No. No you do not. You need to force your local governments to campaign for better public transport and infrastructure.

  • AbsolutelyClawless@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    You’re getting downvoted because it’s a fuckcars com, but you’re not exactly wrong. Plus, I don’t see how we could effectively get rid of cars without making everyone move to the cities.

    • grue@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Plus, I don’t see how we could effectively get rid of cars without making everyone move to the cities.

      80% already did, and the other 20% can be ignored.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      If they could run more busses with fewer stops, it wouldn’t be a choice between driving yourself and getting to work on time. The only way they would or could run more busses is if people demand more public transit and public transit received more funding.

      It’s a god damn catch-22. Public transit kinda sucks because it doesn’t get enough funding, and it doesn’t get enough funding because people think it sucks.

      • essell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s very true.

        I think it’s a failure of imagination that the people running things believe public transport should turn a profit.

        If it’s run well, the economic benefits cover the costs indirectly.

        And still, there will be places where it isn’t the right answer, that an optimised and popular public transport system can not cover enough for people to be done with cars.

        • eksb@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          If we taxed private car use enough to make that break even, we could easily afford to have great public transit.

        • grue@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          I think it’s a failure of imagination that the people running things believe public transport should turn a profit.

          It’s not a failure of imagination, it’s deliberate sabotage. They don’t want transit to work because they’re classist and transit is egalitarian.

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Im not sure about this. I live near a city with incredible public transit. metro trains run often and its a grid system with plenty of buses and the artierials run often connecting lines. Its affordable and a monthly pass costs less than mandatory liability insurance for a car. Lots of people do take it but lots of people also still have cars. Even in poor neighborhoods. There is just a wierd car brain in the us. My wife feels a car is freedom but all I see is a ball and chain around the ankle with costs and possibility of breakdown at any time. If im on a bus and it breaks down you get out and catch the next bus. public transit to me is the ultimate feeling of freedom.

    • essell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I agree.

      Rural public transport could absolutely be way better, especially if it was viewed as a public service, not a business.

      There’s plenty of places where even an optimised solution would mean cars aren’t needed.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Question is to cover rural communities as-is, do you and up practically replacing every car on the road with a bus? Bus is generally only better if you have significantly fewer of them to scale.