everywhere for every purpose. Most cars are personal vehicles in built up areas and that’s where they cause the most problems and make the least sense.

            *From 2017 NHTS https://nhts.ornl.gov/

      • vivadanang@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        oh no, if only someone hadn’t centralized like, a point, say, a station, where people could conveniently access the train of cars…

        they could call it a… hmm… TRAIN STATION?

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You reinvented switches.

        I think you miss part of transportation system that says system. It’s more than one element.

    • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s an argument to be made that driverless cars make more efficient use of our existing infrastructure, namely, roads, and are more adapted to the hellscape of sprawl that we created. Traffic jams could effectively be eliminated if you get rid of people that treat the left lane like a regular traffic lane, people going too slow, people going too fast, etc. It’s not like building more trains is going to suddenly mean that trains are convenient - there is a VAST amount of sprawl, and it’s not going anywhere. It took the steel industry shutting down in Pittsburgh, and 60% of the population relocating, before people got the bright idea that actually living closer in to the population center makes sense and turn small outliers into ghost towns. I’m not against trains, I just think the scale of the problem is larger than most people understand when they say “build more trains.”

      • Hikiru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The best long term solution for both nicer cities, happier people, and less environmental damage is to overhaul our infrastructure. Don’t build trains in car dependant cities, make the car dependant cities walkable with public transportation that will leave you within a few minutes of your destination. The real reason self driving cars are the “future” is because selling cars has a higher profit margin than train/bus tickets.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not a foregone conclusion, at all. The average car occupancy now is something like 1.2 people, and self-driving cars might drop that below 1. Time behind the wheel is a cost that people pay for mobility, among other costs, and the Jevons Paradox says that if you make a commodity cost less per unit (i.e. more efficient) we end up using more of it in total, e.g. coal, or lighting. We could have more traffic as people send their empty cars on errands, for example. To get the benefits, you’d have to ban private car ownership. That seems like a heavy political lift, considering that they don’t even expect half of the U.S. private auto fleet to be electric before 2050, and those are available for sale right now.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The bit of the puzzle you are forgetting is the taxpayer-subsidized roads lose half their lobbying funds when electric cars are a thing. Wihtout trillions being spent sabotaging transit and micromobility it starts looking a lot better for cities to buipd a bike path for $1 million thna a highway upgrade for $1 billion

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s an argument to be made that driverless cars make more efficient use of our existing infrastructure, namely, roads

        Buses. It’s almost driverless car with 1/80th of driver per driver passanger. Also it’s 1/80 of car per car equivalent.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How to not make a train out of cars:

      1. Remove driver
      2. Make them follow predefined path
      3. Make them accelerate and decellerate together
      4. Link them together for better space-efficiency

      Now you got Certanly Not A Train™.

      Why it’s certanly not a train? Because it still has terrible rollong resistance and low material efficiency.

    • kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That not true!

      For some places rail is too expensive or inflexible. So you need driverless cars, but you can make them cheaper by not having so many of them, instead having really big ones, and since driverless is not ready we hire a human to drive for now.

      So sometimes you get buses!

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good job with meme template, everyone needs to start adopting this format and not the one with the conservative fascist chud that abuses his wife.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m going to make the argument against trains for everything, despite being a huge fanatic for trains.

    Trains are the most efficient transport method per tonne-km over land, yes. However from certain operational standpoints trains can make less sense than existing solutions.

    When distance between stops for heavy rail becomes too short, you lose quite a bit of efficiency. Trains themselves aren’t a one-size fits all solution as there are various types that each need their own form of investment (which is a lot $), when roads are compatible with both personal transport and large trucks with little investment by the transporter (govt pays for road maintenance).

    Rail companies right now are chasing profits and neglecting operational improvements. In the US, hauling a long, LONG, old and slow train loaded with bulk aggregate, oil, grain, chemicals is more profitable than aiming for JIT capability that is more feasible with trucks. A complete change in societal incentives is necessary to bring back the usefulness of railway in all types of transport. Second, the North American way of railroad companies owning the tracks dissuades a lot of innovation and new firms from entering the market, unlike the “open road” where there are many competing OTR freight companies. None of the Big Six would like my idea of a nationally controlled rail/track system.

  • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    mfs in 1923: “Cars will never replace trains and horses because there’s whole swaths of the country with no highways or gas stations!”

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      True. Then came ethyl alchohol. Then came alchohol ban, that basically subsidised oil industry.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    The future of transportation is no transportation.

    How many car miles could be saved each year if people didn’t have to go to the office to do their jobs? We were already most of the way there.

    • austin@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That… is silly. Things need to move.

      So you expect us to live in a virtual pod with a treadmill and grow all of our own food? And collect rainwater?

      Edit: I’m not saying we shouldn’t reduce our need for freight. Growing food in your backyard (half of my yard is good production) reduces the need for freight emissions. And I cycle to work. But drive or fly on holidays, I wish we had a more reliable train network.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They said transporation, not freight. I think they mean you can access everything on foot. But just for your heresay against the pod, your pod was made 10% smaller and your treadmill was made 10% faster.

        • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Freight is just thing transportation, It’s a subcategory so it’s not like it’s not included. It’s silly to act like it’s stupid to think it is.

      • sarmale@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That point maybe wasn’t very good, probably saying that offices should be closer (also work from home)

      • calzone_gigante@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        How far and how often is the key, on a well planned city people should live close to their jobs and recreational areas, taking away people commuting to work and grouping people with similar destinations together you can solve traffic and give people more mobility.

    • SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not everyone works in an office. Construction, trades, and utility works still need vehicles to work on and create infrastructure out and indoors.

      You’ll also have tons of people in rural area like farmers and ranchers that still need vehicles.

      That being said most of those vehicles will be electric soon. My company will be moving to electric starting in 3 years.

      PS: I’m a utility worker, and we take our work vehicles home foe weather emergencies, so the transportation line is a little blurred for me

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, you still need to transport items, and people that do things with their hands, but surely in most first world countries, these things are a minority of road traffic.

        If you can get those chokepoints out the way, from dystopian 10 lane traffic jams to an overcrowded tube train, everything else would run so much smoother.

        • SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would totally love not to be in a traffic jam, especially while on the clock as I don’t get paid for the drive time to and from work.

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, you still need to transport items,

          Well, cargo bikes are a thing. You can transport whole fridge there.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Construction, trades, and utility works still need vehicles to work on and create infrastructure out and indoors.

        That didn’t stop people before cars. Back then people built small railways if we are talking about construction.

        farmers and ranchers that still need vehicles.

        They need specialized equipment. They need heavy equipment.

        That being said most of those vehicles will be electric soon.

        A car is a car. Another motor doesn’t turn car into magic.

        • SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That didn’t stop people before cars. Back then people built small railways if we are talking about construction.

          We wouldn’t be having this conversation if it weren’t for vehicles like mine keeping up the internet infrastructure up.

          There’s also no fucking way you going to put train tracks everywhere to keep up infrastructure. That sounds really fucking stupid

          They need specialized equipment. They need heavy equipment.

          This statement makes me feel like I’m responding to a 14 yr old with no life experience. Not even going to bother answering it.

          A car is a car. Another motor doesn’t turn car into magic.

          Electric vehicles have no emissions so there’s no reason people can’t use them specifically for work.

          PS: You can respond but I’m not going to bother with you. There’s no point in having a discussion with someone with illrational and militant about their ideals

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s also no fucking way you going to put train tracks everywhere to keep up infrastructure.

            There’s also no fucking way you going to put ashphalt everywhere to keep up infrastructure.

            That sounds really fucking stupid

            Yep. Didn’t stop from building roads.

            Electric vehicles have no emissions so there’s no reason people can’t use them specifically for work.

            You are correct, vehicles. Car is not the only type of vehicle, it’s one of many. And what I was saying emissions is not the only problem of car.

            You can respond but I’m not going to bother with you

            Ok.

            There’s no point in having a discussion with someone with illrational and militant about their ideals

            Indeed. See, there are topics we agree upon.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That didn’t stop people before cars.

          Standard of living was much much worse back then.

          They need specialized equipment.

          They also need to get to stores and see friends and family. Asking people to go back to insular homebound living for farm living seems unreasonable.

          Another motor doesn’t turn car into magic.

          However, if electric, it’s no exhaust, options for flexible energy sources, and hopefully long lived and recyclable batteries. If you are more upset about cars getting in the way of walking, then enjoy the walkable communities that exist today. Unfortunately they tend to be pricey.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They also need to get to stores

            Well, ok. On farms cars at least make some sense.

            However, if electric, it’s no exhaust, options for flexible energy sources, and hopefully long lived and recyclable batteries.

            Yes, but they still take space, instane car infrastructure is still there and crashes still happen.

    • supercriticalcheese@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      What about groceries, various errands? it’s definitely not just going to the office is the only reason people get around with cars.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Basically in countries with more micromobility, they have smaller grocery stores. There will be one on every corner and you can just walk to it.

        I see you mentioned suburbs. Yeah. The thing keeping shops and homes far apart in that case is zoning laws. And also building code dictating single family housing. In a more dense suburb in amsterdam or chicago you might have some rowhouse apartments but the first floor will be for shops, and one of those shops willcbe your nearest grocery store.

      • roo@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a discussion about the bulk of transport and commutes. Distributors don’t need to follow a centralised system.

        • supercriticalcheese@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You still need to drive to do all these things, that’s often a considerable distance though if you live in suburban areas since everything is far away.

          • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            One argument that keeps coming up in favor of cars that the United States is big. Well, if it’s big, we have plenty of room to build things close to where people live. It’s only zoning laws that force things to be unnecessarily far away.

            • supercriticalcheese@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes that was my point, not that we need cargo trams.

              And it’s not just US that has this issue although there is taken to the extreme.

              Many suburban areas in Europe have the same issues but the advantage is that many of them were built around small villages that they have ballooned so there was something that could give local services for residents already.

              • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Good point! I usually hear sincere arguments that we have to drive because everything is so far apart, and so I took it the wrong way. My apologies.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trains(or cargo trams if you want fancy) for delivery to store and your eleven for delivery from store to home. Or ebike. Or bus.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You make a good point but it’s hard to agree. I don’t like home, and would prefer not to work in my own home. I want to see the world, I like to travel. Perhaps if my life had more social mobility I wouldn’t be so starved for literal mobility. I have a car, could go drive anywhere. But it’s not real freedom.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        LLMs are not AI.

        If you can train an AI to take the stream of nonsense I am given on a daily basis, and not only turn it into software but also the software they needed rather than what they actually described, then that AI is fucking welcome to my job…

  • MartinXYZ@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree. I just wanted to say that I really hope this meme completely replaces the original one, so we won’t have to look at Steven Crowder’s face as much going forward.

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    inevitability the future of urban transportation

    I don’t know, I think you’re forgetting the possibility of us all just dying.

  • Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nope.

    Those super long electric busses will become more popular than trains. They are muuch cheaper to get. You can just send in a new one in case the first one breaks down, etc.

    Though we also cant all live nrar these “train stops”?

    I dont live near any right now.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        100% depends on where you’re going and how far journeys are.

        For a small inner city area, a subway is great. For a larger urban area, a tram system. For intercity travel, trains. Out in a rural area, buses would be the way, although more remote locations would need government subsidies to be even remotely functional, and even then it may resemble on demand taxis rather than a scheduled bus service.

        No single solution will get you all the way there.

        • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No single solution will get you all the way there.

          Except for the car, which is why it’s such a popular choice. Also no need to worry about catching the next thing, or buying the right tickets, you just get in and go.

          I haven’t heard of any solution or combination of solutions that would be convenient and work in most cities.

          • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yep there’s nothing else as good as having your own vehicle to freely travel wherever you want to on your own schedule and in relative privacy. The rest of y’all can enjoy your trains as much as you want, but there’s no train or bus that comes out to my house in the woods so I’m going to keep driving my car for the foreseeable future. After that it will probably be an electric SUV that I keep driving. I’ll charge my car from my solar power at home and be energy independent.

            • uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Doesn’t it bother you that even in cars you don’t have privacy?

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Subway is just giving space above ground for cars. Since there is no cars, you can just do trams.

          although more remote locations would need government subsidies to be even remotely functional

          Not that current roads to remote loctions are subsidised

      • Beliriel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What needs to happen first is fuel price needs to be so high that people are incentivized to

        a) switch to public transit no matter how shitty it is because they just can’t afford a car anymore
        b) start public transit companies because there is money to be made and the oil lobbies don’t have enough money anymore to lobby effectively

        My guess is before 2050 nobody will really get anything done because the oil lobby is just too powerful. Would be great though.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What needs to happen first is fuel price needs to be so high that people are incentivized to

          Absolutely. The fossil fuel industry recieves billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies every year. Why in the actual fuck are we still paying for something that is actively killing us? It makes no sense. All of the subsidies to fossil fuels needs to be re-routed towards public transportation and green energy.

        • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          making consumables more expensive just makes them cheaper for the rich. poor people in areas with inadequate public transit will largely just keep driving and become poorer (maybe some of them will switch to the inadequate public transit, then they’ll be even poorer, and it likely won’t improve the transit systems either).

          tax the rich in proportion to their wealth., spend it on better public interest transport infrastructure

          • Beliriel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those markets can’t run on the rich alone. And yeah it will make rural poor people poorer. That’s actually also the goal. Urban sprawl should be stopped. Why do people need to build houses and villages out in bumfuck nowhere and then complain when amenities and authorties are shitty out there? These people should imo be forced to make a hard decision because if they can’t afford gas anymore they will move closer to a city since the move is more affordable than paying for gas. Hence prevention of sprawl and reducing of gas use. The only people that can stay are the ones that a) are rich and b) require it for their work (e.g. farmers) or c) ones that can work locally without driving around.

            • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I totally agree that urban sprawl sucks, and should be stopped. a much more direct and fair way to do this would be to remove zoning restrictions that only allow building single family homes (instead of any higher-density housing) in most urban parts of north america, and remove minimum parking requirements for businesses – and hope that the cultural shift propagates to other places where these car-dependent designs have taken hold.

              secondly, calling people needing transport a “market” seems like part of the same faulty thinking where public services need to turn a profit. taxing the rich could absolutely pay for a lot more public transport: before the Beeching cuts in the 1960s, the UK had around twice as many passenger railway lines – this was also at a time when the top rate of income tax there was 83%, as opposed to 45% now.

              lastly, maybe think about who rich people exploited in order to get their (your?) money before proposing policies that explicitly aim to make poor people poorer, while letting the rich continue to live where they (you?) please

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can all live near a train stop. Roads were built everywhere. Train rails are actually not as expensive to build

      • brianorca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But they don’t handle the 90° corners that are built into so much of the existing landscape.

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You wanr to say cars can turn 90° on the spot? Unless you are an Ukrainian farmer, no - your car is not a tank.

          • brianorca@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, I’m saying there’s a huge difference between a 15 foot turning radius and a 400 foot turning radius. Trying to put trains in the existing 50 foot x 50 foot road intersections is not going to work without moving a lot of buildings.

            • uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              15 foot turning radius

              Sounds like a forklift. Double for cars, or triple for speeders and idiots.

              400 foot turning radius

              20 meters at most. 71-931 has 20, and it’s HUGE. Or 65 units of imperialism.

      • blackn1ght@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’d been trams,not trains. Trains are great at covering long distance quickly, but if they have to navigate tight turns and stop every few minutes then they’ll be pointless.

        Not sure why people aren’t talking more about busses here, it would make way more sense to utilize busses for local travel.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The distinction between tram, train and subway is not relevant. There are full trains navigating Paris for example, but also tram and subways. They are all very good, and you can navigate the city without ever taking a bus.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Those super long electric busses will become more popular than trains.

      Though heavy batteries are bad for energy efficiency and big capacity batteries are long to charge. Well, it can be solved by constantly charging them. This also allows to reduce required capacity, thus reducing weight. Constant charging most efficiently can be done by using wires. Oh, wait. I just reinvented trolley.

      Though we also cant all live nrar these “train stops”?

      *European disagreeing noises*

  • MrFagtron9000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The suburbs are inherently compatible with trains and really any public transportation. They were quite literally designed around the car and the expectation that everyone would have a car.

    Unless you plan to bulldoze the suburbs and then force everyone to move into higher density areas your anti-car dreams are never going to happen.

    Although there are many American cities that could get much more anti-car and public transport would work. LA could theoretically not be such a car city with the appropriate infrastructure built in.

    Why are the anti-car people anti-self-driving car? With self-driving cars we could mostly eliminate private car ownership.

  • Aggravationstation@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t disagree but there are two points that spring to mind.

    1. This is an inevitable future, but I think it’s very far off. In order to make this viable towns and cities would need to be radically different.
    2. How would large item courier services operate after that modification?
    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The cities were radically different before we decided that a car should be able to go anywhere.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. People are calling for radical change to their cities as they realize the poor economics of urban sprawl and suburban development. You do have a good point though as transit, density, and mixed zoning all work best when used together.

      2. The shift to transit and walkability will actually make exisiting roadways and highways less congested and better serve any delivery vehicles using them. We won’t rip out all existing roads, but we will stop building a new lane every 5 years.

    • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you’re making it out to be a bigger problem than it really would be. Nobody is going to push personal and commercial vehicles out, but there would be a lot less of them, they’d only be as big as necessary, and they’d be more environmentally friendly.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like every other huge factory before cars: connect to railways. Or tram network if you are in city.