Public transport still doesn't cover all the use cases of a car, such as hauling things and going out into nature. Which is something everyone needs to do.
In South Australia the public transport certainly does go out to nature. Kids use the train to bring their mountain bikes to the top of the trails and you can visit many national parks by bus. And for hauling things, its cheaper to get them delivered or rent a small truck.
People seem to think that just because things don't work where they live, that they must be impossible.
Even if public transport goes out into nature, it's going to be a tiny fraction of the places that you can reach with a car. To reach nature in the same extent with public transport as with a car, is impossible. The few nature spots that are connected by public transport around here are completely overcrowded on any weekend with nice weather, and the trip itself takes more than twice the time of driving, making day trips not even feasible anymore.
Even just getting around in inside the city, driving takes on average half the time of public transport. Shopping is much more convenient. It IS impossible to have public transport that delivers the same usefulness, speed and flexibility.
Correct. Therefore, the winning combination for city dwellers is public transit + carsharing. Public transit operators are catching on to this: In my city, there is a tie-in offer where a subscription to public transit gives you a rebate with a partnered carsharing provider.
Like I already wrote in another comment, I think car sharing absolutely does not work at all, because everyone wants the cars at the same time. It's really difficult to find a car when you want it, for example on a sunday afternoon when the weather is nice. And it's totally unreliable, sorry bad luck no swimming for you today, a whole beautiful day wasted in your apartment. It's almost impossible hard to find a scooter share to go to work during commute times. It's only reliable on odd times where noone wants it.
Owning a car still gives you a lot of freedom and flexibility to do what you want, when you want it. Which is not covered by car sharing at all.
I would gladly own a cheaper car only to do a weekly shopping trip and a weekly nature trip, something like 25km per week. Seems ridiculous to own a car for that short distances, but it gives a LOT of quality of life and I would gladly pay for it instead of using car sharing.
> Owning a car still gives you a lot of freedom and flexibility to do what you want, when you want it. Which is not covered by car sharing at all.
I live in a big city (London). Owning a car for me would be frankly insane. Where would I put it? If I was communing again, could not possibly take it in to work, there would be nowhere to put it at that end either, when I finally got through the traffic.
It is both much more practical and cheaper to use bicycle or bus and metro rail for commuting; taxi, minicab, or uber for other urban journeys; and car rental for weekends away.
I get that cases may vary. it's different further out from the city. But the idea that car = freedom, always, is very silly. I owned car here once, and it was liberating to get rid of it.
It seems that you have problems with your shared transport in your area, it sucks but maybe the better solution is better shared transport, not more private cars?
> I live in a big city (London). Owning a car for me would be frankly insane. Where would I put it? If I was communing again, could not possibly take it in to work, there would be nowhere to put it at that end either, when I finally got through the traffic.
I live in a big city. Not owning a car for me would be frankly insane. How would I get to work? It'd take ~2 hours with public transport only.
It is both much more practical and safer to use a car rather than a bicylce (too dangerous) or bus (cannot reach where I go) and metro rail (Have to walk an hour for nearest station) for commuting; taxi, minicab, or uber for other urban journeys; and car rental for weekends away (all are too expensive in the long run).
I get that cases may vary. it's different in other cities. But the idea that car = burden, always, is very silly. I was unable to go where I want/need to go quickly until I got a car, and it was liberating.
Eh, the comment thread we're talking under starts with a comment [0] by me, supporting public transport rather than thse cars with an implicit sentence stating that my city's public transport sucks.
No it doesn't, because the destination is not a densely populated place. People go in wheel and spoke formation in their cars out from the city into nature.
> Public transport still doesn't cover all the use cases of a car.
Of course. OTOH, Instead of using my car, congesting traffic and spewing smoke from my back twice everyday, I'd only use my car whenever I need it for these heavy tasks.
Then, use public transport most of the time which possibly runs on electric and do a little more walking every day.
People seem to think that just because things don't work where they live, that they must be impossible.