“Giving people more viable alternatives to driving means more people will choose not to drive, so there will be fewer cars on the road, reducing traffic for drivers.”

Concise, easy to understand, and accurate. I have used it at least a dozen times and it is remarkable how well it works.

Also—

“A bus is about twice as long as a car so it only needs to have four to six passengers on board to be more efficient than two cars.”

  • @Treczoks
    link
    English
    284 months ago

    “A bus is only helpful when it actually runs regularly. And by ‘regularly’ I don’t mean one each morning and another one each afternoon”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      54 months ago

      I absolutely agree.

      But if mass transit had the same investment as road infrastructure gets, it’d be a slam dunk.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34 months ago

      somehow even turborural areas here in sweden can manage it, so there’s no reason other places can’t do the same.

      the crucial thing is that you don’t have to run public transport literally everywhere, just run robust services between population centres (as many ones as you can manage) and build infrastructure such that people can get to the closest stop and transfer onto the public transport there.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 months ago

      Im actually surprised how well I am able to get to the city from my village. If I drive 3km with my bike to the next village I am able to get to the city every 30 Minutes.

      • @chiliedogg
        link
        English
        5
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        If I drive 20 miles I can pay $10 to park in a lot where my car is guaranteed to be broken into 3 times a year so I can pay $8 to take a bus for the last 3 miles. And it only adds 60 minutes to my commute each way, provided I catch the bus!

        Not everyone lives in Europe where cities were located and developed prior to cars and where being outside for 10 minutes isn’t lethaly dangerous in the summers for a significant percentage of the population.

        • @Emerald
          link
          English
          6
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Not everyone lives in Europe where cities were located and developed prior to cars

          Cities in the USA also existed before cars. As Not Just Bikes said “cities weren’t built for the car… they were bulldozed for the car”

          • @chiliedogg
            link
            English
            04 months ago

            The cities in the Southern US were essentially built by the invention of air conditioning, which became widely available for residential homes in the 1950s.

            Between 1940 and 1960 the US as a whole few 35% with the Baby Boom.

            In that same period, Houston grew over 250%, Albequerque grew over 500%, Vegas grew by 800%, and Phoenix grew by 1200%.

            The population of Houston in 1940 was 385,000 and it had virtually no metro population outside the city itself. Its metro is now 7 million people.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

          I know that there are big parts of the world(even in Germany) where public transport is absolutely shit.thazs why I said that I’m quite surprised about how well it works for me. It does add quite some time(45mins with the bus and about 20-25 Minutes with my car), butbit works well for me.

          • @chiliedogg
            link
            English
            64 months ago

            I think the big issue a lot of people don’t understand is that due to housing costs some daily commutes in America cover crazy distances across areas with no transit.

            I put 35,000 miles (56,000 km) a year on my car.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              44 months ago

              Okay, that’s a lot of travelling. I knew that you’re quite fucked in the states, but I didnt knew it was that Bad.

              • @chiliedogg
                link
                English
                3
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                I’m a somewhat bad case even here.

                The rent for a tiny 1br apartment in the city where I work starts around $2500/month. For $725/month I can rent a 3 bed/2 bath trailer house about 90 minutes away.

                Even without accounting for the extra space, I’m essentially getting paid $30/hr for my commute with the savings, which more than offsets the extra miles and gas.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  I’m essentially getting paid $30/hr for my commute with the savings, which more than offsets the extra miles and gas.

                  Damn, that’s a lot. I can absolutely understand why you choose to drive that long. U would absolutely hate it, because you loose awful amounts of time on the streets, but is a good deal.

                • @acchariya
                  link
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  Can’t get your life back though

                  • @chiliedogg
                    link
                    English
                    14 months ago

                    Meh. I’m in a long-distance relationship. I live alone and meet her at the family lakehouse between our 2 cities some weekends, so it’s not a big deal having a long commute on weekdays. I like my van and love audiobooks, so half the time when I pull into the driveway I end up sitting there listening 20 minutes to the end of a chapter anyway.

                    My salary has more than tripled while living in the same place, so it’s not like moving closer to work would be impossible. But right now it’s not a priority and I’m finally getting my finances in decent shape.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              24 months ago

              What a lot of people also don’t understand is that automobile-oriented zoning and development is one of the major factors driving up housing costs. In a nutshell, you pay a lot of money for housing in exchange for the privilege of driving long distances to it.

              • @chiliedogg
                link
                English
                1
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                The opposite is true in my case. The long drive is what keeps my life affordable. Rent in town would be quadruple the cost for 40% of the living space. The long drive decreases my cost per square foot by an order of magnitude.

                And the zoning in town has zero parking requirements. I know all about it because I work in the development department.

                I essentially get paid $30 an hour for my commute with the savings and have a much bigger house.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  24 months ago

                  That’s great for you, as an individual, but the fact is that that same pattern of distance vs. affordability holds true all over the U.S. Actually, I mean distance vs. cost. Here where I live, housing gets cheaper further from the central city, but the economic and population growth is still pushing the cost up out of the affordable range even for the “cheap” stuff.

                  When I worked at the local grocery, I had a cheap apartment because of long tenure and luck. All of my co-workers, though, commuted in from outlying communities. Not only did they pay half of their income in rent, but then they had car expenses on top of it.

                  • @chiliedogg
                    link
                    English
                    -14 months ago

                    Land is more expensive in city. That’s reality whether or not cars exist. When the city removed parking requirements housing and real estate costs continued to rise at the same or greater rates, except now landlords could charge an additional $400 a month for a parking spot as well since it became a luxury instead of a right for their renters.

                    The reality is when you live somewhere as spaced out as the US, owning a car is a requirement unless you want to essentially return to a feudalist system where people have to stay within a few miles of their homes for their entire lives while giving all their money to the landlord.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          the cities with the worst infrastructre are the ones that predated cars then were forcefully ripped up and paved. my town museum has pictures of people on horses and old timey big wheel bikes going peacefully down what is now a 6 lane road with no bike lanes and a sidewalk on only one side.

      • @Treczoks
        link
        English
        -14 months ago

        And now imagine all the people who are physically incapable to ride a bike for 3km, and where the village with a bus every 30 minutes is a mere fantasy.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          64 months ago

          If you want I could drive from my Village. My local administration arranged a service where they have a car that drives you to bus stops to improve access to public transport, but I don’t want to book that, because you usually need to book it some time in advance.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          I just learned the other day that 40% of the residents of my city (Madison, Wisconsin) can’t or don’t drive. Apparently, this is a bit greater than the U.S. ratio, but not by much. So you’ve just articulated a really good reason to abolish cars.

          • @Treczoks
            link
            English
            04 months ago

            For people in the cities, no problem. Outside, abolishing cars before you even think of creating viable means of transport is putting the cart before the horse.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              24 months ago

              I’m certain that my grandfather’s mobility scooter from back in the 1980’s could have covered 6km in day (there and back). I looked up the specs now, and there are mobility scooters that can go 40 miles. So, the alternative already exists. If folks can’t ride a bicycle 3km, a mobility scooter will do just fine.

    • @NateNate60OP
      link
      English
      2
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I don’t know what it’s like in other places but I tend to find that in cities with an actual dedicated serious transportation agency, busses run every hour at minimum. Even regional busses in the small city where I attended university ran 6-8 times a day per line for three very similar routes. Local busses ran every 20-40 minutes depending on time of day. That’s shocking good for a city of 50,000 in America.

      • @Treczoks
        link
        English
        84 months ago

        It might surprise you, but there are people living outside of large cities.

        • @NateNate60OP
          link
          English
          64 months ago

          The point seems kinda moot outside of cities.

          Are you expecting a bus stop outside every farmhouse? Who’s going to ride it, cows?

          Or in a small town where everything is reachable on foot within fifteen minutes anyway and the road has like 2 cars per minute? Regional bus service that takes you to nearby towns that comes a few times a day is probably as good as it gets.

          • @Treczoks
            link
            English
            34 months ago

            Regional bus service that takes you to nearby towns that comes a few times a day is probably as good as it gets.

            And exactly that makes people drive in cars into the cities.