I think part of the ubiquity is that cars are the “easy” option. In areas without any real infrastructure, a car or truck will still work and move people and supplies around. Putting in roads and gas stations simply allows they ride to be smoother/faster and allows users to keep them fueled more conveniently. Also, because cars can drive right up to their destination, there is no last-mile problem to solve. If there is no political will behind other solutions, the “easy” option will win.
While driving cars is the most dangerous thing many people do on a daily basis without thinking about it, it’s not all downside. Cars/trucks also enable saving lives or keeping people alive. Ambulances they get sick of injured people to hospitals quickly, fire trucks that allow us to more quickly and easily save people from fires and put them out. Doctors traveling by dirt bike to remote areas in Africa to delivered much needed care and supplies. Trucks that allow goods to be shipping around and delivered to stores and restaurants so people can get supplied and eat. The list goes on.
So while I think we can agree that cities with reasonable density can be well served by rails, bikes, and walking, I don’t think cars/trucks will end up completely disappearing, as they are still very useful tools for specialized applications. It’s not that cars control us, it’s just that they are such a flexible tool they they are often the only tool in a (lazy) civil engineers tool belt. In addition, if a city doesn’t have the funds to build out specialized infrastructure for every mode of transportation, a generic road ensures easy emergency vehicle access, which is pretty important.
A multiuse path (based on local data) costs 10% the cost of one lane of road.
I’ve been trying to gather momentum to implement 0.5km of path built for every 1km of road. Construction costs only go up 5% and it would add massive amounts of mobility. Paths don’t necessarily need to be near where the roads are.
It’s also a tool that would force road and infrastructure planners to think about how people move around not in cars.
![[meme] Walk out your front door, take a gander, and tell me this isn't true](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/473b8c53-67c4-4a7d-a1e3-2034fca97432.webp){kind=link}
I think part of the ubiquity is that cars are the “easy” option. In areas without any real infrastructure, a car or truck will still work and move people and supplies around. Putting in roads and gas stations simply allows they ride to be smoother/faster and allows users to keep them fueled more conveniently. Also, because cars can drive right up to their destination, there is no last-mile problem to solve. If there is no political will behind other solutions, the “easy” option will win.
While driving cars is the most dangerous thing many people do on a daily basis without thinking about it, it’s not all downside. Cars/trucks also enable saving lives or keeping people alive. Ambulances they get sick of injured people to hospitals quickly, fire trucks that allow us to more quickly and easily save people from fires and put them out. Doctors traveling by dirt bike to remote areas in Africa to delivered much needed care and supplies. Trucks that allow goods to be shipping around and delivered to stores and restaurants so people can get supplied and eat. The list goes on.
So while I think we can agree that cities with reasonable density can be well served by rails, bikes, and walking, I don’t think cars/trucks will end up completely disappearing, as they are still very useful tools for specialized applications. It’s not that cars control us, it’s just that they are such a flexible tool they they are often the only tool in a (lazy) civil engineers tool belt. In addition, if a city doesn’t have the funds to build out specialized infrastructure for every mode of transportation, a generic road ensures easy emergency vehicle access, which is pretty important.
A multiuse path (based on local data) costs 10% the cost of one lane of road.
I’ve been trying to gather momentum to implement 0.5km of path built for every 1km of road. Construction costs only go up 5% and it would add massive amounts of mobility. Paths don’t necessarily need to be near where the roads are.
It’s also a tool that would force road and infrastructure planners to think about how people move around not in cars.