I lived in Singapore without a car, there is no need to own a car. I used public transport and ride sharing without ever feeling that having a car would have improved my experience. In Hong Kong it was the same, and I lived in the Northern Territories, however in Sydney we had a car even though public transport was great, because its a big fucking country. Now in Penang, Malaysia there is no usable public transport, so a car is absolutely essential.
20km for groceries is not bad transit planning it's called living in the middle of fucking nowhere. It's completely irrelevant to any discussion related to urban planning and car dependency.
Name one place so poorly planned, everyone within a 20km/13 mile radius all share a grocery store because that's the closest one - while still being considered urban. I'll even let you get away with sub-urban.
20-25 km to buy groceries means there should be public transport available to get you there. Or it means that your villages and cities are shittily built to not have neccessities within walking distance.
Has nothing to do with shittily built, public transport for 5 people that's available around the clock isn't something that's even remotely feasible, nor is it economical.
Apart from that, if you think like that, you're part of the problem. Where do you think the groceries will come from in the future? From farmers that go about with public transport?
Nobody advocating for reduced car dependency and public transportation want to force farmers or rural people to sell their cars and take the bus. This argument is so fucking stupid and so fucking tiresome.
And in the countries where there is no such public transport, they still shouldn't implement such a law until they get their public transport in order.
I'm disabled and live among farms with no immediate public transport… I don't think other countries should try this. If I couldn't afford a car, I wouldn't be able to go anywhere.
Gotta love people pulling one in a million (and in this case completely irrelevant) exceptions out of their ass as a reason to argue in favour of car infrastructure.
this is a good thing, other countries should do it too
Other countries like Singapore, sure. Countries where you've got to go 20-25 km just to buy basic groceries, fuck no.
I lived in Singapore without a car, there is no need to own a car. I used public transport and ride sharing without ever feeling that having a car would have improved my experience. In Hong Kong it was the same, and I lived in the Northern Territories, however in Sydney we had a car even though public transport was great, because its a big fucking country. Now in Penang, Malaysia there is no usable public transport, so a car is absolutely essential.
bad transit planning
20km for groceries is not bad transit planning it's called living in the middle of fucking nowhere. It's completely irrelevant to any discussion related to urban planning and car dependency.
Smfh
did you really think I was referring to rural areas lmfao
I mean, yeah? I did. Because what non-rural areas require going 20-25km for groceries by car?
bad suburbs
Name one place so poorly planned, everyone within a 20km/13 mile radius all share a grocery store because that's the closest one - while still being considered urban. I'll even let you get away with sub-urban.
Homie what the fuck. What percentage of people living in first world countries do you think this applies to?
In Germany, Austria and Italy? A lot. I'd say at least 40%.
20-25 km to buy groceries means there should be public transport available to get you there. Or it means that your villages and cities are shittily built to not have neccessities within walking distance.
Has nothing to do with shittily built, public transport for 5 people that's available around the clock isn't something that's even remotely feasible, nor is it economical.
Apart from that, if you think like that, you're part of the problem. Where do you think the groceries will come from in the future? From farmers that go about with public transport?
Yeah it is remotely feasible to setup public transport like that.
Nobody advocating for reduced car dependency and public transportation want to force farmers or rural people to sell their cars and take the bus. This argument is so fucking stupid and so fucking tiresome.
It's being implied every single time this topic comes up.
Did you really think this up? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
And in the countries where there is no such public transport, they still shouldn't implement such a law until they get their public transport in order.
So they won't implement such law ever because nobody will go for public transport. Instead they'll add "one more lane"
I'm disabled and live among farms with no immediate public transport… I don't think other countries should try this. If I couldn't afford a car, I wouldn't be able to go anywhere.
Obviously this is only for urban areas
Gotta love people pulling one in a million (and in this case completely irrelevant) exceptions out of their ass as a reason to argue in favour of car infrastructure.
But I live in rural North Dakota!! Why should I be punished for needing a truck??!?!!!1!1!!
This is Singapore, one of the most urban and built up areas on earth. You're comparing oranges and bricks.
Upvote because you were at 0. I don't think paying $100,000 for the ability to drive a car is a good system.
Car dependency is better fixed by better city planning.
Singapore has pretty good city planning. But you still need a way to disincentivize car ownership, otherwise you end up with overloaded roads anyway.