Fuck Cars
This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.
This community exists for the following reasons:
- to raise awareness around the dangers, inefficiencies and injustice that can come from car dependence.
- to allow a place to discuss and promote more healthy transport methods and ways of living.
You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.
Rules
-
Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.
-
No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.
-
Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.
-
No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.
-
No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.
-
No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.
-
No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.
Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.
view the rest of the comments
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
I can't speak to Australian demographics but in the US the lowest decile of income is 9 times more likely to not own a car. So they don't get any benefits from low gas prices but they still have to pay the costs of pollution, traffic violence and a political economy that hates transit because driving is so cheap and easy for the middle class.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 Here's the timetable for the Sydney Northwest Metro: https://transportnsw.info/documents/timetables/93-M-Sydney-Metro-North-West-20230929.pdf
It has a service every four minutes during the morning and evening peak.
I've attached a screenshot from Google Maps showing what's typical 8am morning commute would look like from Rouse Hill to Macquarie University and the Macquarie Park business precinct.
It's typically 40 minutes by car. You have to have your hands on the wheel. You're stuck in traffic. That's if you pay $9.56 or $14.13 for a toll road, which is a bit quicker.
Or you can take the Metro.
Trains run every four minutes during the morning peak, so you can turn up and go. It's a modern service with driverless trains and platform-screen doors.
It takes 32 minutes — so it's the faster option. And you can do other things during your commute.
(I've attached a screenshot, please note you might need to see the original post to view it.)
The train is the faster and more convenient option.
Why wouldn't you take the Metro?
This isn't because the state government has done anything to hobble road driving.
It's because the NSW State Government has invested in building a good quality, frequent Metro service to the northwestern suburbs.
The Metro has been a catalyst for building a number of transit-oriented developments at each of the stations. For the people living in those apartments, there's a clear winner.
The problem is that for around 70 years after WW2, governments have zoned whole suburbs for low-density residential.
These car-dependent suburbs, cars were the only viable option for getting to work, school, or shopping. By design.
At best, there's an often unreliable bus that runs every 20 minutes during the peak. And that's it.
At least in Australia, they tend to be on the outer fringes of the major metropolitan areas. Wealthier people with a choice tend to prefer inner-urban areas with better public transport.
If you just hit people in these areas with taxes and fines without a compelling alternative, and you're effectively levelling a poor tax.
Give people access to good quality public transport — and yes it can be faster than being stuck in traffic — and they'll choose it.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
Everyone understands that transit is terrible in car dependent suburbs. Low gas prices are a direct cause of that. Yes, if you leave from a station and go to another station, it might be faster than driving.
It's a choice to focus on how high gas prices might negatively impact suburban commuters -- who largely own their homes and can afford to operate a private vehicle -- rather people who can't own a car and are negatively impacted by low gas prices.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
It also looks like the council plan for the Rouse Hills Shire indicates an 80% mode share for private vehicles. The single train station to downtown and infrequent buses are not getting people out of cars.
https://www.thehills.nsw.gov.au/files/sharedassets/public/ecm-website-documents/page-documents/building/plans-guidelines/integrated_transport_and_land_use_strategy.pdf
Additionally, it looks like despite transit investments the metro is predicted to still see a 67% car mode share by 2031
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Transport%20Modelling%20Report%20for%20Sydney.pdf
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
And your example is using a route with a toll! That is an example of the government hobbling driving.
I'm not saying we shouldn't build transit. Or that it even should be a lower priority. I'm simply saying we should *also* raise the cost of driving because that impacts a lot of decisions, including the trade-off between using transit and driving as you demonstrated with your example.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The fastest alternative route is the M2 Hills Motorway, which was built as a tollway in 1997, in addition to all the existing roads in the area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Hills_Motorway
Building a new motorway isn't hobbling congestion, it's enabling it.
It was supposed to relieve congestion to northwest Sydney.
Well, there's still traffic jams.
And even compared to a completely grade-separated dual carriageway six-lane motorway, the Metro is *still* faster during peak hour.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The Hills Shire document you're looking at is from 2019.
Notice how the Metro is referred to in the future we tense? "We anticipate..."
Well, the NW Metro only opened in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_North_West_Line
And the figures you're quoting are from before the Metro opened.
Which is why the train modal share is just 1%. People had to catch a bus or drive to somewhere like Epping or Parramatta to get a train. The Hills were a pretty notorious public transport blackspot before the NW Metro opened.
I don't see the logic in saying it hasn't led to a shift in modal share before it opened?
The final phases of that Metro project, called Metro City & Southwest, are opening this year and in 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro_City_%26_Southwest
The NW Metro will also eventually connect with another Sydney Metro line to the new Western Sydney Airport. The first phase of that line is opening in 2026: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro_Western_Sydney_Airport
The second Infrastructure Australia report you linked to looks at the entire Sydney Metropolitan Area, not just northwest Sydney.
It's like looking at overall modal share across the Greater New York metropolitan area to judge a new line in Brooklyn.
There are still public transport blackspots in Sydney. The Northern Beaches and the outer west are two prime examples.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
When do you expect transit to be sufficient to allow increasing gas prices? What do you think the Sydney mode share will be then?
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712
"When do you expect transit to be sufficient to allow increasing gas prices?"
Probably sometime during the Fraser government, back in the 1980s.
So an important difference between Australia and the US is that the Australian Federal Government already has a national Fuel Excise Tax, as well as Goods and Services Tax on Fuel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_Australia
But going back to the main point.
People can't choose public transport over the car if the public transport system in the area isn't up to scratch.
People on higher incomes can afford any increase to the cost of driving the most.
And they tend to live in the inner suburbs that have the best access to public transport.
It's the working class people in the car-dependent outer suburbs — the western suburbs of Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane in particular — who are the least able to afford it.
And when you attempt to increase the cost of driving when there aren't any good alternatives, you prompt a not-unjustified political backlash.
That political backlash is real. It's why — for example — Australia no longer has a price on carbon.
And from a social policy standpoint, you effectively financially penalise people for being poor.
The reason why I cited the Northwest Metro is because it's a great example of a rail service that's better than driving for many trips. And it was built in an area that previously had quite poor access to public transport.
That means improving density along existing rail corridors, opening up new higher-density mixed-use developments along new rail corridors, and retrofitting high-frequency (every 10 minutes or greater) bus services to existing suburban areas.
Once good alternatives are in place, that's when you ideally should take steps to make driving less attractive.
That can range from local interventions, such as pedestrianising streets and reducing the mandatory parking requirements in local planning codes.
It can potentially include congestion surcharges, parking taxes, etc.
And at a state or national level, increasing fuel excise, motor vehicles registration, stamp duty, etc.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
"Probably sometime during the Fraser government, back in the 1980s."
Huh? So you are actually agreeing with me. You think Australia can increase its gas tax today?
"So an important difference between Australia and the US is that the Australian Federal Government already has a national Fuel Excise Tax, as well as Goods and Services Tax on Fuel: "
Also this isn't a difference between Australia and the US. The US also has a federal gas tax.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712
"Also this isn't a difference between Australia and the US. The US also has a federal gas tax."
Okay, I stand corrected on this point.
But my core point remains.
Look at the oil price shocks of the 1970s, early 2000s, and two years ago.
Just increasing the price of driving alone doesn't create sustained modal shifts, unless public transport and cycling are viable alternatives.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
I'm trying to engage charitably but it honestly feels like you keep ignoring my question. When can Australia raise gas prices more?
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The really big missing piece of the puzzle in Australia — even the major capital cities — is the frequency of suburban bus services.
Here's the timetable for a typical Melbourne suburban bus route: https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/stop/15701/allambanan-drdorset-rd/2/bus/#StopPage:::datetime=2024-03-02T21%3A00%3A00.000Z&directionId=193&showAllDay=false&_auth=f308870091d891540e8a71291593644d70d97c0fb737e7cc29342c6a7802e96d
If you want to financially penalise people for driving, I think at a minimum you need to get that service up to a 10 minute all-day frequency.
Regional and rural transport services are another weak spot as well.
And I think you're more likely to get the results you're after if the increase in driving costs (however it's implemented) comes either at the same time, or after services are improved to a reasonable standard.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
You keep ignoring my question which just confirms my suspicion that the answer is "never."
If your answer is "only after every person in Australia has 10 minute transit service within a 15 minute walk (20 hours a day??), your practical answer is never. Because that will never happen.
And you haven't even engaged with my point that you're equity analysis is just vibes. You haven't actually done any cost/benefit analysis.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The answer is definitely not never.
I'm all for increasing the cost of driving, including fuel excises. And taxes on cars. And potentially congestion taxes.
But most people — at least in the mainland capitals — should be within comfortable walking distance of a public transport service that runs every 10 minutes first.
That's not currently the case.
Price mechanisms aren't as effective as they could be at changing behaviour if there are no viable alternatives in place.
So my answer is ideally petrol prices should be increased at the same time as decent bus services are rolled out across the capital cities.
And I think where public transport services are already at a decent standard, or as services are improved, we should be rolling out more localised disincentives to driving, such as pedestrianising streets.
We should be doing that right now.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
Right, it sounds like we're mostly on the same page. If you scroll back up and read my original reply, I'm pushing back on multiple people communicating a hard line in the sand, no additional car ownership costs before there's some vague level of transit service.
That is a lot different than asking our policymakers to coordinate transportation changes, which you seem to be saying now. Here's the original post:
https://lemmy.world/comment/8058778
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
Saying alternatives *need* to be in place *before* you can discourage car ownership is a lot different than asking policymakers to coordinate transportation changes.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
Its an important distinction because people have a delusional perception of what's already available. Every city has a bus system. People can use 20 minute bus service! And I guarantee if middle class folks start riding those buses, the service will improve.
And additionally there are places that will never have transit. We can't hope people will eventually just stop living in rural areas and then after that, finally, we'll raise fuel taxes.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 I think we're broadly on the same page. It's definitely not a hard line in the sand at my end.
I tend to view transport and urban planning policy as being deeply connected. There's a number of tools in that policy toolkit that should ideally be used together to reduce car dependency. And pricing is one of them.
And I get the impression that for a number of pragmatic reasons, there might be some differences in what good policy looks like in the US versus Australia.
As an aside, country areas are an interesting side case. I think in many country areas, it is possible to get much better services than currently exist, but that's a different discussion.
@ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712
However if we decide it's ok to make it expensive to own a car, we actually can envision a world where everyone lives within transit because people will choose to do that.
And the money we raise from fuel taxes -- which are mostly paid by wealthy and middle class earners -- can be used to actually expand transit.
@owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 Here's where there is a big difference between the US and Australia.
The wealthiest parts of Australia's capital cities are in the inner-city, which already have access to good public transport.
The poorest areas tend to be the outer suburbs, where public transport is a half-hourly bus, and cycling involves navigating a six-lane stroad with no protected bike lane.
It's the opposite to the US, where in many metro areas the wealthiest white residents live in outer-suburban gated communities and the (often Black) working class have traditionally lived in the inner city.
The wealthiest suburbs in Melbourne are served by the (mostly inner-city) tram network. Toorak, Brighton, Kew, Camberwell, and increasingly Fitzroy.
And the poorest tend to be in the outer suburbs.
There's a whole history of why it played out differently to the US.
But the big factor for why someone lives in, say, Carrum Downs in outer southeast Melbourne (where the local public transport is by bus) is because it's all they can afford.
In the US, where the wealthiest people live in the outer suburbs, raising gas prices to encourage them to move to the inner city where there's better public transport would probably work.
The difference is that in Australia the wealthiest people actively avoid the outer suburbs.
It's the working class who tends to live in the outer suburbs.
Most Carrum Downs residents would gladly choose to live somewhere like Brighton or Toorak with good public transport. If they could afford it.
That means there needs to be decent alternatives to driving if you're going to increase the cost of driving.