This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.
This community exists for the following reasons:
You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.
Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.
No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.
Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.
No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.
No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.
No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.
No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.
Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.
In a lot of places trains connect even small towns to larger cities. Not just a couple trains each week or each day, but coming often enough that you don't really need to check a schedule.
A big part of the anti-car movement is being pro-infrastructure.
Agreed. And where it's not really worth it to link with trains they just do it with buses instead, between the smallest villages and the mid sized towns where trains do arrive.
Then if you have to link something that's even smaller than villages, people can just walk to the nearest village (in Europe this usually means walking 20-30 minutes at most) and take the bus there.
But more importantly, villages and rural places are an area where I can tolerate cars, because they aren't as unnecessary or replaceable as they are in cities.
I had a friend who was killed by a motorist while walking on a country road, so I've given this some thought. The key principle for safety is to keep cars away from more vulnerable road users.
So, there are the same basic options: better public transport infrastructure, and well-signposted, properly maintained footpaths and bike lanes are the most obvious.
As for driving from the countryside into urban areas, you can have 'Park and ride' schemes, which are common in parts of the UK. You drive your car to a bus station at the edge of the town, and the bus takes you the rest of the way in. That minimises miles driven and keeps cars out of urban areas, where they're especially inefficient.
Public transportation in a rural area lol have you ever been to a rural area?
The rest of your ideas are great. I've done the park and ride thing, it was great.
Yes, of course. My point is that you can have good public transport in rural areas. The fact that in most places we currently don't is the exact problem!
I noticed that in poorer countries where many people can't afford personal cars, the public transport in rural areas is often much better. This has led me to believe that contrary to my initial intuition, widespread car ownership is the reason rather than the result of poor public transport in rural areas.
I can't think of how. Rural areas are areas with little organization, very little infrastructure, people are largely self sufficient. Would it be busses? Minivans? How would you organize such a system? Where would it even take people, Walmart? To each other's doorstep? I just don't see how you'd build something like that, or even really why. I get it in the city, I get trains for long distances, but rural areas getting people around, I just don't see it.
Are you speaking from experience of rural areals? Because if so, it doesn't match with mine!
Most rural areas I know of are heavily dependent on neighbouring areas, whether other villages or larger towns. So the public transport option which works best is buses: Usually they connect a chain or ring of smaller villages with each other or with a large town. Having bike lanes or footpaths (separate from roads) to connect the villages works, too. And the UK, historically, had many small train lines, including single track routes, that did a similar job to the buses.
Yes, but mine probably doesn't match with yours.
Rural america is not like rural Britain. Rural Britain is probably more like the outer undeveloped suburbs of a city in america. In rural america, you can go a hundred miles on a highway without seeing a single house.
I like the bike lanes and footpaths idea for rural places just as much as anywhere. I don't hate cars like a lot of the people here, but I dislike them a lot and understand why you'd want cities not designed around them, and in rural areas, other options. Busses or trains between population centers, even small ones, are great but in rural america you're not even getting to the train station without a car, and more stops doesn't solve that problem because it's so spread out and disorganized. Even 100 years ago, cities built subways and what not, rural people rode horses or if they got on a train they were going pretty far away. Public transport in places like that doesn't make any sense and didn't even before cars.
Yeah, fair enough! I was thinking of places in the UK (and other areas of Western Europe I'm familiar with) where even 'isolated' houses are usually less than five miles away from a larger settlement. I've been in plenty of places where I'd just walk across or around a field to get to the nearest shop - which was more direct than taking the road!
In terms of the rural US, I think you're probably right that solving these problems with human-powered vehicles and public transport is, basically, too hard, and that cars are the best available solution. That said, it's probably still worth building the infrastructure so people have the option of not using a car for the whole of every single journey.
@frankPodmore @betwixthewires Here's a map of what the train network used to look like across rural Victoria (in Australia) in 1927: https://everythingismaps.github.io/img/historicvicrailmaps/1927%20Victorian%20rail%20map.PNG
And here's rural NSW in 1933: https://www.nswrail.net/maps/nsw-1933.php
And here's a video that @nerd4cities recently uploaded about the destruction of intercity train networks in the US: https://youtu.be/svao4PZ4bGs?si=K7zrMlZ4bvfmiRcC
So yes, many rural areas and small towns in the US, Australia, and Canada used to have access to frequent and reliable train services back in the first half of the 20th century.
Those train systems in many cases were privately run, so no direct taxpayer subsidies. At a time when overall populations were smaller.
So what changed? Car-centric government policies.
What else has changed? Cars became available and roads were easier to build than tracks.
I'm not against trains, I love them, especially the prospect of using them for long distance travel between rural areas. But people in rural areas use cars because there was a natural incentive to use cars: they're faster than horses and trains and the roads were already there, bonus they can be used for work on the land as machinery. Car centric government policies really are an effect of the widespread use of cars. They entrench the current way things work and create inertia in moving forward from it, but they didn't create it, at least not in the middle of nowhere.
@betwixthewires Cars faster than trains? If that's the case in your country, then you have a serious underinvestment in rail.
(Seriously, even V/Line trains in Victoria go faster than the 100 KP/h speed limit, and by world standards V/Line ain't a great train service.)
What happened in the US, Australia, and Canada was a massive investment in rural highway infrastructure by national and state/provincial governments after World War 2.
In the US, that was Eisenhower's Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956
In Australia, it was Gough Whitlam's National Roads Act of 1974: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_(Australia)
Many towns in the rural western US were railway towns. They were quite literally built around a train station.
But after WW2, the US spent the equivalent of US$193 billion (adjusted for inflation) in just 10 years building new interstate highways.
At the same time, the extensive already-existing network of rural railways saw service cuts, was run down, and had privately-owned lines become freight-only.
Again, similar story in the other former British colonies.
That was a choice by government. And the result of that choice is many people in those railway towns responded by buying a car.
It didn't have to be that way.
In many parts of Europe and Asia, where leaders have invested in rail, you can live quite comfortably in many small towns without a car.
I meant when the development of transportation infrastructure started, cars were certainly faster than trains.
Thanks, that's interesting! Always like it when I'm provided with evidence that I am, if anything, slightly too sympathetic towards cars.
I live in a place where what you are describing is already implemented, and it does make a lot of sens, but there is still some issues:
So there is still a lot of people that prefer to use their car to go to work or simply to go to the city, which causes insane congestions on the main road around the urban area at some points in the day.
I agree, those are obviously issues in many areas. But infrequent, unreliable, overcrowded public transport is a result of political decisions, whereas the car congestion is a result of geometry!
I also think it would be good if more places of work had staggered or flexible hours. So that, e.g., some staff work 8-4, others 9-5 and others 10-6. That would spread out the single hypothetical 'rush hour' into three busy hours. I'm not sure how exactly you could implement that at scale, granted. Possibly if governments started to do it, it would catch on in the rest of the world of work.
As for driving from the countryside into urban areas, you can have ‘Park and ride’ schemes
Which only works as long as the P&R placed don't just alter between "full" and "closed". Another common fallacy is to put them so far out of town that the only line to the city center and more central traffic hubs is a tram that has 20+ stops between P&R and Main Station.
Yes. Again, there are good and bad ways of implementing these things. I was also just thinking that having hire bikes at P&Rs would be a good idea, to give people more options, and that train stations bordering rural and urban areas should also be effectively P&Rs.
Keep in mind that there are more than enough people in this world for whom a bike is not a solution.
I did not say that bikes are the solution for everyone or everything, so I don't know why you felt the need to say this to me.
Older rural areas are actually typically much more walkable than American cities. Keep in mind, rural towns were very common before cars existed. They're typically structured to have a small center, sometimes basically just a "main street", with all the places you need to regularly visit, and houses surrounding them, and the farmland surrounding that. This way the people are all relatively close, and the farmland is not between you and others. These towns are all about self sufficiency within the community, but ofc if you keep a car for when you need to travel somewhere else that's fine, and no one is begrudging you for using gas powered farm equipment on your farm. The main point is you don't have a daily commute that requires a car, because it's either your farm or one of the lose shops that are close to everyone.
And for what it's worth, a lot of train networks used to go to these rural towns as well, and it'd be awesome to see those return for Intercity travel.
Ask yourself: If I didn't have a car, would I still live here?
Cars encourage sprawl, and living far away from the things we need everyday. This is a bad thing. This, not emissions, and not safety, are my main gripe with personal automotives. You're asking, "how do we keep the worse, most selfish parts of car ownership if we get rid of cars?" We fucking don't. That's the point.
I honestly really have a problem with this mentality. I would like to try to find common ground with you around the things we both think are problems, but I don't know if that's possible.
See, to me, it's just the opposite. It's all the cities where peopke are mashed in together like a factory chicken farm-- that's where the problem comes from. If we could just have fewer people living further apart I think a lot of the problems with society would more or less solve themselves.
I'm not here to pick a fight, and I am listening to you. But how can you think that more bigger cities is an improvement? I really don't understand.
We can both agree the solution is not larger cities! Its about more frequent smaller cities (villages/towns).
Hey! We do have common ground! More frequent small towns/villages would definitely be a good thing. Idyllic, even. I don't know how to get there from here though.
In my area it's not really zoning laws; it's just economics of scale. There used to be a convenience store/hardware/feed store just like 5 miles from my place. It went out of business 30 years ago when they put walmart and lowes in the city. If it were back, i could probably get by with a horse and buggy.
I once lived in a small village (population 160). You could still see the former school building, the former grocery shop. Both had been closed when everyone got a car. The only infrastructure left was a pub.
Cars killed infrastructure in rural communities. First, it was nice to be able to shop in the cheaper shops in the city by car. Then the local shop closed and the car became a necessity.
I don't want everyone to live in cities. What my gripe is, is sprawl, the city bleeding out into the countryside. The countryside should be full of people who actually live there; who work there, and get their food there, and spend their time there. Why should someone who spends four-fifths of her waking time in a city center be driving all the way out of the city to sleep?
We've made this option artificially cheap by subsidizing the automobile and passing the many, many externalities onto the public purse.
Rural as in small but compact towns or as in homesteads?
In case 1, we will still need motorized agricultural equipment (good discussion how to decarbonize it). Tractors can be used for short haul transport as well. Walking for everyday getting around.
For traveling between towns a robust bus system does wonders. For example hourly bus to the nearest city also visiting a couple of other towns. And maybe another line not centered on a city. If you're lucky to be on a major route, a train.
Case 2 is harder. Horse and bicycle are some options. But basically you will need a motor vehicle of some kind. Best bet is combining multiple uses in one vehicle, so a van basically. You can carry stuff, people, animals ...
This is a good point. I should have been more specific; I wasn't thinking of towns and villages as being rural, but most people do. Really the alternatives need to be organized by use-case rather than geographic location.
I use a little truck as the all-purpose vehicle that can haul whatever and it works, but it sure ould be nice not to need it.
Just mentioning 'carpooling' because no one did yet.
That could work. I've been thinking for awhile that if everyone around here were on some kind of uberlike carpooling app, we could combine trips into town.
In the US? You'll probably need access to a car for a lot of things, but let's assume the political leanings of your town are open to things like collective ownership and bike infrastructure. Let's also assume we're talking about a rural town that has a dense, but small downtown surrounded by farmland (fairly common).
Your community could set up a ride share service for the town that is locally and communally owned. They could also run a car loan service. With bike infrastructure, cargo bikes and electric bikes can replace a lot of car trips. Living in a small house or apartment near the center of town will cut out the need for cars for lots of trips, too.
If there is a bus network in your county or state, you could also lobby to get a bus to come to your town to more easily connect you to other areas without a car, but I don't know how feasible something like that would be.
There are a number of things that amaze me in this group. Like you all take it for granted that everyone is capable to ride a bike from here to sunset, and that the same bike is sufficient to haul whatever it is to be hauled. This is the narrowminded worldview of young, single city-dwellers that can reach all necessary places easily by public transport or bike or even foot within a few minutes.
I've lived in the country where there was (and probably still is) "the morning bus" and "the evening bus", and the next city was 30+km away. And you are really telling those people not to use cars?
Of course there are always scenarios where a person needs a car. If you have to live 30 km away from the next city and public transportation isn't an option (maybe a dial-a-bus kinda system) you probably have to take a car.
If you live 'rural' like me, 4 km away from the next city, there is barely anything you have to take the car for. And if you need to haul something you could rent a car in the city (if you don't have a own car). Still nearly all my neighbours own one car per person, at least two per household.
People like you amaze me. You take it for granted that everyone is able to afford and maintain a safe car and is able to park it wherever they want to. This is the narrowminded worldview of old, saggy village-dwellers.
Don't take it too personal, but your and many other peoples inability to understand that there can be a systematic problem with too much car dependency without attacking your individual way of living is quite annoying.
I definitely should have been more specific. I wouldn't think of 4km from groceries as being rural at all-- like you said, I think that car problem can be solved with normal urban solutions.
Renting a car to haul is just... not even close to viable. That would approximately double my annual expenses. Besides, I can't rent a car with no credit history and no way to get to the city to rent a car.
Hauling really does seem to be the sticking point. If you have to haul you're kind of stuck with a car.
While I agree cars/trucks make sense in rural areas, your great grandparents likely lived in rural extremely rural conditions without a car. It has been done for the majority of human existence, and the Amish still do it today.
They had feed mills in carting distance, and they had hundreds of acres to grow their own food. With more people on earth, we usually have dozens of acres, at best, and one feed mill in the county, at best.
I actually want to know more about this. It sounds like you know what you're talking about. If you've got any good YouTube videos or links (or feel compelled to talk about it yourself); I grew up in rural areas and simple farms, but I don't know the first think about feed mills and industrial agriculture.
A while ago I explored a rabbit hole about farming without ammonium nitrate and I was shocked how basically the whole world (minus the island of Java) depends on ammonium nitrate for food.
We (or at least I) are not telling those people to not drive in conditions like you described, we say that there should be more busses so not driving as often would even be possible, and that if they drive that they don't demand that they have a right to park right in front of everywhere they go in the city and get there by freeways that are built for rush hour traffic and sit mostly empty during the rest of the day (and scarring the city the whole time, while they can escape to their quaint countryside).
Yeah, I was surprised how many responses didn't consider hauling at all. I really don't need to commute anywhere at all. I'm happy just staying home. But I do have to haul hay bales, feed sacks, and 50lb sacks of groceries.
Cars make sense if you have to haul a lot of stuff. Craftsmen in the city, firetrucks, ambulances, police, farmers,... The right car for the right job is not the problem of our car dependency and doesn't need a solution.
Fair enough, I guess. I was just hoping for a way out of my personal car dependency.
you all take it for granted that everyone is capable to ride a bike from here to sunset, and that the same bike is sufficient to haul whatever it is to be hauled
Not a single person here has said or even implied this. Everyone here has suggested several different kinds of transport, including but not limited to bicycles. Not only that, but nearly every comment has acknowledged that some car use in the countryside is probably necessary. I recommend actually reading the comments here rather than assuming you know what they say and getting angry about it.
Rural UK. Nearest food shop is a 15 minute drive away, through narrow lanes and big hills. There is no alternative to a car for shopping, commuting or just life.
I live near to a small village. It's up a 25% hill in a very narrow hollow winding lane (say, eight feet wide? Cars and vans ok, but need to reverse for up to 1/4 mile if they meet,) If a lorry is foolish enough to come this way, they'll get stuck. We had one stuck for four days last year when it ripped an airtank off on a rock and completely blocked the road.
Bicycles are not great because of the hills. I have an ebike and that does make it doable, but carrying capacity limited. I have horses, but steep hills on tarmac would make that dangerous, if at all possible, to take a cart. We do ride them, and you might carry a fair bit in saddlebags but our village has no shops, and it's too far to get food by horse. Walking to a food shop would be something ike a four hour round trip.
There's no trains nearby, but the village does have a small bus. One bus. A day. So if you want to go to the town and back, it's going to be a two day trip. No problem getting a seat though, because it's always empty as nobody uses it. Must be the loneliest bus driver around.
So, it's cars. There is no viable alternative.
And the UK is super small, compared to many countries. I was just talking to an Indian friend the other day about how tiny the UK is and how rural US and especially rural India is so much more remote than it is here
Heyyy rural 19th century small "historic" town here.
Historically, my town was in lumber and you'd literally have building materials moved down the river and sold at their equivalent of home depot but on the water.
Streetcars connected the very center of town.
A rail line splits the center of town, so goods never needed a highway to reach here!
In current day, there is a highway built next to a road, and that road is ripe for a bike lane. Downtown is safe for cyclists and pedestrians during the day, but at night its dark and there's parking on both sides of the streets FULL for people to visit restaurants and bars.
A lot of small policy changes could fix all this mess, but alas it will probably not happen so I am going to move next year.
It sucks that my area is so clearly set up for the highway to be this main line connecting towns. And if it were a 30 mile long LRT, everyone in a massive rural/suburban/small city area could ditch cars entirely. But with new money coming in from federal and state government, everyplace is actually building the worst car-dependent and pedestrian unfriendly infrastructure for the first time! Shit that has been proven by studies over decades to not work.
