Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "Wendover Productions"
channel.
-
Covid was the trigger. The problem already existed, and if Covid hadn't set it off, something else would eventually (and, in fact, on a smaller scale, has before).
Covid would not have caused, or been able to cause, those specifie problems, at least not to such an extent, were it not for the systemic flaws already present.
Thus, the case is made, the Flaws are the actual cause.
This is explained preeeeetty clearly in the video...
14
-
7
-
5
-
@namduong8437 The problem is already solved, including in parts of the USA. Most of the US just has too many corrupt officials with perverse incentives to act contrary to the public interest.
It's straight up a matter of frequency and zoning. If the train/tram/whatever comes every 5 minutes (or, ideally, every 3), efficiency in terms of travel time is a non-issue (you don't even really need a schedule any more, at that point).
If the city is zoned so that people live very close to bus/tram stops, and said bus/trams interchange properly with heavier rail (and in terms of fuel and maintenance, as well as persons moved per time, there is Nothing that transports passengers more efficiently than an electric train powered by overhead wires, and the only thing that beats them for Freight is massive cargo ships) at well designed stations... with the vast bulk of commercial zoning immediately around the rails stations, the efficiency problem is just Gone.
Also important: Don't put parks immediately around your stations to make them look pretty! It just makes them less usable by putting them further away from everything! Instead, you put the places people actually want/need to get to/from immediately around the station, then the parks around That.
You then, of course, connect the rail to the airports. ... You very quickly find that most of the shorter air routes are better served by rail too. (oh, and before anyone starts harping on about government subsidies? You know those unprofitable railways that get subsidized in Europe because they provide significant actual benefits other than profits on ticket sales? the USA does exactly the same thing for exactly the same kinds of routes. It just subsidizes airlines to fly them instead.)
You never quite Completely eliminate cars, mind you, but you can reduce their viable use case to 'farmers getting to the nearest town with a station' (where they rent a secure parking and charging space) and 'a small rental fleet at the stations nearest to the places that are Legitimately too low density for public transport to serve viably' rather than 'everyone who wants to get anywhere at all ever'.
5
-
@sylvester999999 A problem with a simple solution: Mandate that the company provide a damn bus for it's employees when it builds way off out in the middle of nowhere! Depending on relevant numbers etc. it can either come pick you up from your house or from the nearest public transit hub. Problem solved. Failing that: actually increasing use of public transit cuts down on the number of cars needed, so that people, such as yourself in this case, who Do still actually need them are the ones getting them, rather than the large number of people who really, really don't, or at least shouldn't.
Though an even simpler solution, if such a place exists, is to move to a town that's actually closer to the job site. If the job is shipping stuff in and out in bulk with any regularity, (I imagine that if it's off in the middle of a forest it's either logging or mining of some sort, though obviously there are other possibilities), it absolutely SHOULD be using rail to do so: stick a passenger carriage on the back of the train and stop somewhere in town. Properly built public transit should link the towns.
Generally speaking, the argument (from people who are actually considering the problem properly) is less 'just use public transit, duh, then we wouldn't need cars at all' and more 'well, if the government would actually just Build/encourage/not prevent proper public transit, then we'd have a lot less supply and pollution issues from the cars that were still needed.'
3
-
2
-
nico heidenreich if the ship doesn't fit through the panama and/or suez canals, you have to take much longer routs and/or travel through areas with much worse conditions, wiping out any gains and then some, which limits length. The ship must actually fit in the various ports, limiting depth, width, and possibly length. It must be stabal and not tip over, limiting height (based on depth and length), while the longer it is the more trouble it has with turning, also significant. As an added bonus, the world is actually currently significantly overstocked on cargo ship capacity. Significantly more exists than there is any use for. Which discourages new building somewhat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JAN0L Ahh, but how many of those cars are actually on the road at any given time? How many of them are owned by people who live in the parts of the country that Don't have particularly exceptional public transit (by way of not being the major cities), and so on?
Ubiquitous, well designed public transport supported by rational zoning laws (so... ones designed around maximising liveability and minimizing problems, rather than maximising racism and oppression of the poorer classes) absolutely reduces the need for cars substantially.
Also very important is improving the walkability and cycleability of the areas around the public transport hubs.
Certainly, you won't eliminate cars Entirely, but you can certainly substantially reduce the number of viable use cases for them. And if you then make rental cars much easier to get and more practically located for the use cases that Do remain, so that most individuals don't even need to own one when they do need to use one, well, that drops the number needed even further.
So, no, it can't absolutely remove all need for car ownership. But it Can make a HUGE dent in it... which is really all that is needed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1