Afraid you're wasting your breath. OP appears to be a member of fuckcars, which feels like it's coming from a good place but is mostly just short-sighted and infantile. I live in DFW and not having a vehicle is not an option, but these folk would classify me alongside the devil because I dare to use a combustion engine. If I could realistically use an electric vehicle I would.

I'm sure that in OPs mind everyone should just abandon their cars tomorrow and that will immediately solve all of the climate change as if private vehicle owners are the ones actually causing the problem in the first place.

[–] rexxit@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fuckcars is made up of people with little life experience who think they have all the answers, and people who fetishize city living and think it's normal or healthy for humans to live at a density like NYC (and fuck you if you disagree). They're oversimplifying to the point of meaninglessness, and handwaving away the problems.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've lived in places far less dense than NYC with robust public transit far better than NYC. Owning a car would've just been a burden 99% of the time. And it was certainly healthier than living in car-centric suburbs, both physically and mentally. Not everywhere is America where we can't fathom anything but cars and McMansions

[–] rexxit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What's far less dense with better public transit than NYC? The most popular example of no-car city design I see is Amsterdam, which is 1/2 the density of NYC, but still 15x the density of where I'm from (not even close to a rural area). I think robust public transit at 1/15th the density of Amsterdam and 1/30th the density of NYC is a pipe dream.

In these lower density places, maybe you luck out and you're walking or biking distance to work. If you change jobs do you have to move instead of hopping in the car and commuting a bit further? In circumstances like these, transit can't possibly serve every origin and destination efficiently, and personal vehicles can offer efficient point to point.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago

I lived in Heidelberg, with a population density of 1500/km², so about 4x the density of your place. There was a robust bus system, tram system, commuter train system, and then of course Germany's regional and intercity train systems. There were also plenty of public rental bikes and bike lanes. I could go anywhere in or around the city quite easily and quickly, as well as any other city in Germany (or the EU, for that matter). Trams had a frequency of about 10-15 minutes, rapid buses about the same, the bus stops by my house had a frequency of 20 minutes. There were suburbs up the river which also had phenomenal bus and commuter train access directly to the city and elsewhere.

The American town I live in now has a density of 900/km² and about ⅓ the population of Heidelberg. We just got our first bus last year and it runs in a loop once per hour. The train station was demolished decades ago.

I also lived in Sejong, with a population density of about 750/km², so about 2x your place. In addition to dedicated bike lanes on every major road and very large sidewalks, there was a extensive bus system and a very efficient rapid bus loop system as well. The rapid buses had a frequency of about 10 minutes and could take me to the other side of the city in about 15 minutes. The smaller buses also had a high frequency of about 15-20 minutes, depending on the bus. The train station in sejong is still under construction but it was a ~30 min rapid bus line ride to either of two train stations in neighboring cities to take me anywhere in South Korea.

Some of the other Korean cities with densities somewhat higher than Sejong, like Daejon which is about 2700/km², have really incredible subway/metro systems too.

In Germany, the nearby cities of Stuttgart (3000/km²) and Frankfurt (3100/km²) also had great subway systems, in addition to the buses, trams, bike lanes, and commuter trains.

The commuter and regional trains serve also the purpose of connecting much smaller towns and villages, which are far less dense but still served by good bus systems and such.

I do agree that America has sprawled so much as to make the transition more difficult. But great density-appropriate public transit is possible at low density.

[–] Ranger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

You should keep an eye on Edison Motors, they're developing practical hybrid heavy vocational trucks & have a side project for a pickup retrofit kit that I'm waiting for.