You live in a place designed around cars, that's the problem. Society worked fine without cars for a good long while. We could have adopted trains, bikes, and buses without the car and things would be going swimmingly. The idea is to fix our bad town planning so that it's reasonable to get to any destination using any mode if transportation.
I partially agree but you forget that every country = its people and people can either not give a crap or start complaining. Politics are same everywhere, they want to secure their position, so they will follow those who are heard. Otherwise they will follow their own interests.
It's not as easy as people complaining, though. What are people going to do? Move to a city in 2500KM away in the next province over, because that province has slightly better infrastructure?
No, they'll complain, nothing will be done, and they'll stay where they are because they have friends, family, and a job here.
I understand that it's easier to do in a lot of European countries, but I can literally drive for over 25 straight hours, and still be in my province in Canada. It's nearly impossible to do any kind of proper public transit, and it's not feasible to move over it.
Canada really stifled its non-car mobility when it basically cut all intercity rail service after WWII though, especially for the interior and west coast. We used to have a pretty good train network for getting between nearby cities like Calgary and Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, Kelowna and Vancouver, and even Victoria and Nanimo. We don't even have a proper Vancouver to Abbotsford commuter rail despite them being right next to each other. There were obviously even longer routes like Toronto to Vancouver but that can't really compete with planes so no real surprise they went (I don't count that one Via Rail tourist service as a proper Vancouver-Toronto line). Pretty much the only remaining part of Canada with decent intercity rail is on the Toronto Ottawa Montreal corridor, and it does get decent ridership because of it.
Also, within many Canadian metro areas, which if you live in one you'll most likely stay inside of it for the vast majority of your daily travels, you could actually reasonably live without a car depending on where exactly you live and what you have to do. I for one live in the Vancouver area and don't own a car. I take the bus and metro almost everywhere, and on the rare occasion I need to go somewhere that's straight up without public transit access I just take an Uber or something. I think the fact that many of the largest Canadian cities are investing now more than ever in building more public transit, and those projects are more often than not praised by residents with high ridership to back it up is a sign that there is a high demand for non-car travel at least within urban areas. And even for smaller towns, the infrastructure is already there for good bus services like most small towns in Europe have, and if we want to go beyond that and upgrade particularly high demand routes, streetcars and tram-trains are also tried and true options for lower density urban areas. Canada even had plenty of streetcars before we decided to rip them up.
I get that this doesn't really help people in rural or remote Canada but if we can work to reduce the need for cars in a city, where the majority of people live, that's still a win and sets a precedent for future transit expansion into lower density areas. Non-car dependency isn't an all or nothing deal for the entire country.
Obviously there are many challenges to Canadians finding car free alternatives. If you're in a situation where you do need to own a car, then you need to own a car, and you shouldn't feel bad for that. But I think that simply saying that there is no other way in Canada or that we're just hopeless and doomed to car dependency forever due to our population density is missing a lot.
I will also recommend the YouTube channel RMTransit for really good Canadian public transit content.
The way you put it is misleading. If you want a change, you have to act to be heard. If you get enough people to be heard, things will start to change. Also historically AFAIK Canada had car alternatives, but people like you decided not to use them. So there was no incentive to keep them.
Nobody is blaming the American people. It's the car corporations that bought and dismantled light rail and train systems and lobbied the government to build cities around the car.
And now the American people are so brainwashed into thinking owning a car is freedom and public transit is "socialism" that they will fight tooth and nail against anything that is against their "freedom" to be forced to own and pay for a car.
You live in a place designed around cars, that’s the problem.
Worse: they may live in a place bulldozed to make way for cars. Plenty of car-dependent places used to have good places for walking, good transit services, all that jazz, but it was all torn down to make room for cars.
In my city public transport is free, anyone can get anywhere else via train or bus cheaper than via car, there is even bicycle dedicated road that goes trough city and connects dozens of neighboring towns and cities but I admit that car is just so much more convinient to use. It's all about comfort or fear of loosing one, rether than it would be impossible to give people alternative to use.
Man I was gonna type something about how it's because your city is designed around car centric infrastructure and density and cargo bikes and shit but honestly there ain't no way I'm gonna say anything to you that hasn't already been said.
I think there's this misconception that the US is basically NYC or dirt-road farmland, and the reality is that there's a lot of in-between. I live <20 minutes from the closest mall by car, yet even transportation or food delivery apps (e.g. uber, uber eats) essentially don't serve my area, so forget public transportation.
Most of the in-between is closer to the dirt-road farmland. Even if you live "in a city," there's a big chance you'll be living a long walk through some car-dependent wasteland to the nearest anything that isn't a house, with near-zero care, effort and/or space given to anyone who's not in a car.
It can depend. Sometimes sprawl is car-centric because it's heavily developed with no alternative, but sometimes there'a a lot of undeveloped land in between things.
Bikes are better than cars in snow, however. A fat bike's tires 'float' across the surface of the snow, like snowshoes, and can handle any snow depth. Regular mountain bikes and commuter bikes with knobby tires handle a few inches of snow quite well, because the knobs capture snow between them, and snow sticks to snow. Cars, on the other hand, need a vast expenditure of effort to plow the snow off the road surface, so they don't slide around in a few inches of snow, or get stuck in deeper snow.
My car is in the shop for some tricky troubleshooting.
I've been doing my weekly grocery shopping with my foldable bike and dog trailer. I live in a rural area, so it's a bit of a trip. I don't particularly enjoy it, especially the hauling the load home. It would probably be bearable with a bit of electric assist on the bike.
Public transport is awesome..
It just doesnt always go where everyone needs to go
Bikes are great right until you have to do large grocery shopping or get to a place far away.
I cant do without a car where i live.
You live in a place designed around cars, that's the problem. Society worked fine without cars for a good long while. We could have adopted trains, bikes, and buses without the car and things would be going swimmingly. The idea is to fix our bad town planning so that it's reasonable to get to any destination using any mode if transportation.
Exactly. Then Europeans downvote people who say they need a car, because their country/city/state/whatever has terrible planning or public transit.
Not my fault I need a car. Stop blaming me. I didn't design the city. I didn't plan where the public transit will go.
Do you really think I love paying $1200+ per year for insurance, $120+ per week for fuel, and $20,000-80,000 for a new vehicle when mine borks itself?
I partially agree but you forget that every country = its people and people can either not give a crap or start complaining. Politics are same everywhere, they want to secure their position, so they will follow those who are heard. Otherwise they will follow their own interests.
It's not as easy as people complaining, though. What are people going to do? Move to a city in 2500KM away in the next province over, because that province has slightly better infrastructure?
No, they'll complain, nothing will be done, and they'll stay where they are because they have friends, family, and a job here.
I understand that it's easier to do in a lot of European countries, but I can literally drive for over 25 straight hours, and still be in my province in Canada. It's nearly impossible to do any kind of proper public transit, and it's not feasible to move over it.
Canada really stifled its non-car mobility when it basically cut all intercity rail service after WWII though, especially for the interior and west coast. We used to have a pretty good train network for getting between nearby cities like Calgary and Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, Kelowna and Vancouver, and even Victoria and Nanimo. We don't even have a proper Vancouver to Abbotsford commuter rail despite them being right next to each other. There were obviously even longer routes like Toronto to Vancouver but that can't really compete with planes so no real surprise they went (I don't count that one Via Rail tourist service as a proper Vancouver-Toronto line). Pretty much the only remaining part of Canada with decent intercity rail is on the Toronto Ottawa Montreal corridor, and it does get decent ridership because of it.
Also, within many Canadian metro areas, which if you live in one you'll most likely stay inside of it for the vast majority of your daily travels, you could actually reasonably live without a car depending on where exactly you live and what you have to do. I for one live in the Vancouver area and don't own a car. I take the bus and metro almost everywhere, and on the rare occasion I need to go somewhere that's straight up without public transit access I just take an Uber or something. I think the fact that many of the largest Canadian cities are investing now more than ever in building more public transit, and those projects are more often than not praised by residents with high ridership to back it up is a sign that there is a high demand for non-car travel at least within urban areas. And even for smaller towns, the infrastructure is already there for good bus services like most small towns in Europe have, and if we want to go beyond that and upgrade particularly high demand routes, streetcars and tram-trains are also tried and true options for lower density urban areas. Canada even had plenty of streetcars before we decided to rip them up.
I get that this doesn't really help people in rural or remote Canada but if we can work to reduce the need for cars in a city, where the majority of people live, that's still a win and sets a precedent for future transit expansion into lower density areas. Non-car dependency isn't an all or nothing deal for the entire country.
Obviously there are many challenges to Canadians finding car free alternatives. If you're in a situation where you do need to own a car, then you need to own a car, and you shouldn't feel bad for that. But I think that simply saying that there is no other way in Canada or that we're just hopeless and doomed to car dependency forever due to our population density is missing a lot.
I will also recommend the YouTube channel RMTransit for really good Canadian public transit content.
The way you put it is misleading. If you want a change, you have to act to be heard. If you get enough people to be heard, things will start to change. Also historically AFAIK Canada had car alternatives, but people like you decided not to use them. So there was no incentive to keep them.
Nobody is blaming the American people. It's the car corporations that bought and dismantled light rail and train systems and lobbied the government to build cities around the car.
And now the American people are so brainwashed into thinking owning a car is freedom and public transit is "socialism" that they will fight tooth and nail against anything that is against their "freedom" to be forced to own and pay for a car.
Worse: they may live in a place bulldozed to make way for cars. Plenty of car-dependent places used to have good places for walking, good transit services, all that jazz, but it was all torn down to make room for cars.
That's only because we're doing it wrong.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Don't do that, then!
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I was expecting the bakfiets video, but the old Amsterdam grocery stores one is good as well.
In my city public transport is free, anyone can get anywhere else via train or bus cheaper than via car, there is even bicycle dedicated road that goes trough city and connects dozens of neighboring towns and cities but I admit that car is just so much more convinient to use. It's all about comfort or fear of loosing one, rether than it would be impossible to give people alternative to use.
WTF kind of public transport are you used to? 😂
Man I was gonna type something about how it's because your city is designed around car centric infrastructure and density and cargo bikes and shit but honestly there ain't no way I'm gonna say anything to you that hasn't already been said.
I think there's this misconception that the US is basically NYC or dirt-road farmland, and the reality is that there's a lot of in-between. I live <20 minutes from the closest mall by car, yet even transportation or food delivery apps (e.g. uber, uber eats) essentially don't serve my area, so forget public transportation.
Most of the in-between is closer to the dirt-road farmland. Even if you live "in a city," there's a big chance you'll be living a long walk through some car-dependent wasteland to the nearest anything that isn't a house, with near-zero care, effort and/or space given to anyone who's not in a car.
Tis the problem of car centric sprawl no?
It can depend. Sometimes sprawl is car-centric because it's heavily developed with no alternative, but sometimes there'a a lot of undeveloped land in between things.
Or it snows.
Bikes also aren't great for snow, heavy rain, or extreme temperatures.
Bikes are better than cars in snow, however. A fat bike's tires 'float' across the surface of the snow, like snowshoes, and can handle any snow depth. Regular mountain bikes and commuter bikes with knobby tires handle a few inches of snow quite well, because the knobs capture snow between them, and snow sticks to snow. Cars, on the other hand, need a vast expenditure of effort to plow the snow off the road surface, so they don't slide around in a few inches of snow, or get stuck in deeper snow.
And then there's the salt, which destroys the cars...
There's no bad weather, only bad clothing
My car is in the shop for some tricky troubleshooting.
I've been doing my weekly grocery shopping with my foldable bike and dog trailer. I live in a rural area, so it's a bit of a trip. I don't particularly enjoy it, especially the hauling the load home. It would probably be bearable with a bit of electric assist on the bike.