4 ms·

How do you move furniture when car-free? And take your children and their equipment to activities, etc.? Nevermind the issues of poor timetabling and service fo

How do you move furniture when car-free? And take your children and their equipment to activities, etc.? Nevermind the issues of poor timetabling and service for public transport, and the risk of crime. A personal car is freedom.

oblio 1y ago
Please don't that, in general. Don't be an absolutist. "Car free" doesn't mean "ban all the cars": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoAtoaAgm0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoAtoaAgm0g 0. This discussion is about urban environments. Suburbs/rural areas will probably be car centric forever (or at least for a long time). If you don't or plan to live in a city, you should move on from this conversation. 1. Of course you'll be able to use car or van to move furniture. > And take your children and their equipment to activities, etc. 2. What kind of equipment do said children have, pianos??? You can use public transport perfectly well. In dense enough environments with decent public transit things are generally not that far away by public transit. And a backpack + at least 1 big bag/1 trolley bag fit perfectly well in all but the most crowded public transit. > Nevermind the issues of poor timetabling and service for public transport, and the risk of crime. 3. All of these are resolved when large amounts of people use public transport and people actually care about it. If it's only for poor people.. yeah, you get US public transit. And regarding crime, fairly sure that in most places your overall risk of death/serious injury is still higher in a car. * * * > A personal car is freedom. A personal car is freedom. Being forced to only use personal cars everywhere and at all times is slavery.
- GardenLetter27 1y ago
  > "Car free" doesn't mean "ban all the cars": Isn't that exactly what it means? Like smoke free means no smoking. Why this "abolish the police" situation again? > You can use public transport perfectly well. But it's a lot more expensive, e.g. I live in Stockholm and it's about $4 per 90-minute trip, per person. > Being forced to only use personal cars everywhere and at all times is slavery. Yeah, I don't want that either, I really hated that in parts of the US and Mexico. Like where you can't even cross the street because there's a big road in between.
  - oblio 1y ago
    > Isn't that exactly what it means? Like smoke free means no smoking. Why this "abolish the police" situation again? Watch the video linked inked above, it answers your exact questions. Also, smoking as a thing isn't banned. Smoking is just banned in reasonable places. But instead of debating me, please watch the video. No place on this planet with more than, say, 10 000 people (so places where probably 80% of the world population lives) banned cars. A few amusement parks (or equivalent) are basically the only places where cars are banned. > But it's a lot more expensive, e.g. I live in Stockholm and it's about $4 per 90-minute trip, per person. What is this insanity? Doesn't Stockholm have a fixed cost monthly pass?
    - GardenLetter27 1y ago
      > What is this insanity? Doesn't Stockholm have a fixed cost monthly pass? It does, but it costs ~$106 a month. That's what happens when there's no competition. Automated self-driving taxi services will be better.
      - saubeidl 1y ago
        That's roughly 5 uber rides. That's not bad at all?
      - oblio 1y ago
        LOL, in what world do you live in? That's a super good price. How much do you think daily usage of "automated self-driving taxi services" will be? :-))) Bucharest, a city in a much poorer country, charges about €16 for a 1 month pass for surface transport and €20 for a 1 month pass for the subway. That's about €36. The average salary in Stockholm seems to be about €46 000. The average salary in Bucharest is less than €24 000. So €100 per month seems about fair for what I assume is a pretty solid public transport network in a place with far more disposable income than Bucharest. Edit: Switzerland is famous for having a very well run public transport system. The Zurich monthly pass for all zones is about €250 per month... Yeah, Zurich has higher incomes for sure. Stockholm probably has a decent rate for public transportation. Privatizing it won't help, like it didn't in many places in the world (see England).
jemmyw 1y ago
> How do you move furniture when car-free? Rent a van? I do that when I have a car too. Or use a moving company. > And take your children and their equipment to activities I currently live in a car centric location and it's true that you just need a car to do those things. But I've also lived in places that are not car centric and you don't need a car to do those things in those places. You can either get there by bike (which is usually faster than by car for short journeys when you can just get on and go and then get off and leave right outside the destination rather than having to find a space), or use public transport which is very reliable. Where I lived there was a bus every 15 minutes that took you to a train station where the trains ran from the suburb to the city every 5 minutes. > risk of crime I feel like those places that prioritise non car transport don't have this problem. I never felt unsafe cycling or taking my kids on the public transport. > A personal car is freedom. It can be. It can also be a weight around your neck. It's expensive. You have to park it when you go anywhere, and that also means you have to get back to it. You can't just change plans and end up in a different part of the city and be OK because you can just take a different route back to your house, you have to get back to your car and hope you paid for enough parking. Some places just aren't densely populated enough to ever make public transport work well. Many places are though, even quite small cities, and then it's freedom to not have a car. The thing about not having a car is that you can always get a car if you need one for a particular thing, rent or use various services that provide them, or taxi/uber, or borrow one from a friend. But if you have a car and live where you need one all the time then you're stuck with that.
- jstimpfle 1y ago
  > Rent a van? So you're going to drive a car after all? > Or use a moving company. You can do that if you move between apartments (and can afford to pay the service), but not if you're getting a few things spontaneously. > Some places just aren't densely populated enough to ever make public transport work well. Many places are though, even quite small cities, and then it's freedom to not have a car. That's why it's never either-or but typically both. Most people need, and have, access to a car in one way or another. That doesn't mean they don't use the public transport, bicycle, or walk by foot when they can.

oblio 1y ago

Please don't that, in general. Don't be an absolutist. "Car free" doesn't mean "ban all the cars": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoAtoaAgm0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoAtoaAgm0g 0. This discussion is about urban environments. Suburbs/rural areas will probably be car centric forever (or at least for a long time). If you don't or plan to live in a city, you should move on from this conversation. 1. Of course you'll be able to use car or van to move furniture. > And take your children and their equipment to activities, etc. 2. What kind of equipment do said children have, pianos??? You can use public transport perfectly well. In dense enough environments with decent public transit things are generally not that far away by public transit. And a backpack + at least 1 big bag/1 trolley bag fit perfectly well in all but the most crowded public transit. > Nevermind the issues of poor timetabling and service for public transport, and the risk of crime. 3. All of these are resolved when large amounts of people use public transport and people actually care about it. If it's only for poor people.. yeah, you get US public transit. And regarding crime, fairly sure that in most places your overall risk of death/serious injury is still higher in a car. * * * > A personal car is freedom. A personal car is freedom. Being forced to only use personal cars everywhere and at all times is slavery.

GardenLetter27 1y ago
> "Car free" doesn't mean "ban all the cars": Isn't that exactly what it means? Like smoke free means no smoking. Why this "abolish the police" situation again? > You can use public transport perfectly well. But it's a lot more expensive, e.g. I live in Stockholm and it's about $4 per 90-minute trip, per person. > Being forced to only use personal cars everywhere and at all times is slavery. Yeah, I don't want that either, I really hated that in parts of the US and Mexico. Like where you can't even cross the street because there's a big road in between.
- oblio 1y ago
  > Isn't that exactly what it means? Like smoke free means no smoking. Why this "abolish the police" situation again? Watch the video linked inked above, it answers your exact questions. Also, smoking as a thing isn't banned. Smoking is just banned in reasonable places. But instead of debating me, please watch the video. No place on this planet with more than, say, 10 000 people (so places where probably 80% of the world population lives) banned cars. A few amusement parks (or equivalent) are basically the only places where cars are banned. > But it's a lot more expensive, e.g. I live in Stockholm and it's about $4 per 90-minute trip, per person. What is this insanity? Doesn't Stockholm have a fixed cost monthly pass?
  - GardenLetter27 1y ago
    > What is this insanity? Doesn't Stockholm have a fixed cost monthly pass? It does, but it costs ~$106 a month. That's what happens when there's no competition. Automated self-driving taxi services will be better.
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      That's roughly 5 uber rides. That's not bad at all?
    - oblio 1y ago
      LOL, in what world do you live in? That's a super good price. How much do you think daily usage of "automated self-driving taxi services" will be? :-))) Bucharest, a city in a much poorer country, charges about €16 for a 1 month pass for surface transport and €20 for a 1 month pass for the subway. That's about €36. The average salary in Stockholm seems to be about €46 000. The average salary in Bucharest is less than €24 000. So €100 per month seems about fair for what I assume is a pretty solid public transport network in a place with far more disposable income than Bucharest. Edit: Switzerland is famous for having a very well run public transport system. The Zurich monthly pass for all zones is about €250 per month... Yeah, Zurich has higher incomes for sure. Stockholm probably has a decent rate for public transportation. Privatizing it won't help, like it didn't in many places in the world (see England).

jemmyw 1y ago

> How do you move furniture when car-free? Rent a van? I do that when I have a car too. Or use a moving company. > And take your children and their equipment to activities I currently live in a car centric location and it's true that you just need a car to do those things. But I've also lived in places that are not car centric and you don't need a car to do those things in those places. You can either get there by bike (which is usually faster than by car for short journeys when you can just get on and go and then get off and leave right outside the destination rather than having to find a space), or use public transport which is very reliable. Where I lived there was a bus every 15 minutes that took you to a train station where the trains ran from the suburb to the city every 5 minutes. > risk of crime I feel like those places that prioritise non car transport don't have this problem. I never felt unsafe cycling or taking my kids on the public transport. > A personal car is freedom. It can be. It can also be a weight around your neck. It's expensive. You have to park it when you go anywhere, and that also means you have to get back to it. You can't just change plans and end up in a different part of the city and be OK because you can just take a different route back to your house, you have to get back to your car and hope you paid for enough parking. Some places just aren't densely populated enough to ever make public transport work well. Many places are though, even quite small cities, and then it's freedom to not have a car. The thing about not having a car is that you can always get a car if you need one for a particular thing, rent or use various services that provide them, or taxi/uber, or borrow one from a friend. But if you have a car and live where you need one all the time then you're stuck with that.

jstimpfle 1y ago
> Rent a van? So you're going to drive a car after all? > Or use a moving company. You can do that if you move between apartments (and can afford to pay the service), but not if you're getting a few things spontaneously. > Some places just aren't densely populated enough to ever make public transport work well. Many places are though, even quite small cities, and then it's freedom to not have a car. That's why it's never either-or but typically both. Most people need, and have, access to a car in one way or another. That doesn't mean they don't use the public transport, bicycle, or walk by foot when they can.