Anons argue in comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
1215 points (97.3% liked)
Greentext
5233 readers
1856 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, that isnt really an argument against public transit and bike infrastructure, its just an argument that the way to do it isnt to just tell people to stop driving and expect it to happen, one has to redesign cities to make these options feel like the safe and natural choice.
This was my thought as well, goes to show we need better long-range public transportation!
And bikes should be used for more granular destination points, once the bulk is covered via whatever works best as public transport in a given area.
Edit: bikes could also serve as a good first step toward a more rational approach toward public goods, as we could just stack public bikes at each node to be grabbed for free. It's self-limiting, it presents minimal waste as once you have one you don't really need a second, and it'd remove any entry barrier there may be to biking. Other than learning how to ride, of course. And this would be in addition to dedicated carry spaces for bikes on public transport - s'why I love the subway.
And I'm done hallucinating, I apologise.
That's what trains are for.
What you actually need is a different city design. Office and housing need to be within 2-3 miles not 20-30, then bikes, buses and stuff become reasonable alternative modes of transportation. Even buying groceries could be done without a car.
But the US of A chose to move housing out of the cities into suburbs dozens of miles away. As long as you don't change that you'll stay car-dependent. It's just too far.
It will also help to build more apartments that are cheap to rent. That increased concentration of people will make it possible for small local markets, restaurants, etc. to survive. Cost of living should also go down a bit because you'll reach more people with less infrastructure. That'll also increase tax revenue for the city. It's win-win for everyone.
Agreed, that right there is the problem. But it wasn't just a one-time choice it's an ongoing decision: (A) inexpensive large house in the suburbs/rural area or (B) more expensive small apartment in the city. Personally I choose B but I have relatives who live in rural areas (large houses, huge yards, 1 car per person) who think I'm crazy.
Fair enough, I'm all for trains! And I agree, they really do have the most potential out of pretty much everything else (to be fair, they each excel at different things) in terms of people over distance.
And I get what you mean about the structures, starting to see the same tendencies over here as well. Add to that the fact that our average is about 0.6 cars per person and growing (mostly concentrated in cities, of course), or something like that, plus an outdated infrastructure which is basically frozen due to being surrounded by historical buildings (and god forbid we do anything with those, ours is to wait and watch them slowly crumble!), and you have traffic jams in even the smaller cities and towns. It's fucking horrid, is what it is...
Plus every new neighborhood which is added around the city is either a new residential area filled with tumor-like arrangements of apartment buildings with, of course, insufficient infrastructure to support said 0.6 cars per capita, so the possibility of extending a public transport line of any sort to that area is basically nulliffied from the start, or a useless shrine to Corporate Capitalism in the shape of a business center with a couple of gaudy office buildings and a whole swath of land tarped over with concrete and "modernised." While maintaining the old two-lane streets. The main bus line for the residential area in which I lived in my old city used to run along the industrial traffic lanes - you'd frequently see lines of fully loaded semi trucks waiting for the bus to finish transfering passengers. Because they had nowhere else to put it, they just sold the area to developers without a second thought given to how they'd actually connect the area to the rest of the city.
And to get back to the trains, we actually have a decently extensive railway network, but all it's seen for the past few decades has been basic maintenance, and our trains are the same. I mean, most of our engines are from the Communist era and most of our train cars are hand-me-downs from Germany - and they're really nice train cars, honestly, the sleeping cars have wood paneling, in-cabin grooming sink, and actual mattresses, they're a splendid bit of engineering - and they start looking like hammered shit maybe half a year after being introduced. I had to make 12 900km trips by train throughout the country last year and I'd say I ended up with an immune response after at least eight or nine of them, felt flu-y for a couple of days. And, yeah, this is also a major problem with the education and level of wealth around here, but they really don't bother actually trying to maintain a semblance of cleanliness.
So of course everyone buys one and a half cars and lugs that hunk of metal all around the place.