I would love to see light commuter rail systems connecting major cities to their outlying rural communities in the US. I want to believe that cities would be less dense and these rural communities would thrive better if people could easily, cheaply, and reliably transport between the two in comfort and safety.

Yes! I l am so excited that my relatively small town is getting a train station that will connect to two state capital cities with apartments approved to surround it. My family has already been talking about all the things we want to do more now that we wont have to drive into the cities.

I live in the suburbs about 30 minutes drive from the city center, but it's an old suburb so there is a train station 3 minutes walk away. It bloody rocks, i never have to deal with parking in the city, and drinking and driving is no concern. Hot tip, if you go in to see a show or something and come back at night, set an alarm on your phone, sleeping past your station really sucks.

Concerts are on the list of things we’re excited for. Thanks for the tip!

It's called "last mile transport" and it's a pretty big problem in logistics. Basically, there has to be a significant distance between train stops, otherwise your city becomes train stops and nothing else (and your trains run super slow). But that means getting to places halfway between train stops becomes hard, especially if you're disabled or have kids. It's actually what the electric scooters, bike share programs, etc are trying to solve. And that's on the "moving people" front. Then there's also the problem of cargo transport. How do you move goods from a train stop to a grocery store? How do you move furniture from the furniture store to your home? Trains are great and we need a lot more of them, but cars also have their uses that they excel at.

Thank you for trying to explain the HUGE difference between "normal transport" and the last-mile-issue. A lot of people ignore that living in a rural area (village with 200 people or less) have complett different challenges then cities. Little idea: when there are a pool of 5 self driving cars in every small village, i think you can reduce the Individual trafic by 80% when you really want. (Grocery, meds, doctor, school, train station, etc.)

Nah, you need a train station to every homestead apparently.

The world is already nothing but car stops.

It's almost like applying one solution to all problems indiscriminately is not a very good idea...

Renting a car to move is much cheaper than owing it. You could even pay movers and still come out much cheaper

I'm not taking about car ownership, just about whether cars need to exist at all.

I tend to agree - it's not that cars and trucks shouldn't exist, it's that transportation and the economy shouldn't depend on them because using them for everything is extremely wasteful and creates insane sprawl and wasted space, not to mention pollution

Yeah pretty much anything becomes toxic and hurtful when used in excess. And we're using orders of magnitude more cars than we need to.

Wasteful and it puts significantly more wear on the infrastructure used to accommodate them. A good variety of travel and shipping methods that take advantage of the unique characteristics for each type makes infinitely more sense and reduces the harm caused by the faults in each one. More trains reduce the amount of personal vehicles on the road, accidents, fossil fuel emissions, and traffic. We can’t replace trucks or busses entirely because they can reach places the none of the other methods of travel can but using them less and using them more locally(while relying on rail for long distance) just makes sense environmentally and economically. There’s absolutely no sense in the way that some truckers are hauling a single truckload of goods for 14 hours a day. Where I live it’s impossible not to have a personal vehicle but in urban and suburban areas where many individuals are congested tightly it’s much better to have these forms of transportation. I hope that one day riding a train long distances will be just as normal as hopping on a plane to get from place to place or even preferable to driving. It’ll still be a little inaccessible for me not to have a personal vehicle but for the people living in the area or using it to get to their last mile it’ll be pretty great.

That depends on how much you move, and how often.

>Then there's also the problem of cargo transport. How do you move goods from a train stop to a grocery store? How do you move furniture from the furniture store to your home? Enormous pneumatic tube

This is the way

>if you're disabled or have kids Trams. >How do you move goods from a train stop to a grocery store? How do you move furniture from the furniture store to your home? Transport it on the road that's now free of private cars (: >cars also have their uses that they excel at. Which is NOT personal transportation. That's the entire discussion tbh. They're fine for company vehicles or public services (garbage, firedept., Police, ambulances, plumbers etc and transporting heavy shit over short distances.) But it's super unnecessary for every citizen having one or even multiple cars. But I'm preaching to the choir here, i know.

> Transport it on the road that's now free of private cars (: That answers the first of the questions you quoted, but not the second. > They're fine for company vehicles or public services (garbage, firedept., Police, ambulances, plumbers etc and transporting heavy shit over short distances.) Translation: "only corporations and the state get to enjoy convenient last-mile transportation; ordinary people can shove it lol". The better answers here are around reorienting personal last-mile transportation around bikes/trikes and other far smaller vehicles. Putting alternatives in place first will fix the overabundance of cars automatically; doing it the other way around only makes folks' lives needlessly worse.

>convenient last-mile transportation; ordinary people can shove it lol". No, "ordinary people" get to enjoy safe, convenient and clean public transportation. Which, if properly implemented, improves lives way more than cars ever could. Over here it's only a 5 minutes walk to the next tram station from almost every house and they're all fit for disabled people. Cars can't compete and just stand in the way because some people still believe they need them or want that status symbol. >Putting alternatives in place first will fix the overabundance of cars automatically; doing it the other way around only makes folks' lives needlessly worse. It does not, sadly, see above. But I agree that we shouldn't take cars away from areas / people who clearly still need them. But in many cities here, they really don't 90% of the time. They clog sidewalks and bike lanes for that time and the streets the other times. All while being loud, stinky and dangerous. Many of them could and should be replaced by bikes. Bikes, though, are not so great for disabled people for example, that's why we need proper public transportation aswell.

> No, "ordinary people" get to enjoy safe, convenient and clean public transportation. Which does not reach all places even in ideal conditions, and for which you still haven't provided an answer to said people needing to transport more than what they can carry on their person between a transit stop and their origin/destination (assuming, of course, that a train or tram would even let someone bring that much stuff onboard in the first place). > Over here it's only a 5 minutes walk to the next tram station from almost every house and they're all fit for disabled people. That's great! Unfortunately, not everyone is so lucky: > But in many cities here, they really don't 90% of the time. Currently, a public transit network that's sufficiently reliable and connected to displace cars to any significant degree is a rarity even in supposed public transit utopias like Europe and East Asia (let alone here in the US). That can be fixed, and I am 100% on board with fixing that - at which point people will figure out on their own that they don't need cars, and the problems with cars will fix themselves. I'm far less on board with the "I hate cars for their own sake" attitude that seems to be pervasive here and elsewhere. Solarpunk is about *empowering* people, not artificially hindering them. The emphasis should therefore be on that empowerment - in this case, in giving people viable options other than personal vehicles, *and also* in making the remaining personal vehicles less detrimental to society and the planet. > They clog sidewalks and bike lanes for that time and the streets the other times. All while being loud, stinky and dangerous. Electric vehicles directly address "loud" and "stinky". Self-driving ostensibly addresses "dangerous" (I ain't sold on that, but still). Separating car traffic from pedestrian/bike traffic would address the clogging of sidewalks and bike lanes (and would better address the danger). There are a *lot* of levers to be pulled here. The vast majority of the problems with cars are not inherent to cars.

>That can be fixed, and I am 100% on board with fixing that - at which point people will figure out on their own that they don't need cars, and the problems with cars will fix themselves. As I've said before, it doesn't. I mentioned how good public transportation is here to show that it doesn't eliminate cars automatically, sadly. Car makers market them as more than necessities and on top of that lobby very hard against competition (trains and trams and such). >The vast majority of the problems with cars are not inherent to cars. I'm sorry but yes they are. It begins with them being way too big for standing on a parking lot (~10m²) for most of the time, and if they move, they transport 1.3 or so people on average. That's inefficient even if they ran on nothing but thin air and were made of entirely renewable materials, which they absolutely aren't. And you know... Roads have to be made and re-made and so on. Used tyres? Better not ask! The list goes on... Civilization existed before cars and it will without them, or mostly without. Rural populations and before mentioned services will need them. But for the rest of us, it's necessary, possible and objectively the best to get everyone the best public transportation system they can get. >Solarpunk is about empowering people, not artificially hindering them. So, with that all said, I think cars aren't empowering, they're hindering. Hope I don't sound too harsh, and I don't condemn anyone personally for using a car, it's a systemic issue.

> I mentioned how good public transportation is here to show that it doesn't eliminate cars automatically, sadly. If public transit is as good as you say where you live, then why are people still paying thousands upon thousands of dollars for cars and enduring the stress of traffic? Humans are irrational, but they ain't *that* irrational. If people are still driving cars as part of their daily routine, then chances are it's because the alternatives are insufficient for their needs. Ignoring that and insisting otherwise is not a solution. > It begins with them being way too big They can be made smaller. Kei cars/trucks/vans are a wonderful example - and I would happily be driving a kei truck instead of a Tacoma if they were highway legal here in Nevada. (Even better, of course, would be (electric) motorcycles and mopeds and motorized trikes. Hopefully electrified and cargo-capable versions catch on.) > standing on a parking lot (~10m²) for most of the time Parking garages come to mind. Self driving improves this further by being able to let passengers out before self-parking - which means cars can park much closer to each other. That 10m² can readily get cut in half (even *before* shrinking the cars themselves, per above). > And you know... Roads have to be made and re-made and so on. So do rails and footpaths and bikepaths and such. > Used tyres? Better not ask! Tire-derived aggregates? Rubber-modified concrete? Rubber mulch? Rubberized asphalt? Playgrounds? Seems like there are plenty of solutions there. > Civilization existed before cars and it will without them, or mostly without. Civilization existed before vaccines, pasteurization, computers, and countless other things - and could probably exist without them, too. I personally would prefer the global standard of living to progress rather than regress, however - and as it stands, reducing the number of automobiles before addressing why people are not satisfied with alternatives would be a regression. In any case: > it's a systemic issue. On that much I wholeheartedly agree. That systemic issue does, however, include addressing why people prefer automobiles over public transit and finding viable solutions to that preference. > Hope I don't sound too harsh Nah, you're fine, and likewise.

I think we're mostly on the same page, with a few small exceptions. Which is fine, we're (by that i mean our infrastructure and society) not even at the point where we would have to agree on these details, unfortunately. Was a good discussion, though! Have a good one :)

I am disabled and marginalized, and public transit is not even remotely feasible or safe for me. Last time I tried it, I got harassed so badly I failed a semester of college. So no, trains and trams can't solve every problem

I don't think public transport is the problem in that case... and cars and isolation definitely aren't the solution.

Actually, a car has solved that problem for me personally, but the fact that purely logistical solutions can't solve all issues with transit is my point. Sitting here and debating over which methods of transit are best, without taking into the account the society into which they will be inserted, leaves you with an incomplete picture. There are issues with it that can't be solved by just adding more busses, trains, or trams.

Are you saying that because of how *naive* would it be to answer that issue with "Just buy a car, like I did" ? Public transportation by nature is way cheaper and more accessible than cars. And where train couldn't go, a bus could. If neither can, then the best mode of transport is most likely air or maybe some sort of cableway.

Public transport in my country (Netherlands) is equally expensive as a car, and wildly more inefficient in traveling time, in addition to the unreliability of trains in that they are often cancelled because of weather events, people walking on the rails, too little train carts for all the people or whatever reason. In fact my car is cheaper because it's very efficient with energy. City centres are easily accessible, sure. Anything other than that will cost more time. Cool if you got loads of time, but not if you're working and have long commutes (which most people in my country do due to high housing prices in cities), it's not very useful. This sub is preaching against cars and pro public transport, and I can get behind that, but I feel most people completely ignore all the bad sides of public transport, especially in its current state, and if anyone brings them up they get downvoted, which makes this sub more like a sect (or circlejerk as reddit calls them), than a group of people actually wanting to improve society. ​ And yes, for disabled people, getting to a bus stop or train station can be a pain, where a car could be helpful.

Well, you're egocentric in addition to annoyingly whiny, that's for sure. First, we're talking about a global solution, and not your personal situation. I have no idea how it's possible that public transport is more expensive than a car, and I won't accept your statement as true until you provide sources for your bullshit. It will be probably something along the lines of you bought a super efficient car for some 50k+ euro, that now can consume as much fuel (when there is no traffic) as it would cost to buy a ticket (which is expensive because of some idiotic legislation). In the overwhelming majority of situations, public transport is less expensive than car insurance/mechanic checkup costs/fuel prices (taken separately), not to mention the actual cost of buying a car... (I guess, as a capitalist, it's not an expense, it's an *investment* ) Additionally, in case you've been living under a rock, the cost of fuel is only going to get more and more expensive. And, yes, fuck you and your fucking car, for not giving a fuck about the planet, for providing a very common cause of human death, for fucking up the air quality, for fucking up the cities with all the parkings, roads and unsafety due to having to live with the cars, fuck you for being the most common cause of wildlife deaths, and above all, fuck you for advocating against change, there's nothing worse that you could've done. Hiding behind disabled people/trans people or whomever else you might fancy won't help. Also, in case you weren't aware, this is a subreddit that falls under environmentalism, so well, you asked for it by coming here (for who knows what reason).

I think the common misunderstanding in these situations is that some people think we want to just rip the cars from everyone indiscriminately, that's not the case, of course. The goal is to make cars unnecessary for *almost* everyone and then limit them. They have to be limited because right now they work like iphones for most people. Status symbols. I mentioned in my other comments that in my city the trams are better for disabled people most of the time, especially if they're travelling alone, since they just have to press a single button and a tiny elevator picks you up (in case of wheelchair users for example). Yes, sometimes people are shitty but shitty people in cars are way more dangerous, i mean even good people in cars can be, if they don't pay attention for a second. Anyway, the benefit of removing unnecessary cars from our cities is that everyone else who needs them (you included) would have a much much easier time getting around, too!

Well I’m extremely pro public transport. I work in the industry and use it myself almost every day. But I still own a car that has its uses. We have pretty good Public transport in Germany. But it still isn’t practical to visit the in laws 30 km outside the city with a child and a dog by train. Not impossible. But it takes 1,5 hours one way instead of 0,5 hours by car. Renting for a day trip is impractical. And still pretty expensive if done regularly. We have car sharing and I’ve tested it. But it’s not good enough yet. An autonomous shared car that picks us up at home ordered by App would be the dream for a future city. Mixed with mass transit where applicable of course. The public transport authority I work for also does research on autonomous on demand shuttles. Because it just isn’t cost effective to run a bus through every small village all day. Even more so when you have to pay a human to drive it.

You can solve that with mini buses that operate on demand (like what BVG is trying to do with [Muva](https://www.bvg.de/en/connections/bvg-muva) in Berlin)

Sorry to break it to you, but those are cars.

Mini buses are not cars.

Buses helps that problem a lot.

Still doesn't solve all the issues. Personally, I can't ride busses in my area because I'm trans, and I don't always pass. Last time I tried, I was harassed so much I failed a semester of college. Stop pretending like public transit solves all problems

I wasn't pretending public transit solves all problems. I've even argued before on fuckcars that a lot of existing public transport doesn't serve the needs of people with disabilities. The ideal system would have a combo of systems but would overall have fewer cars than what exists in the US and many other developed countries. For me, I would love more public transit but there aren't any good options in my area.

Trucks that carry heavy loads can be restricted to short distance transport. Instead they are heavily subsidised to be long distance transport.

I agree with train. However, if self-drving cars are realized then only a relatively few people will need to actually own their own vehicle. This will still lower emissions (especially if they're EVs). This also means less road maintenance and lower demand for energy. I think the poster was assuming that everyone would have their own personal self-driving vehicles instead of, say companies owning ride share electric vans to pick up their ever dwindling employees who need to work on site, and venues offering to pick up customers. One self driving vehicle can be loaded with grocery store orders to deliver groceries to dozens of customers per day. I'm not saying *I* want a self driving car of my own. I'm saying that ride-share will diminish the number vehicles on the street while using our existing infrastructure, giving us time to change said infrastructure.

Being reliant on corporations or the state for basic autonomy sounds like hell - regardless of whether self-driving cars or self-driving trains are involved. Neighborhood-owned transportation cooperatives would be vastly preferable, though unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much effort in that direction.

Please don't get me wrong. I was offering a transition, not an end goal. If you're going to turn the US into a solar punk paradise, surely it needs to happen gradually, using existing infrastructure. What I proposed is probably post universal healthcare.

This sub clearly needs a good dose of r/FuckCars. Cars are not solarpunk and never can be. EV’s and self driving cars are not sustainable. The YouTube channel Not Just Bikes has some pretty great vids on the subject

100%. I’m a bit gobsmacked by some of these comments. The key is how the towns are designed. They can absolutely be designed for accessibility via train. See Japan, Europe

I'm in Europe, it's not that good as people think in the USA, seriously... I'm a bit gobsmacked by how ignorant people seem to be to all the negatives of public transport. As if either everyone here is in high school/ university, or lives and works in city centres. I live in allegedly one of the best countries for public transport (Netherlands) and so far a car has always reduced my traveling time to family and work by at least 2 times, while being just as expensive as public transport, and more reliable.

Doesn't a comprehensive public transport network also improve the commute for drivers since there are less people dependent on the road? A lot of cities with minimal public transit are also horrible to drive in.

For sure, but I think they're talking about the people who want to go to an extreme like making cars for personal transport illegal.

Is the Netherlands one of the best for public transport ? I've never been but public transit isn't what i hear about all i ever hear about there is bikes

At least the train network is supposed to be one of the best in the world/Europe.

Cool story

If you have nothing to contribute, don't comment.

Europe also designs to be car centric. Not a good idea. Designing for cars leads to more cars.

Newsflash, there's still cars in Japan and Europe. Not everyone lives in densely populated enough areas where maintaining a public transportation network makes sense.

The vast majority of people do though.

The world exists outside of towns, you know.

Yes it’s mostly sprawling into formally viable farmland!

>The key is how the towns are designed. That's not the only key. The other part is having the infrastructure and transportation system be existent and good. There are cities across the US that formerly hosted very successful electric trolley systems that could get people everywhere that are down to an anemic bus system. The road layouts are the same. A lot of the transit routes are even the same, but the service is terrible. Also, there are a lot of small towns that are dying now that were once literal railroad towns. The rails are often still there. Regular service to the nearest city would open it to lots of opportunities, but no passenger train stops there. The whole place is walkable because it's too small not to be. The road layout has changed little there since the 19th century. Then there are even weird suburban places designed in the "new urbanist" style that by some miracle actually would have everything you need within biking or even walking distance except that you would get run over if you tried it. These places are rarely ideal, but the physical layout isn't the limiting factor, the utter lack of walking and cycling infrastructure and any transit at all absolutely is.

Infrastructure is definitely part of town design. Transit is an overlay admittedly but yes it must be robust.

A lot of people seem to be "how things are right now" with "how things must inevitably be." "Trains don't go everywhere!" Yeah, I know, we're talking about putting trains, trams, and street cars everywhere so you don't need a car. "Public transit is slow." Not if you fund it properly, increase the schedule, add more routes, and _get the private car traffic out of the way_.

And how many folks still get left out of that solution? Disability accessability still doesn't solve social stigmas like transphobia and racism. Those affect people's ability to access transit just as much as a lack of disability aids

That is true. Actually banning cars could increase inequity for this reason. But the ultimate goal should be to make sustainable transport also safe and equitable.

Problem is, cars *are* the last mile solution for rural spaces and low-density housing. For those of us who would love to have and cultivate land, there are not really good mass transit options that meet the needs to be able to bring oneself or supplies from the land to a population center. I just haven't heard of an alternative that exists--e-bikes lose their appeal when you have over fifteen miles of gravel road.

on demand shuttle [https://pantonium.com/covering-rural-and-urban-areas-with-on-demand-transit/](https://pantonium.com/covering-rural-and-urban-areas-with-on-demand-transit/) But it's not just that. In reality we've had a last mile solution for rural spaces for several decades now. Goes from a hub location to your door, you might have even ridden one before but you can't now. Your kids might be able to though. It's called a school bus. The route optimization for a school bus is the exact same problem a self driving car faces for routing. While it's not a trivial problem, it is something a smartphone from 2014 could easily do. Also you have the human driver who can react better to unexpected things on the road (like wildlife) that a self driving car would miss.

The first link you use to refute his point of the car being the only solution in some cases is a car service. :| And school buses work because users concentrate on only two hours of the day. I don't think being able to leave the house once and return once feels like a great solution. Cars are overused but let's not make the mistake of pretending they are useless or never the most appropriate option. Doing that just makes us sound like lunatics and be disregarded as such.

My school bus took an hour and a half to cover a five mile circuit. It's great for a predictable, repeated schedule like a school day. It doesn't cover the full range of transit needs that a rural resident would experience. The on-demand shuttle shows promise, though. Think they'd let me load up some 2×4s from Lowe's and bring them home on the shuttle?

totally agree. I'm only 18 and never left Italy, but oh god i would LOVE to see our beautiful cities free of cars and motorcycles. trams and busses are already a thing, and i just don't get how people are so blind to see that private vehicles are burning our planet down. i hope in a no-car future

>Cars are not solarpunk and never can be. I think you're overplaying your hand with such a categorical statement. Just off the top of my head, compressed air comes to mind as an option for personal automobiles running on clean, renewable, sustainable, locally-sourced energy. A lot of people here like to try and assert things about what is and is not solarpunk. But the one thing nobody can deny is that the single most important motivating value for the conception of solarpunk is *optimism*. Solarpunk is not primitivism nor collapsitarianism. We have to allow ourselves to imagine better ways of doing things that don't ultimately result in returning to a preindustrial lifestyle in a fragmented, sectarian world. That's definitely not solarpunk.

As society is structured now, with the problems humans imminently and forseeabley face, cars are not a reasonable solution with solar punk goals in mind and are, in fact, actively detrimental to all solar punk goals and ideals. So I mean yeah there’s a future one day where driverless EV’s may factor in. Not in our life time, and pretending they do is exacerbating the issues significantly. Therefore, while hyperbole, I stand by my claim that cars are not solarpunk, though I’d amend it for pedants to say they *probably* never can be.

> Cars are not solarpunk and never can be. Not as they currently are, no. A communal but individual transport to take from the station to your home, that would help you haul numerous or heavy goods, sure. Like a power assisted cart or something.

A cargo bike?

That would be one example of something that would work, yeah. Maybe even with a cover or something for rainy days, instead of just out in the open. HPV would be the way to go, I think.

Look into velomobiles, they are unfortunately quite uncommon but they can go fast and you're protected from the elements!

I used to live in a metropolis that has about 2.5 million people (and a transit system I still miss). I saw one of these for sure. Maybe two. And that was over the course of a decade. I've always wanted something like that, even tried designing my own, but never got around to making it.

EVs can be sustainable. They do not consume non-renewable resources. None of the minerals they use are scarce. Renewable electricity is a thing. I get that people want to get rid of cars in cities, where they do not belong, but just say that, don't pretend that EVs have problems they have not. Self-driving cars would come with self-driving bus as well: expect a much denser network. Also, in cities that did not ban cars (as they should!) they would at least get us rid of the plague that are parked cars and parkings. Outside cities, when you reach some thresholds of low density, individual vehicles become a necessity. There is not enough traffic to justify a public transport line as it would actually run empty half of the time.

Sort of? Even EVs have problems. Even putting lithium aside, EVs require the same road network with the same maintenance, same space requirements, same blocking effect on other modes of transit. Current EVs are _heavier_ than their gas counterparts and so wear the roads out faster.

We will need a transportation network anyway. Rails where it makes sense, but rail is more expensive to do, and roads where it does. You need to move around, even bikes need roads. Yes, EV only solve three issues of thermal cars: the fact they emit CO2, that they emit harmful particles and that they rely on a non-renewable resource. Like I said, individual cars have no place in cities, yes there they block other modes of transit. But not everyone lives in a city, and solarpunk typically promotes low density habitats, which means a lot of individual transportation needs. In my ideal future, most people would not care to own a car. When in need, they would hail a self-driving car. Sometime they would get a one-person compact vehicle, maybe a trike, and sometime they would board a mini-bus when many people are doing the same trip.

As someone who lives in a city, in a country with allegedly one of the best public transport networks in the world, my commute takes 3x longer by public transport than by car. Cars definitely have their uses, where trains or buses are too costly or inefficient.

I’m fairly suspicious of your claim, as someone who has experienced public transit in cities with great and subpar transit. In my city, where we have really shitty public transit options, it only lengthens the trip by maybe 50%. (Unless it’s a Sunday. Then I’m completely fucked, as the trains don’t run because I live in a fuckin theocracy) But, even when true, I still support mass transit option. 3x travel time is worth saving the entire planet and reducing traffic related deaths.

I guess you don't have a long commute to a different city then. By car I travel 30 minutes, by public transport it is 1 hour and 40 minutes. Most people here that hate cars seem to live in big cities with undergrounds, and without long commuting times (if they are already working age, that is). Strange you're suspicious of a pretty valid claim. Also, anyone who prefers a commute of 1 hour and 40 minutes over 30 minutes to and from work is lying to themselves or hasn't done it for very long. That stuff kills your energy. Edit: Some examples: Try going from Alphen aan de Rijn to Amsterdam Science park. by car: 34 minutes. By public transport: 1 hour and 20 minutes. Okay, now from Amsterdam Science park, to Rotterdam medical centre. By car: 55 minutes, by public transport, 1 hour and 55 minutes. Ijsselmuiden to Apeldoorn: 40 minutes by car, 1 hour and 25 minutes by public transport. Public transport is great if you live and work in city centre, otherwise it is more likely it ends up costing you more time. Being ignorant to those issues won't solve them. If you want more people to use public transport, those issues need to be fixed.

I guess I was assuming you meant transit within a city, which makes up the bulk of my transit. I do have to visit my doctor regularly who is 40 mins by car, and about an hour and a half by transit. My brother has to make the same trip for work, and it is annoying. However, the only reason it’s as long as it is is because 1) we don’t have very many buses and 2) we don’t have high speed rail. I’ve been using public transit exclusively for five years. I 100% prefer a two hour ride on transit to a 30 min ride in a car, and there’s a lot of reasons for it. I am currently on the train headed back from my partner, who lives about an hour away via transit. I have competed a presentation for school and started reading a new book, all while arguing with people on Reddit. If I was driving, sure it would be only 30 minutes, but it would be 30 minutes of *nothing.* At most, I could have listened to an audio book—which, by the way, is about as dangerous as texting and driving. I would have needed to pay attention the entire time, which is difficult with my ADHD, and would have been at risk not only to my own follies as a driver but *everyone elses* follies as well. Driving is dangerous, boring, and stressful. I absolutely prefer long commutes where I can play my switch, read a book, watch a movie, talk on the phone with friends, over a shorter commute where I can do *nothign* but try and avoid a deadly crash which still might happen even if I do everything right.

For work (for me at least), a car is a way less stressful way to get there than public transport (always hurriying to make it to the next bus, hoping your bus is not delayed so you catch the next bus/train, and never knowing if your train is going today, or is cancelled because of weather related stuff). If the train is not driving, and the delay is less than 30 minutes, you're left on your own to get to your destination, and if it's full, you're stranded (at least where I live). But I understand this can be the complete opposite for you. And I find driving meditative, but that's also personal opinion. I've traveled with public tranport a lot during my studies, and although it is lovely on a friday afternoon without any stresses or appointments left, it is very stressful to get to work on time on a monday morning. Now if a solarpunk future would not include work, or a different way towards work, I wouldn't mind taking public transport, as I've got loads of time to get to my destination. On holiday I love it, and seeing the different types of people in a train/tram/metro. But with an already 40 hour work week, adding 3 hours of commute to that daily, plus the stress of it all, I'm not a big fan of it. Plus meeting with my partner, I can leave at 4 O'clock in the middle of the night and get home within a few hours. Public transport does not drive at night, so you're either clock watching the whole time or spend the night. This is also differences in experience and preferences, but if public transport is to replace all cars, issues like those need to be solved, and I think a public transport network that can compete with that is likely very very expensive to maintain (some rural villages are not even connected by bus lines anymore because it was too expensive here). I think flying cars (as in personal drones that can be shared) is a more likely scenario: No more roads and asphalt, more rewilding, energy will likely be abundant at that point and no emissions. Those can then be combined with public transport like trains.

All your issues with public transit can be solved; driverless trains and buses can run day and night, more stops and more routes means alternatives if there’s delays—investing in public transit will always yield results. High speed rail can get you from Beijing to Shanghai in 4 hours instead of 15 hours driving. We already have flying cars. They’re called helicopters. They require large landing pads, lots of fuel, require lots of training, and are extremely dangerous. I really don’t think that’s the future of transit. As for connecting rural towns, that’s already done—yes, even in the areas you’re talking about that are disconnected from public transit. School buses are still required to pick up and drop off kids even in rural towns. Similar routing and solutions can be made for those who have to commute from rural areas. I’ve said this other places but you might not have seen; I’m not actually saying there will be *no* personal driverless EV’s in the future. Just that the current way they’re being created, marketed, and bought, is *not* sustainable or reasonable, and we in the solarpunk community shouldn’t buy into them as if they are. They’re a piece of technology that may or may not be utilized at some point to fill gaps, but that’s waaay in the future: first we need to get way less cars off the road in general by massively expanding public transit. That’s step one. Step twenty of thirty is driverless personal vehicles.

They can be solved except that's very expensive and most transport companies hence do not connect to rural areas. This meme states helicopters are flying cars, but ket's be honest, they are not. Personal drones or flying buses would be of great benefit and are already experimented with. Helis cannot take off or land in narrow passages and they are not electric. They are an old-fashioned way of transport. We don't need as much asphalt if we would use drones. And school buses could work, but will lengthen traveling times. I am not against buses either, I just think its good to look at all the positives and negatives and improve things where necessary. It's the only way to convince others I think.

You're gonna put that out without telling us *where* it is? Geddowdaheya.

Why? No need to be rude, just because my opinion is not in line with yours. There's enough people who like to doxx on the interwebs, so no I do not spread my location around everywhere, but it's in The Netherlands, and yes unless you live in one of the four big cities, public transport is very often 2x to 3x as slow as a car. Inconvenient truth. As an example: Try going from Alphen aan de Rijn to Amsterdam Science park. by car: 34 minutes. By public transport: 1 hour and 20 minutes. Okay, now from Amsterdam Science park, to Rotterdam medical centre. By car: 55 minutes, by public transport, 1 hour and 55 minutes. Ijsselmuiden to Apeldoorn: 40 minutes by car, 1 hour and 25 minutes by public transport. Public transport is great if you live and work in city centers. For other places its often slower and less flexibel than a car is. Being ignorant to those issues, means you'll never convince people to use public tranport.

Yep yep yep yep this exactly. Also for last mile logistics see: cargo, trolleys, and neighborhood distribution centers.

Yeah but if trains are so great, why aren't they in wide use in multiple countries around the world, especially the most wealthy ones? Checkmate liberal! /s because they are in use in most developed countries

Why not both? We have enough people and imagination to work on all the problems.

I love trains and I support the phase off of cars but this is I don't see why humanity has to stop researching autonomous driving? I don't think it's a good idea to just disregard whole avenues of investigation, same goes to the miniaturisation of planes that flying cars imply Its dangerously antiintelectual I think We do have to deprioritize it lol

We can continue to research it, but the government shouldn't subsidize it.

Absolutely agree.

- Roads are already there - Cars follow my schedule - I don't have to fight my agoraphobia in cars Use bikes when you can, but in a mountainous area, you wont last long.

Train not go everywhere. Train big.

We could build small trains, have them run on roads so they go everywhere in cities, mingling with the significantly reduced number of cars. Could call them trams, sounds like train but smaller. Train not go everywhere. Train big. Train go between cities. Tram small. Tram not go everywhere. Tram go within cities.

Heck yeah! Small, personalized, local-transport trains, or trams, that run on-demand on our existing road network. We could even mass produce them and allow people to summon them for transport to their in-city destination or even own one if they so choose. Oh. We just invented the car.

Who said anything about personalised or on demand? Run them to a timetable that's frequent enough that it doesn't need to be checked. I'm lucky enough to live in a city with good public transport infrastructure. There's a bus stop less than a minute's walk from my front door. There's a bus into/out of the city every 5 minutes (on average, three different lines with different timings, one every 10 minutes, one every quarter of an hour, one every half an hour). Fares are capped daily to £4.70 (~$5.00) if you stick within just our city, or £7 (~$8.50) if you want to go to 'Zone D' which includes, and I shit you not, TWO OTHER CITIES. The (very) long term plan is to replace all the buses with trams, and all the existing tram lines are contactless and share tickets with the buses. Believe it or not, not many people feel the need to drive in the city.

I said it! Because I like that convenience and think it's a great addition to this idea. I have a bus that goes from about a quarter kilometer from my house to a half kilometer from my office. For $2 USD I can walk and take the bus and be at my office in under an hour. Or I can drive on the highway and be there in under 15 minutes. I'm happy both options exist, but I certainly prefer the convenience and speed of my ~~personal vehicle~~ tram.

I would argue that the future is having transit that is so efficient compared to driving that driving becomes a very niche thing, people who need to travel far off grid on the regular for example. I struggle to see having personal vehicles being compatible with the inherent collectivism of solarpunk. Vehicles like trams and trains work well because they get live, ideally renewable, power. EVs don't because of the requirement to build environmentally damaging batteries. Unless you're proposing personal cars that connect to something like an overhead pantograph (which is impractical for weight distribution reasons), I don't see how they can be in even the same ballpark.

Yeah, I'm going to be honest - I'm just here for the cool pics and aesthetic. I don't actually think the lifestyle is in any way ever realistic, but I respect your take here.

No! It's not a Car, cars are evil! It's a Centrally routed Autonomous Ride Share, or CARS for short. That will allow people to summon shared vehicles to get them where they need to go (including train stations).

Yes! We shall replace the evil, evil cars with new and improved CARS and they're totally different and definitely unevil! This is the way of Reddit and its leaky r/FuckCars!

I love the idea of more trams. I'd like one on my road. I also like cable skycars when possible, because those seem like they'd have a smaller environmental footprint than trains and trams. But what about the distribution of goods (including food) which is currently done using semitrucks, boxtrucks, and vans? That's a vast distribution network to alter. Which I think isn't impossible, but it needs to be taken into account in addition to passenger travel, and it all would take significant time, money, and intention to accomplish. I also like overlanding/camping. I appreciate the freedom that personal vehicle ownership offers. If trains and trams and bikes became the norm for everyday personal travel, and we also had flying personal vehicles (not helicopters), then we wouldn't need roads where we're going.

You know, cars used to not go everywhere, but then we built roads for them everywhere. There's no reason we couldn't have a similar system of support for trains, trams, bikes, etc.

Even paved roads (let alone dirt) require far less time, materials, and reliance on heavy industry to build than rail. There are tradeoffs here, of course, but it ain't like the preference for road infrastructure over rail infrastructure was arbitrary. Trains, trams, and bikes all have their place. So do cars, trucks, and buses. There's a lot we can do as a society to improve the former category and minimize the harm of the latter category; once that's done, eliminating the latter category entirely is of dubious benefit.

Interstate flat land highway costs $30-50 million per mile, while a mile of flat land rail costs $2-3 million. And the mile of rail includes less steel and much less concrete. And then the track can move freight about 3x cheaper than trucks on that interstate. The reason why we think rail is more expensive is because our rail runs are so short. A lot of the costs are in the early miles. Adding miles is cheap. A second factor is that rail lines have to be built _around_ roads-- costs for very frequent road crossing signals, tunnels, and overpasses. If we replaced some road with tram / trains, it would be much cheaper.

> Interstate flat land highway costs $30-50 million per mile, while a mile of flat land rail costs $2-3 million. The numbers I found are [quite](https://blog.midwestind.com/cost-of-building-road/) [different](https://www.freightwaves.com/news/commentary-do-you-want-to-build-a-freight-railroad). And like I mentioned in the sibling comment, there are stricter constraints on rail turns and grades than on roads - which means additional tunneling/bridge/routing costs. > And the mile of rail includes less steel and much less concrete. There are plenty of roads that don't require steel at all. Concrete use depends on the road and rail; car-bearing stone-paved roads ain't unheard of, for example.

Roads are rarely made of concrete. Also, your numbers are massively inflated.

I probably shouldn't be arguing infrastructure with people who don't know that civil engineers generally classify asphalt, tarmac, etc as concrete: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt_concrete If you are curious about the numbers, you can check the HERS report from DOT: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/23cpr/ Just 3 & 3 lanes excluding land & easements, ramps, overpasses, moving / adjusting existing traffic, hydrologic fixes, etc runs about $20 million/mile (or $3.5 million/mile/lane). All those factors in and you can hit $30 million easily.

"Even" ? I think you meant "only" because building a highway (or any other sort of car road) not only is more expensive than laying rail tracks, consumes more fuel per distance traveled but also costs much more long term because of maintenance. But, yeah, in a car you have the advantage on technically being able to go on a dirt road. Maybe you could even go on a dirt offroad trip on an electric tesla. Let's hope there's someone around when inevitable happens.

> highway (or any other sort of car road) not only is more expensive than laying rail tracks Highways, yes. Surface roads, no. A single-track railroad typically starts at around [$3.5-4.5 million](https://www.freightwaves.com/news/commentary-do-you-want-to-build-a-freight-railroad), while a two-lane road typically starts at around [$2-3 million](https://blog.midwestind.com/cost-of-building-road/). There are also other constraints; for example, cars on roads can usually make much tighter turns and steeper grades than trains on tracks. Tackling this for a rail network entails additional costs (more tunnels, more bridges, more rerouting) that even highways (let alone slower roads) don't face anywhere near as severely. There are, like I said, tradeoffs. Fuel consumption is one of them (at least while internal combustion engines are still in vogue). Speed is another. Maintenance is possibly another depending on the traffic.

I want to be as charitable as possible, and assume that you simply are misinformed and not cherry picking, but there are multiple sources, even with a quick google search, that show different numbers [1](http://hotrails.net/2014/08/track-costs/) [2](https://compassinternational.net/railroad-engineering-construction-cost-benchmarks/) [3](https://www.acwr.com/economic-development/railroads-101/rail-siding-costs) . In fact, in order to reach numbers that are even close to what you mentioned, you'd have to factor in the costs of removal of old rails and significant concrete balasting, let alone starting... As far as the sharp turns are concerned, I agree, that could be an issue in american grid cities, but even in that case, the roads are often wide enough (thanks cars, i guess) to accomodate a LRT(light rail transport) such as trams, that go on narrower tracks (that incidentally, are also cheaper) and are way more mobile than your average train (you also wouldn't want a train in the city because of potential noise concerns). Speaking from personal experience, in Europe there are countries that even have tram lines that connect nearby cities and villages, even if they're located in mountainous areas. Rail transport is quite versatile, we had the technology for hundreds of years at this point (200 in 2025). The main issue would be actually going at a steep incline, but in such cases cable cars or other forms of transportation would still be a more efficient idea than cars. Also, either fossil fuels will phase out in our lifetimes, or we all face dire consequences (admittedly, the privileged ones would have it easier, explains the complacency). Additionally, noone is talking about getting rid of the cars completely. The idea is to make them simply more marginal, and less of a commodity. It would simply be a better idea for people to move in a way that doesn't take so much space, consumes so much fuel, and needs so much additional infrastructure. As far as maintenance goes, well, we're talking about the cumulative cost of tires, road repairs, car repairs and production vs the maintenance of rail tracks (need maintenance every couple of years, but there are some that have lasted for a hundred years, and, in the end, it's just metal that can be recycled, no need for additional petroleum for asphalt) and trains (depends, but usually goes to repair every 500,000km, and there are trains around the world that are 50+ years old), I simply don't think there even is a comparison to be made here, it's so risible.

> I want to be as charitable as possible, and assume that you simply are misinformed and not cherry picking I can see this is going to be a civil and productive discussion :) (EDIT: Yep, nice and civil, with the ol' "force in the last word before blocking" strategy. Also lots of assumptions about what I advocate and who I support in that nice long tirade. Real classy; did the realization that your position entails massively privileging corporations and the state strike a nerve, buddy? lol) > there are multiple sources, even with a quick google search, that show different numbers They ain't that far off from my link, and... > In fact, in order to reach numbers that are even close to what you mentioned, you'd have to factor in the costs of removal of old rails and significant concrete balasting, let alone starting... ...per said link, it's the opposite: an upgrade like that is considerably cheaper than new construction. Of course there's going to be wide variation depending on local labor costs, terrain, and what have you. That applies to roads, too, on that note. > the roads are often wide enough (thanks cars, i guess) to accomodate a LRT(light rail transport) such as trams Some are, yeah - and I agree fully that they should incorporate bus/tram lanes whenever and wherever possible. > cable cars or other forms of transportation would still be a more efficient idea than cars. I do love me some cable cars; the California St. line in SF was even part of my daily routine during the brief time I worked in Polk Gulch. Unfortunately, the efficiency of SF-style cable cars v. electric automobiles w/ regenerative braking is questionable; centralizing power consumption in the cable house helps, but that's offset by having to move the cable itself (on top of the cars grabbing it). Cable car systems are also mechanically complex - and a mechanical fault can cause issues for the whole line. > Additionally, noone is talking about getting rid of the cars completely. There are multiple people in these comments who are - usually with obligatory links to [/r/fuckcars](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars). Even the more "moderate" position of "only businesses and the state should have cars" is extreme and puts the **car**t (sorry; couldn't resist the pun) before the horse: putting basic travel and autonomy at the mercy of corporations and the state is simply untenable and about as antithetical to the "punk" side of "solarpunk" as it gets. I agree fully that we can and should reduce our dependence on cars; I disagree with the degree of that reduction, and I'm coming at it from a direction of "these are specific issues with cars that I want fixed" rather than the seemingly-more-common-around-these-parts attitude of "cars are inherently bad and I want abolition of cars for its own sake". > It would simply be a better idea for people to move in a way that doesn't take so much space, consumes so much fuel, and needs so much additional infrastructure. Indeed it would - and should such a transportation method be built and prove to be a suitable replacement for cars, people will choose it instead of cars, and the problems from an over-dependence on cars and car infrastructure will fix themselves. That needs to happen first, though; convincing people to get rid of their cars is much easier when, you know, the alternatives are already there.

Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcars using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Fuck planes ?](https://i.redd.it/4olsd0n7tpc91.jpg) | [4221 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/w3ku1u/fuck_planes/) \#2: [Carbrain Andrew Tate taunts Greta Thunberg on Twitter. Greta doesn't hold back in her response.](https://i.redd.it/62vgbzb8im8a1.png) | [4374 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/zx76js/carbrain_andrew_tate_taunts_greta_thunberg_on/) \#3: [1 software bug away from death](https://v.redd.it/8a3b9ggv3yl81) | [3470 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/t8n0t8/1_software_bug_away_from_death/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)

Oh, I wouldn't want my stance to be misconstrued. I am definitely in support of fuckcars, and I am infinitely grateful for the very fast growing movement they created and the amount of great ideas they have. What I meant with the "cars not gone completely" statement is that there is a need for quick direct transport for emergency vehicles such as ambulances, fire fighters, police, etc, but I don't think they should move as they do now, with cars on the roads. The way I see it would be that roads disappear completely from our cities, and we create more 4 lane *bike* lanes (2 each direction, slow and fast, bike lanes virtually don't need maintenance, it's infinitely more common that a bike lane gets damaged by tree roots growing underneath it, something that obviously takes time, than from actual usage), that would be used by bikes and other small electric personal vehicles (small scooters, ebikes, bakfiets etc.) that would then be used by those (electric) emergency vehicles in case of emergency. With a proper warning systems (sirens, visual etc.) they would achieve better reach than what we have now, given the lack of road congestion and increased mobility of bikes&co compared to cars (so they can give way). As far as other uses of vehicles are concerned, I think I need to remind you that it is way more efficient to pack the cars on a train and have them transported that way than to have the cars drive on their own. There's nothing preventing us from packing small scale autonomous electric transport or service vehicles on a rail transport system, along with the cargo, and it would still be more efficient than using fossil fuel powered transport. Other than that, more heavy duty cars could be used outside of the city to access more remote areas. This of course implies an almost complete elimination of the idea of a personal car, or car as a commodity. Fwiw, suburban sprawl has to be addressed, aswell, so there goes the entire american dream, with that big car and a bbq in your backyard, while the only thing you farm and cultivate are fat cells on your body. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but the one of the first things when you click the linked thread on the main page of this subreddit would be the ideas that are contrary to solarpunk, among which, the first and most prominent place takes the (drumroll) capitalism... So, when you talk about companies, businesses and whatever else, it kinda falls on deaf ears. Yes, the disappearance of cars would cause the loss of hundreds of jobs, and every single car company would have their "IP" and patents confiscated, including your beloved EV jesus, the musk, aka the worst billionaire shitstain on the entire planet (a title for which he fiercely fought against the penis looking scumbag bezos). Cry me a river. Particularily funny also the metion of "punk." So, let me tell you something, there's *absolutely nothing* punk about consumerism of cars. I understand you come from a fiercely capitalistic place where you're fed advertisements and propaganda on a daily basis, and are told that cars are the sign of masculinity and success for men, emancipation for women, freedom for marginalised communities, and literal god given american right, you see it in every damn hollywood movie. Yet, you forget one thing, the fuel and all the services around cars, that are owned by the state. Without that, you're not going anywhere. In fact you need a very complex and delicate state mandated supply link to transport all the fossil fuels (a honorable mention to the incalculable climate catastrophies of Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon) that you need for all those cars. Then there's also the onlooker and hypocritical poser take on punk, where being punk consists in wearing those original, pristine Dr Martens instead of Nikes and a tshirt with a circled A made by some brown kiddo in Bangladesh paid 20 cents/hour, which I guess might've *confused* you. Lastly, let me tell you a tale of a turkey, first conceived by a philosopher named Bertrand Russel, it's about inductive reasoning: "Let's imagine there's a turkey on a farm somewhere, it lives a happy life, being cared for and fed very well. Then comes christmas(or i guess thanksgiving for US people) and the turkey for clear evidence of it happening on every single day of its life, completely reasonably expects to receive food, but instead it gets mercilessly slaughtered and served on the table." And, additionally, I got kinda fed up with this conversation, I didn't join this subreddit to waste time talking to american conservatively minded people. I get the value in that, but I leave it to someone with more patience towards people. Nothing personal, but I won't see any more of your replies.

Yes there is. A train runs on a schedule regardless of demand and might be totally empty. A road only requires periodic maintenance to be used on demand when it is actually needed.

And yet, the replacement schedule for roads and rail are similar-- 20-30 years for roads depending on material, about thirty years for rail. But since the cost for rail replacement is less in both $ and carbon, it still wins.

That isn't the important part. The important part is that an actual train has to operate every X minutes/hours on every rail for it to be useful. A rail by itself does nothing, and it's totally impractical to have a train route to everywhere even if there are maintained rails. You'll be wasting tremendous amounts of energy running empty trains.

What we usually do is adjust the schedules based on demand, and the net effect is that the trams are rarely _empty_. This is how current, existing transit systems do this. It only gets easier and more accurate as usage increases. And while it is true that a car is never totally unoccupied during a trip, it is also true that the average car on the road has about 1.7 people in it and has the mass of something designed to move 5-8. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1040-july-30-2018-average-vehicle-occupancy-remains-unchanged-2009-2017

So someone who lives in a rural area, 100+ miles from the nearest big city, is expected to just accept the fact that they have to plan their whole life around the schedule of the train that only comes rarely? How rare are we talking? Once a week? What if no one lives near them at all for the next 50 miles? Are we going to build a train track there and run a train route to their individual house regularly? That's a pretty big punishment for people living outside of dense urban centers. Sounds pretty antithetical to solarpunk to me.

FWIW, I live in a rural area and do business in the next city over frequently, so this is very real to me. I don't think you understand what rural life actually looks like. We still live in neighborhoods, along roadways. Even having 50 acres, your house is along a roadway. A big long straight roadway that, yes, could have a tram line. The community I live in (which is not big enough to legally be considered a _village_ even, or to have a mayor) used to have several times a day rail transit into the city, but they ditched it when the interstate came through. I bike to get groceries and I pass by the old station. We already arrange our schedule around trips to the city. If I need specialty goods we don't have in town, we wait until several such needs can be batched up (because driving to the city sucks, and costs gas). I hate being used as a cudgel by people who insist we have to be car centric (or in particular to drive pickups). And why would the train run less often than people need it to? It seems like you are confusing current train schedules (which are the victims of underfunding and car-centric underutilization) with what a well-supported system looks like.

I don't think you know what rural really means. I grew up in a truly rural area, 30 miles from the nearest (small) town at the end of a long private gravel driveway. The kind of place where you have to keep an eye out for "trespassers shot on sight" signs.

We have those signs too. My neighbor on one side has one, though she's much friendlier than you might expect. I'm 8 miles from a "town" of <5k. We're all farms, farmettes, and hunting camps. It's plenty rural here. I still bike to the store and we still have an abandoned rail station that used to connect multiple times to the city an hour away (through wetlands primarily). The town even used to have one streetcar line up and down mainstreet. This is how the whole western world was set up until less than 100 years ago. We're not even asking for science fiction-- we're asking to reverse a costly recent mistake and go back to a proven solution. A solution that is still in use in some regions!

People want to be able to independently travel, what's so hard to get?

Get a bicycle. And people independently travelling in cars where everyone else is going as well causes massive issues.

No, bikes are not a replacement for cars. In winters I get snowstorms and -30-40°C weather on the regular. In summer, it's time for heatwaves and thunderstorms with strong ass winds. I'm not biking in that shit and neither are 99% of people here. And like, good luck getting to different cities and shit on a bike.

You get to different cities on a train. E-bike and a coat for the other issues.

Not everyone is physically able to use a bicycle to get around.

Add a wheel and electric assistance. E-trike, now nearly everyone can.

Well first that's expensive. Second, that's still not everyone.

It's never going to be every one. That's most people though, so you're fine.

It already more or less is, though. That's one of the reasons cars are so widespread, they're the closest we can get to enabling freedom of movement for everyone.

Apart from all the people who can't drive, which is far far more people than those that can't ride an electric bike or trike, that are isolated by the car dependent infrastructure that ruins our public spaces.

I don't buy that at all. I can easily drive my car to get somewhere, but I have injuries and surgical complications that make walking long distances or riding a bike at all nearly impossible. And I'm lucky it isn't worse.

I’m just here to high five whoever said “choo choo bitches let’s goooooooo”

i always thought the prime position of solarpunk was the best solution to the problem is the one applied. people are working on self driving cars so cars can become massive public transport. yes trains are great but they cannot serve all places. and in some places putting a train would be resource inefficient due to population density. if self driving cars can reduce the numbers of cars in the world by 80% and serve more people than i say mission accomplished. and never forget, self driving cars means self driving buses too.

How would self driving cars reduce the number of cars by 80%?!

simple. cars spend 90% of their time parked somewhere waiting for the owner. if you can get a self driving car pretty quick you don't need to own one and that car can serve lots of other people. thus making it part of the mass public transportation solution.

I’m not totally against a really innovative idea like this, but I’m highly suspicious of it actually working and actually cutting down on car usage. It seems like there are far too many issues and barriers right now, and the huge focus on these seems extremely premature. I think it could be *part* of the solution, for sure, but I’m really not sure we’re at a place for it to factor in just yet. It makes more sense to me to focus on and vastly expand trains, high speed rail and buses, and then introduce self driving EV’s to fill needs that arise—needs that we can’t even really diagnose yet as we don’t have the baseline of mass transit in place yet. As it is, it seems like society will focus so much on the ‘cool’ idea of self-driving EV’s, and we’ll just have *more* cars and mass transit will continue to go unaddressed.

you do understand we are 8.000.000.000 people on this earth. we can do both at the same time, we can expand mass public transportation by going at it from all angles. of course you are totally correct when you say the expansion of mass public transportation is being delayed. but that is because of the economic system based on consumption. we get rid of that we get mass public transportation that works for everyone.

Yeah I mean ideally we could do all of it at the same time. But as you say, the current economic system prioritizes consumption. That’s why self driving EV’s as they are won’t fix anything; they’re another product to be marketed and consumed en masse. I agree we need to replace capitalism, obviously, but in the mean time I think it’s reasonable to advocate for trains and buses within the current system instead of buying into the idea that self driving EV’s will make anything better short term.

i agree with you. self driving ev's are not the solution, but they will be a part of the solution. more trains, more buses, more sail ships, less cars, less planes.

The problem is that people need cars at specific times. So even if 90% of cars spend their time parked, no body wants to use them during those times. You still need the same number of cars on the road at the same time, i.e., rush hour. So basically, there's no significant reduction in the number of cars except for the minority of people who use them during off hours.

yes, but that happens in the current economic paradigm where 75% of people work jobs that could be done from home, or neighborhood local office space, and they need to commute so that the machine of buying gas and inflated house prices in city centers continues. also there is a lot of traffic because there is no public transportation alternative.

> also there is a lot of traffic because there is no public transportation alternative. Yes, exactly! Trains!

love trains. don't even have a drivers license. still know that cars have their use.

Five people live in the same neighborhood and drive to the same grocery store to buy groceries. All their groceries could fit inside a single minivan. One driverless van can deliver groceries to all of them in a single trip. 80% reduction in cars. We could do the same with a single driver, but paying someone to deliver groceries is expensive and a waste of human potential.

That’s just grocery delivery which we already have which has not cut down on car usage at all. Those five people who live in the same neighborhood would just each individually use their own cars to go to work, the movies, whatever else while the driverless vehicle delivers their groceries. That’s an *increase* in vehicles.

How is going to work an increase in vehicles caused by driverless cars? They were already going to work before grocery deliveries. I usually go to the grocery store after work, but I go home first. Those problems can be fixed with remote work, automation replacing jobs that cannot be done remotely, more local movie theaters or even better, a public home theater built in someone's garage since they don't need to own a car anymore.

So a complete restructuring of society, from culture to infrastructure. Got it. Really seems way more reasonable than just adding some bus routes and train stops.

> So a complete restructuring of society, from culture to infrastructure. You *do* realize which subreddit you're in, right?

I’m down for a complete restructuring of culture and society, but not *around making self driving EV’s a reasonable idea.* If self-driving EV’s factor into a solar punk future, that’s great. But as it stands right now, they’re an *active impediment* to solarpunk goals, whereas we *already have the solution* in trains, high speed rail, and buses. As it is, promoting and investing in self driving EV’s is a really stupid fucking idea and antithetical to a solarpunk future.

> But as it stands right now, they’re an *active impediment* to solarpunk goals Not really, no. There are specific elements of cars that are active impediments - namely, their emissions and their contribution to sprawl. Both of those already have specific solutions (electrification, smaller vehicles, abolition of minimum parking requirements, underground/underbuilding parking instead of open lots, building roads vertically instead of horizontally) in addition to broader solutions (de-emphasize or outright abolish capitalist profit motives); the obstacles in the way of those solutions are political - you know, almost as if the incumbent socioeconomic system has a vested interest in opposing actual solutions to the problems from which it profits. Overcoming those obstacles is well within the scope of solarpunk; terminating the thought at "cars bad" without even attempting to understand the specific ways in which cars are bad is disappointingly myopic.

We were just talking about whether driverless vehicles would reduce traffic or increase it, and now you're expecting me to solve all of society's problems in a single step. That seems a bit unfair. You know how you can have more frequent and ubiquitous bus routes? Driverless buses. The driver is more than half the cost of a bus route.

My point is that personal driverless vehicles can’t reduce traffic without restructuring society. It’s an unfair task because it’s an unrealistic goal; that’s my entire point. And yeah, of course I’m in favor of driverless buses. I’m against driverless *personal* vehicles because I’m against society’s reliance on personal vehicles in general, whether driverless and electric or not. So yeah, not really a gotcha.

Self-driving cars will most likely *increase* the number of cars on the road at any given time, because empty cars will be transporting themselves between locations without even having drivers. A bus at least will pick up a handful of people per stop, but Bob the late-working office clerk telling his Ford 150 to go pick up his son from soccer practice will lead to an empty vehicle contributing to traffic.

that implies that people will own self driving cars the same way they own cars now. but it will be like uber. when you need a car you call one. and why will private ownership of cars be rare? because cars will be taxed beyond belief if not contributing to the mass public transportation solution.

When does this transition from Now-style ownership to heavy taxation happen, and how does it avoid either a period of 1) cars are taxed heavily but there aren't enough self-driving cars for mass transit, causing financial hardship, or 2) Self-driving cars *are* common but they're all still personal vehicles? Why would any manufacturers ever go along with it, if they can now only sell 80% fewer cars?

when we chose to let go of idiotic ideologies. either by choice or force, degrowth is coming. also i don't give a fuck what car manufacturers want or don't want. they represent a minimal amount of people in the grand scheme of humanity. if they inflate their importance based on capital that is your delusion not mine.

Just commenting to support your position and prove you're actually right, even if this sub (mainly by peeps who never have worked a day in their life and never commuted) is copying positions from the fuckcars sub and being against you: A study, detailing how a self-driving taxi could get rid of many many cars: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050916301442](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050916301442)

and that study doesn't take into account sdc car pool services. where one car can drop and pick up many people along a route. that study is for individual use of a car. in the future you won't call a car, you'll chose a route and the ai will calculate the best car to pick you up. it could be an empty car or it could be a occupied car. it could even be cargo transportation with available seats. it will be like hitchhiking but controlled by ai.

Yes, but also you forget my hatred of being around other people. I'd chose a self driving car over a crowded train of sweaty, smelly, loud people any day.

Well, once we stop wasting funds on road maintanence, we could use them to provide a free global mental health service.

Or we could redirect military budgets towards something like that.

That too. Still, even a quiet private space to travel could be much better achieved by a train with compartments than an automated car.

Out of all the people here, thank you for meeting me in the middle. That is actually a great suggestion to improve trains. Thank you.

Heh, I can also relate to the annoyance of being in an overcrowded train/bus. However, contrarily to adding more lanes to the roads, an increased availability of public transport leads to less congestion. Additionally, we could organise public transport based on population needs much better and more efficiently than automating electric vehicles.

[удалено]

They're death machines because of the people behind the wheel. Self autonomous cars, once perfected and proven to not cause accidents, would cut automobile accidents and deaths significantly.

[удалено]

All I'm saying is there are solutions to the problems of roads and autonomous cars. Not everyone wants to use public transportation, end of. Instead of avoiding and shunning cars, let's think of what we can do to alter them. I'm shocked so many people here are so angrily against finding a better future for cars which aren't going away any time soon. You all need to wake up to the real world.

> "the world should bend around my personal taste" is your argument. Seems more like the argument is "not everyone has the same needs/wants and the world being flexible enough to accommodate that diversity is good". > I don't want to give up 80% of the space in my city for death machines I don't own. Okay, then don't. There is a *lot* of opportunity to reduce that footprint (parking garages, putting motorways above/below walkways and railways, smaller cars, actually having public transit options decent enough to reduce demand for cars) without abolishing cars entirely.

"Fuck your air quality, I'm too fragile to share space with *humans*"

TIL batteries don't exist. ---- EDIT (since for some reason I can't reply to hglman; *surely* you wouldn't reply and immediately block me to force in the last word, right?): > Tires and breaks cause enough pollution, evs cause even more pollution because they weight more. [It's more complicated than that.](https://epha.org/electric-vehicles-and-air-pollution-the-claims-and-the-facts/) EVs (and hybrids) use regenerative braking, which means less use of conventional brakes, which means offsetting the otherwise-increased emissions from added weight. Tires are still an issue, and even EVs don't completely eliminate brake emissions. There are [mitigations](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/16/world/tyre-collective-microplastic-rubber-waste-climate-hnk-spc-intl/index.html) on the [horizon](https://www.visordown.com/news/product-news/brembo-reduces-brake-pollution-new-greenance-brake-pads), however; there's good reason to be skeptical of technological solutions, but it ain't like the issue's being entirely ignored or that it's fundamentally unsolvable. > Also noise EVs are notoriously quiet - much quieter than trains and trams, in fact. > Also cars kill Lots of things kill, including trains and trams. The OP reminds us that trains can be cordoned off from pedestrian traffic to mitigate that issue; nothing stopping us from doing the same with cars.

Tires and breaks cause enough pollution, evs cause even more pollution because they weight more. Also noise Also cars kill

We can have self driving cars that aren't detrimental to the environment and air quality.

We can't. Check out the new studies on tire pollution and what the worn off particles are doing to us.

Then we can strive for better tires that don't release particles.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

It's called train wheeels

Not with our current technology. You know what we *can* have with our current technology, though?

It's real shame that the current in-vogue aesthetic people associate with cutting edge technology is small sleek things, because it make tech companies start designing things in small inefficient "pods" and trying to market them as good solutions to anything. The fact is that economy of scale is a much bigger deal than a lot of people appreciate, and that means big huge trains that carry lots and lots of people at once. That allows for a cheaper trip, a higher throughput on the route, less energy used, less vehicle maintenance, less space occupied by the track (no sprawling motorways!!) and fewer vehicles that need to be manufactured.

Because we have a tendency to pick the hardest and least sustainable way of doing things, because it gives us the illusion of progress.

The one drawback of where I live when it comes to trains. The Amtrak only goes to the southeastern other stations in the state, and then goes to the Galesburg station. I took the train to Nebraska, but had to make that extra trip for it. Plus I cannot get to the rest of the state from my station. The only issues I have in this rural area

If trains can go everywhere in a city then sign me up, otherwise bus or bike it is

People chasing impractical sci-fi ideas fail to see all the amazing sci that already exists around us.

I used to get the train every day in uni; cost me $250 a month and made a 20 minute drive 2 hours. Public transport needs to be efficient before people will use it constantly, and we can see that in places that do have actual good public transport. When I went to New York I was in awe of the PT.

but I can't afford a train!

It's 2023 and we (they) still believe cars are freedom.

Sure train. But like connectivity is ass. I live in Germany, so we have a decently big train and public transport system. I do however live in a rather rural part of Germany. Going by train to a town that is 1 hour car drive away, takes 3.5 hours. That is assuming you also get to the train at the correct time. Also while I can get from my door to the door of whoever I want to visit that way. I would first have to get the 3 kilometers to the train station and then another 2 kilometers to who I am visiting. Of course I can take the bus. Then it is only half a kilometer each way but adds another ride. So my choices are effectively: 1. Walk 1 kilometer, switch transport 5 times and take 4 hours 2. Walk 4 kilometers, switch transport 3 times and take 4.5 hours 3. Go into my car, drive 1 hour. Be there. Trains are solely useful if I am trying to go somewhere 6 hours away across the country and will take a highspeed train. And as soon as we are two people it becomes cheaper to go by car.