• TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    I remember going to a job interview when I was younger. My dad dropped me off there on his way to work and then I took the bus home after my interview was done. It took my dad about 13 minutes to drive me to the interview and it took me TWO AND A HALF hours to take transit home. That includes bus travel time as well as time spent waiting for buses. I have also biked that route before and it takes about 25-30 minutes one-way.

    The North American approach (because Canada is guilty too) to transit is to just throw a bunch of busses at the problem and act like they’ve “solved traffic”. Meanwhile those buses are noisy, stinky, often unsafe things which spend most of their time stuck in traffic and are almost always late, if they even arrive at all. Most of the bus routes in my city stop at midnight so if you were out at the bar for the night and needed a way to get home then you better have funds for a cab or Uber or you’re going to be stranded. (something something car-centric cities encourage drunk driving deaths somethingsomething)

    Depending on the distance you need to travel - it’s often faster to just walk. That’s right, we have created a method of transportation that is actually slower than walking. And all the while our city planners, officials, and politicians pat themselves on the back for their “commitments to public transit”.

    And don’t even get me started on how the war on unhoused people has lead to almost all bus stops being uncovered and with no seating. Raining? Fuck you! Snowing? Fuck you! 35c+ outside? Fuck you! Disabilities? Fuck you! What few covered stops I have seen usually have glass roofs so the sun still cooks you under them.

    Maybe more people would use this method of transportation if it literally wasn’t intentionally made to be as miserable and useless as possible.

    • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I remember riding a bus downtown for the first time. A guy sneezing and wiping his nose helped me understand what bus I need to use. I’m grateful for his help but he sure did smell like bologna.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I very seriously tried to be a no car household, I got to one car and I just walked a mile to work, rain or shine.

      But my wife was a 6 minute drive from work, but due to criscrossing highways it was entirely unwalkable and like a 40 minute bus ride.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        Not too far from me there’s a family with three kids in the school literally across the street from their house. They take the bus to school. Literally directly across the street.

        Why? Some kid got killed there back in the 1980s. And instead of making it safe for children to walk to school they have them take the bus to cross the street.

        Why? Because that street is a state route, and doing anything to calm traffic is anathema to it being a “highway.”

        • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          We have an awful 5 lane road in town with school bus stops all along it. The limit is 60 km/h but the average speed is about 85. There is 1 speed camera right where the 60 zone begins and ive NEVER seen a real cop doing radar on the road. There are many signs asking people to slow down and stop for the bus but no real effort has been made. One kid did die and we just plaster his face all over town yet still just accept that everyone is doing 25+ over the limit.

          There are multiple solutions including using more speed cameras, running more radar enforcement in the area, redesigning the road, moving the bus stops to side streets that are safer to stop and cross on, but absolutely non of these have been tried or implemented. Hell the existing speed camera is vandalized so often I’d bet it costs more than in generates in tickets, people have thrown it in the lake multiple times (yet the city still insists on keeping the mailbox style instead of a pole mounted camera).

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          We live across the street plus a little bit from our kid’s elementary school. We don’t even get the option to use the bus. Either we pick up and drop off every day or he walks on his own. And he’s still little so realistically it’s we drive him or walk him.

          But at the crossing for the main street the school is on, there’s a police officer serving as crossing guard every single day at start & end of day. So maybe our district took the sensible approach?

    • fluckx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      I’m in a similar boat. 45m drive by car. 2h using PT. Including a 30 minute walk for the last bit to my office. This doesn’t include waiting for busses or trains.

      Realistically it’d be 2.5h without delays. And that’s just one way. After that I’m expected to work for 8h and do it again.

      So if i leave at 7am, +5h+8h +30minute lunch break I’d be home by …8.30pm?

      And that is hoping the connections line up after work… Cycling isn’t really an option as there’s no shower in the workplace. And knowing corps I’m pretty sure they won’t appreciate people charging their electric bike battery in the office for free.

      RIP work-life balance using PT. And I already feel like it’s shit.

      Though I do try to use the train when I can. Even though it ain’t cheap either…

      • abbadon420@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        I am so sorry. Here in the Netherlands it’s not super great, but I’m ashamed if I’d complain now. A one way trip takes me an hour by car, by train it takes only half an hour extra. The train on my line usually gets more than half an hour delay only once every two months or so. The car gets half an hour delay twice per day. Train delays mean I get to read more books. Car delays mean I get to stare at more brake lights and build up more anger and stress.

        • fluckx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          Best way I can think of to promote carpooling is kind of what colruyt tried.

          Employee bus that goes down the main highway ( Belgium ). It has WiFi and you csn keep working on your way home. Every minute worked counts.

          You’ll just need a bigger carpark by the highway. 30 minutes delay? It’s not lost time. Still want to use your car? Sure. But you’ll work longer and have to drive home afterwards.

          I am not a traffic expert. The approach might be flawed. But it seems like a step in the right direction.

          At least it’s better than complaining about overcrowded busses and trains who are delayed again. And while it might not solve the issue, If you can get a 10 people per bus. It should start adding up eventually. The incentive to take public transport doesn’t disappear with the disappearance of traffic jams. Its an alternative to sitting longer in the office and being home later.

          I think colruyt did something like this for a while? https://reset.vlaanderen/2017/09/01/kantoorbus/

          Maybe its something you can book a seat on and should be scheduled on a larger scale than just 1 company.

          One can dream I suppose. Hell will freeze over when most companies will “trust” their employees enough to work on the bus though.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      The North American approach (because Canada is guilty too) to transit is to just throw a bunch of busses at the problem and act like they’ve “solved traffic”.

      Nobody thinks they’re “solving traffic”. In most of North America, buses are seen as transportation for poor people. Cities feel like they need to supply them because poor people need to get to their jobs, but it doesn’t have to be a good solution.

      In Switzerland where they actually do try to solve traffic with buses, those buses have their own dedicated lanes, their own stop lights, etc. Plenty of rich people still drive because it’s a status symbol or something, but buses, trams and trains are the fastest way to get from A to B. Cars are forced to yield to bus traffic. The result is that buses are fast and predictable, so everybody’s happy to use them, which means they get increased investment, which leads to even better bus service, so even more people use them, etc.

      • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        My entire company of 150 people here in Switzerland in Zürich has 11 parking spaces, one is reserved for the CEO, who doesn’t even use it often, three are rented by other C-suite members, five are for visitors or the occasional internal reservation, and two hold our bike racks.

        But you really have to be masocistic to even want to drive in Zürich during the commuting times. Right in front of our office there is an train station for a local train line right under the river, and on the side of our block there is a tram station. Or you can walk to the main station in 10 minutes. I usually bike home though, it’s half an hour and at least somewhat counteracts my sedentary lifestyle.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          But you really have to be masocistic to even want to drive in Zürich during the commuting times.

          Yeah, and if you do, you’re going to be passed by buses, bikers, even pedestrians. I just love that Zurich buses pick up some passengers, go into their bus lanes, pass all the cars, then get their own light. Meanwhile the Mercedes is sitting at the red light just waiting.

    • IamAnonymous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Also trains are slow and it takes the same time as a bus/car and costs the price of an airline ticket. This is comparing Detroit to New York via bus, train and airplane.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        The Amtrak long distance lines are a disgrace, kept barely alive. I had a similar experience where my girlfriend at the time wanted to visit me from Albany to Boston but the train took an hour longer than greyhound. I’m not sure we should even count them as a transportation choice.

        Amtrak does run some lines where they can afford to upgrade them to “useful”, notably Acela. Travelling from Boston to NYC is fastest and most convenient by train, although weirdly enough flying might be the cheapest option if you include parking costs for the car option

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    This is the home of car culture and it’s the reason the climate change movement has seen such little traction. 80% of this problem could be solved by a decent intercity rail network combined with light rail and cycle paths in the densely populated areas. Sometimes a car is the only solution but everything looks like a nail when your only tool is a hammer.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    I have to drive 50 miles to work one way. Chartering a bus or a uber is just too expensive and i aint walkin it

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Alaska is a wild land of communities that shouldn’t be possible. For a lot of the state the lack of people commuting by car can be simply attributed to the sheer cost of importing a car (assuming there are roads year round to get it to where you are) See Whittier and Bethel for examples

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      false, it’s more accurate to say Suburbs don’t really exist in Alaska. Primarily because it still hasn’t really filled up the “urb” layer.

    • doctortran@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      That, or those people live in the place they work, or else only a few minutes away.

      • BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        I think you nailed it. The majority of the northern portion of alaska is going to be oil/gas workers, lumberjacks, and perhaps researchers and native tribes. All of those probably have company barracks, cabins, or if there is a ‘town’ it’s going to be a few hundred yards wide. For the towns, it’s due to the winter, when you almost need to be close to other people in case something goes wrong, because significant help is a long way away in distance and time.

  • Voyajer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    I assume carpooling would be blue? I’m surprised that is hidden under “other means”

    • BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      One, they are much better on gas use. So less energy in general to move them.

      Two, they are much lighter, which as we are discovering with electric vehicles, matters a great deal in how horrible the tire wear is (and remember that 28% of microplastics in the environment come from car tire degradation alone!).

      Three, for traffic purposes, they are much, much better. They are smaller, so recall that picture that floats around of how much space 100 passengers takes up. They aren’t near the train/bus level, but are closer to the bicycle portion of the picture than the cars. It becomes even better if they are scooters compared to motorcycles (scooters are generally even lighter and have smaller engines with better gas usage). I always hear the stat thrown around that if 25% of individuals switched to motorcycles, modern traffic jams in cities (in America, I guess, where I hear it uttered) would nearly disappear.

        • consumptionone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          How exactly does a motorcycle that gets 60 mpg (3.92 l/km) take more energy to move a single person that a car that gets 25 mpg (9.4 l/km)? Notice that almost nobody carpools in America, which is the subject of this post.

          Also note that almost all motorcycles sold worldwide comply with Euro 5 emissions standards.

          • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            Emissions systems. Do you realize just how toxic something without a catalytic converter is? Let alone one that doesn’t work for shit like the types installed on bikes.

            Also a car is probably FAR more efficient at burning fuel than a bike. The efficient burn lets out even less toxic gasses despite using 3x the fuel.

            Take the totally emissions free lawn mower market and scale down emissions a bit since bikes do have some emissions equipment and electronic fuel injection. But they really don’t have much, and they’re very often just removed/bypassed.

            https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/5/11/law-maintenance-and-climate-change

            • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              15 days ago

              Why the fuck would someone compare a shitass lawn mower to performance road hardware?

              On emissions, read and learn: https://www.motorcycle.com/features/what-you-need-to-know-about-euro-5-emission-standards-for-motorcycles.html

              Thermodynamically, your argument doesn’t make sense either as you are still injecting 3x or more waste heat into the atmosphere, nevermind the CO2 (which is a crazy thing to ignore in this discussion).

              The last part of your statement is entirely an opinion based in ignorance, people are generally not interested in dramatically altering the reliability of their machines, and manufacturers keep the cat separate from the muffler for bikes where the frame has room. Have you done your own moto maintenance? What bikes have you got?

              • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                15 days ago

                Why the fuck would someone compare a shitass lawn mower to performance road hardware?

                Because I didn’t feel like making that comment a copy paste of my other comment.

                CO2 is only a small part of the story

                https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/greenspace/story/2011-09-28/mythbusters-asks-are-motorcycles-greener-than-cars

                the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than the comparable decade car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide.

                So yeah. Not exactly great. And btw our option on those hydrocarbons have changed a LOT in the last 13 years when this was published. See the decline of diesels post dieselgate.

                … Did you even click your link? They didn’t even mention CO2.

                Greenhouse gasses are the primary issue. The waste heat you produce with a car is nothing compared to what the sun is pelting us with. It’s the greenhouse gasses that trap in the heat from the sun (and your engine). Even bothering to mention it is hilarious.

                I had to look it up because it’s not even something I bothered to consider. According to this calculator my car produces about 404,000/4.04 x 10^5 watt hours of heat going through 15 gallons/56 liters of gas. The solar constant aka energy entering our atmosphere is just over 1360 watts per square meter. In that same 6 hours the sun is gracing us with 8100 watt hours of energy, and in total 1.041 × 10^18. Or hell the energy just getting to the ground near me averages out to over 5kwh a square meter over a 24 hour period. Unless I’m road tripping my car absorbs more energy than its engine outputs in a given day.

                Engine waste heat is nothing.

                Also that’s just looking at global warming related things, there’s also there’s NOX and it’s extremely harmful to human health. Euro 5 standard rates both bikes and cars at 0.060 g/km. Cars obviously need a lot more oomf to get going, yet they still have the same maximum output.

                Have you done your own moto maintenance? What bikes have you got?

                It’s been a few years since I’ve owned a bike (mostly dirtbikes but some street). My last bike was a ~2011 Ninja 650. But I’ve worked on them since I was a kid up until maybe 5 years ago? I do however do all of the maintenance on all of my ICE (cars, mowers, scooter thing etc), and what I do care about is the emissions and their effects.

                • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 days ago

                  Well, fuckwit, good job on proving that you know how to multiply a couple of constants and volumes together, congrats!

                  Consider the amount of energy that goes into welding a large automobile frame, casting high carbon conrods and crankshafts, producing all the plastic that goes into the 3100lb clown tank dodge ram you drive since you’re no longer safe on two wheels.

                  Holistically, quite a lot less energy goes into production of a motorcycle, and furthermore is tremendously easier to recycle in comparison. The much lighter mass from a smaller frame means less tire particulate, less brake dust, and equally important, less time idling in traffic because of lane splitting.

                  Quality thinking in systems analysis is why engineers make money, versus fuckwits who merely multiply a few constants.

                  Fuel pump pressures need to creep up to afford DFI (direct fuel injection) which has made up a lot of modern ICE efficiency and emissions improvements. The real solution long-term is electric, but energy density in the batteries needs to creep up a bit, which I’m waiting for with Samsung’s new solid state batteries.

        • cron@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          Motorcycles use 50% less fuel than cars. And at least for the daily commute, both carry the same amount of people (one). Additionally, they need about 1/4 of parking space.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Climate impact is significantly less for motorcycle riders, that’s the only mitigation I can think of.

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        That’s hardly self evident.

        The map has no information to specify its intent or methodology. Without that, you can assign whatever meaning to it you like.

      • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        Motorcycles are one of the worst forms of transportation.

        1 rider, 1 engine often regulated well below what automotive emissions standards require.

        • huginn@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          My understanding is that motorcycles (especially modern motorcycles) produce significantly less CO2 equiv than modern cars - in no small part due to their ability to not get caught in traffic.

          Most commuters are 1 person per vehicle.

          • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            15 days ago

            That’s just not true though.

            Motorcycles do not have to meet the same stringent requirements as cars because they aren’t classified as cars.

            This holds true in most “western” nations.

            They’re allowed higher emissions and put out more emissions per person than cars do.

            You guys can downvote me all you want but 1 person in 1 car emits less emissions than 1 person on 1 motorcycle.

            This is NOT an argument for cars but an argument AGAINST a single user motorized transport.

            This doesn’t negate the argument against cars but it’s strange to see people arguing FOR another form of motorized transport rather than walkable cities OR mass public transportation.

            • Ioughttamow@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 days ago

              Can you link those findings? I find this hard to believe since cars are so much heavier than motorcycles. Maybe a full van, is better emissions per capita? But with a single user for a car I am skeptical but open to being shown to be wrong

              • huginn@feddit.it
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                15 days ago

                2022 numbers show motorcycles at 2/3rds the GHG emissions as cars.

                So 2 people in 1 car is better than 2 motorbikes but 1 motorbike is easily better than 1 car.

            • Ledivin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              15 days ago

              1 person in 1 car emits less emissions than 1 person on 1 motorcycle.

              [citation needed]

              Outlandish claims are fine, but you need to either substantiate them or stop complaining that people don’t believe your obviously-false bullshit.

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                15 days ago

                Wow, I didn’t realize my EV has a smaller carbon footprint than a bus!

                • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  15 days ago

                  That is cool but keep in mind that’s for a petrol bus I assume. It also doesn’t include cradle to grave co2 emissions (per person, cars use way more raw materials than buses). That’s also a good argument for motorcycles: from an environmental perspective they just use way less stuff

            • JayleneSlide@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 days ago

              You do know that almost all modern on-road motorcycles are CARB-compliant, right? Oh, but what about those small motorcycles? https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/us-motorcycles-emissions/ As of 2006, all Class I and II motorcycles must be compliant with few exceptions.

              I don’t know where you are getting your numbers for your claims. These are some significant assertions that, even prima facie, don’t make sense.

              1 person in 1 car emits less emissions than 1 person on 1 motorcycle

              Even from just a thermodynamics standpoint, this assertion not only feels wrong, but is wrong. Maybe a two-stroke motorcycle could out-emit a modern SOV.

          • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            CO2 is only a small part of the story

            https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/greenspace/story/2011-09-28/mythbusters-asks-are-motorcycles-greener-than-cars

            the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than the comparable decade car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide.

            So yeah. Not exactly great. And btw our option on those hydrocarbons have changed a LOT in the last 13 years when this was published. See the decline of diesels post dieselgate.

            • huginn@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 days ago

              That story is over a decade old and looks at motorcycles that aren’t anything close to modern standards.

              Modern 4 stroke motorcycles are more fuel efficient and all around less polluting than cars.

              None of this really matters as the best form of transportation is obviously mass transit, walking or bicycle but it does make sense to split out motorcycle.

  • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Are there similar maps available for other countries? Would be really intereseting to see

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Outside the US there are very few major cities that don’t depend on public transport, because it is the most efficient way to move millions of people around a city. Ultimately it depends on the quality of public transport.

    • cron@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I think this map would really benefit if the colors would be slightly adapted to show the percentage. In some regions, 50% commute by car, in other regions maybe 90% - and both are green.

      It really highlights the fact that most of us (also in europe) depend on our cars to make a living.

    • nyankas@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Bar graphs showing the distribution of modes of transport for commuting for different countries

      (source)

      Not a map, but at least some more data from some other countries. The own car is unfortunately the most used mode of transport for commuting in every surveyed country, but the US seem to be especially far behind when it comes to alternatives.

      • It’s not surprising when we’ve created an induced demand for driving through which infrastructure we build and subsidize. However, the numbers in Germany and China are changing as they push for non car-centric infrastructure. I can’t speak to the other countries.

        Places like Copenhagen and Amsterdam used to be full of roads and parking lots. When they built public transit and safe bike infrastructure for shorter trips, they induced a demand and people ditched their cars for safer, cheaper, and more convenient alternatives.

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        I think this source hasn’t sampled their data very well. The figures for china seem wildly wrong.

        The figures from the same source even list the number of automobiles in China as 319 million in 2022, no where even close to 64% of the population.

        The 64% commuting with own car in China is way off. So I’d question the entire chart.

      • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        The wording on that one makes me wonder. It says “own a car,” but I’m sure there are millions of people who own a car but don’t necessarily use it daily for work. Isn’t it fairly common in major cities to own a car and still take a train/bus to work because of traffic, using the car for things like weekend trips or errands? Idk if that’s enough to really swing of the stats, just that I wish they had phrased it differently.

        • Mok98@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          Read it again ,including the title, it says own car, not own a car, which means that they use it to commute. That said, it’s worded a bit poorly

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          It doesn’t say “own a car”, it says “own car”. As in, “How do you get to work?” “By my own car.”

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        They mixed taxi and ride sharing with walking in that statistic. For the purposes of car usage, it’s not really helpful.

        Moreover, difference in land mass and population density matters when looking at this from a national perspective. United States has significantly more rural space than Germany. The map posted is kind of pointless because it’s only showing the most used form of transportation in each county, and that will always be cars with extreme outliers like New York City, no matter how much we invest in public transportation.

        What they’re using is Bumblefunk County Oklahoma to get from their little town of 2,000 people to the factory 20 minutes away in some industrial park between Nowheresville and Chickentowm isn’t really relevant to the discussion. Public transportation is only really viable in dense areas, but everyone else in the country is going to still drive because they’ve got distance to cover or irregular routes. Even if we expanded rail across the country, people in those counties would still need to drive to the station.

        • nyankas@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          I agree that both the map and the statistic I’ve posted don’t take those country-specific characteristics into account.

          I’m not sure how important that difference really is, though, as both the US and Germany seem to have pretty similar degrees of urbanization (US: 83.3%; Germany: 77.8%; source). So the rural population isn’t really that big in either country, relatively speaking.

          I’m not trying to say that the rural population isn’t a factor, I’m just not sure how big that factor really is.

  • huginn@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Another demonstration of how NYC is the only real city in America and anywhere else is a suburb larping as a metropolis.

    You can’t call yourself a metropolis unless half the population uses public transit: change my view.

    • EABOD25@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Ok! As per the marriam-webster definition of a metropolis:

      the chief or capital city of a country, state, or region,

      the city or state of origin of a colony (as of ancient Greece),

      a city regarded as a center of a specified activity,

      a large important city.

      As per Cambridge:

      a very large city, often the most important city in a large area or country.

      Collins:

      A metropolis is the largest, busiest, and most important city in a country or region.

      Britannica:

      a very large or important city — usually singular

      Oxford:

      A very large urban settlement usually with accompanying suburbs. No precise parameters of size or population density have been established. The structural, functional, and hierarchical evolution of global metropolises is rooted as much in the past as in the present: modern information and communications technology may be more advanced than the 19th-century telegraph, but the processes and outcomes are much the same (Daniels (2002) PHG 26). ‘[Berlin’s] wealth of facilities, as well as their scatter across the metropolis, can be understood only in the light of the city’s history and, paradoxically, its troubles.

      Longman:

      a very large city that is the most important city in a country or area

      You:

      NYC but only if half the people use public transit

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        I don’t think they were being literal or looking for a dictionary definition. I think they were saying the definition of a real city should hinge on the use of mass transit.

        Personally I think anywhere that’s car dependent isn’t somewhere I’d want to live.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          I think of it more as transit is a characteristic of a functioning city. You can’t scale well without it.

      • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        All those definitions use “city”. Does the definition of city require the kind of density that would make relying mostly on self-owned cars impossible? Depends, in america no, in other countries maybe.

        • Ledivin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          Does the definition of city require the kind of density that would make relying mostly on self-owned cars impossible?

          Ooooo, self-moving goalposts, nice!

        • EABOD25@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          No it doesn’t. However original commenter put a challenge out on what a metropolis is. I responded to the challenge.

        • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          No. “City” is a legal designation for an inhabited area. Some legal frameworks place a minimum population requirement for designation as a city but none (AFAIK) require a population density value.

          For example, Oklahoma City is the largest city in the US by land area (or it was a few years ago) because the city limits were drawn that way. Population density was and is very low but it’s still a city.

          • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            in some countries it is. Not in all. You can’t generalise the US’s rules for everywhere. Also, many words have both common and legal meanings.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        Nah buddy I grew up in Atlanta you can’t convince me it’s a metropolis.

        There’s a nice little downtown core and then 99% suburban sprawl. Fuck that

      • kinsnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        not OP, but according to some of those definitions (cambridge, collins, longman), NYC would be the only metropolis in the US, as it is the US’ largest, busiest, and most important city.

        • EABOD25@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          It goes by region. LA, San Diego, Chicago, Sacramento, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Detroit, Charlotte, Tulsa, San Antonio, Dallas, Atlanta, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Denver, etc… all fall under the definitions of a metropolis. And the most important city in US is not NYC, it’s Washington DC. NYC is just the most populated and industrialized, DC Trump’s it in significance because that’s the epicenter of trade, labor, and industry policies

    • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Why isn’t public transport popular in the US? It’s cheaper, it’s cleaner, it saves time, it’s overall better if done right.

    • humble peat digger@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      What are u people smoking, cars are awesome.

      NYC metro is bankrupt and unmaintained. They can’t even build a link to JFK.

      • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Driving is more fun when there are more viable alternatives. I don’t like driving, but it’s my only real choice where I live so I do it begrudgingly, and you have to share the road with me. Think of all the people who don’t want to drive (on account of it being dangerous, costly and/or mentally taxing) suddenly not being in cars, and how much traffic that would free up for you to zip around instead!

        Also, calling a public service “bankrupt” is really weird to me. How many tax dollars are we spending on public highways and freeways again? Do suburbs, which are designed to be car-dependent, provide a net gain or net cost in tax revenue to cities?

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        The state should give the city the metro instead of raiding it to save ski resorts upstate.

        Also you should either block this community yourself or be banned for it. Fuck off car shill.

        • humble peat digger@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          I don’t see the rule that says I’m not allowed to disagree with this channel.
          In fact your rhetoric violates rule 1 and 3.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      change my view.

      Me and the Sullivan twins would like to have a conversation with you and a few baseball bats in the alley out back if you’re seriously arguing that Boston isn’t a metropolis… and don’t you dare fucking insult the Red Sox, Dunkin’ or the Bruins (actually, we care more if you bad mouth our college hockey teams) unless you’d like to qualify for Medicare early.

    • lemming934@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      In Amsterdam the mode share for all trips is like 30% for biking and for walking and like 20% for driving and for transit

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        I was being hyperbolic in my comments anyway. My commute is basically always by bike unless there’s a thunderstorm.

        I know the Brooklyn Bridge has lightning rods but the idea of being on the bridge on an e-bike in a lightning storm, 60 meters in the air is too much.

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      50% of Boston’s workforce commutes using the T every day, but it doesn’t show up on the map. I’m assuming because most of those stops are in outlying towns and, therefore, only make up a minority of the commuting workforce in each area. According to the federal government, the T is the third best public transit system in the US due to it being the fastest average commute out of any by at least half an hour, only outclassed by the quality of DC and Seattle (I believe, might be Portland that’s #1? I’d have to look again).

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        That’s just an example of how to useless the map is. You can’t look at it at this scale and only pay attention to the top most used transportation from a county level. New York City shows up because it literally is those counties, geographically, nearly edge to edge.

  • Ioughttamow@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    I was excited because I thought the bike path extension construction was going through, federal funding had been secured. I’d have been able to bike my kid over to daycare in a year. Well I guess the time to start building ran out and the funding expired. I don’t precisely know why, but I heard a council member was being petty. I’m so very disappointed In addition, that daycare closed down as well, so moot I guess

  • xelar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    USA should play a bit of OpenTTD or other public transit simulators on their country map to get some ideas ^^

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    This is why we Americans may be happy to hang out and chat on /c/fuckcars, and try to vote for sane transportation policies, but then also be like lol no I can’t actually get rid of my car.

    Every big American city you’ve ever heard of is solid “car” except for the heart of New York. Now just imagine what it’s like for the folks in rural areas or even in the suburbs of medium cities.

    This is a pretty sparsely populated country on average, and it’s all designed assuming everybody is in a car. Sidewalks and bike lanes get sprinkled around where there’s room and desire for them.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Actually many European cities would be green as well. For example Munich still has a modal share of 34% cars. However none of the other options has more then that with walking and public transport being at 24% each and cycling at 18%. You could very much live without a car though.