So suppose we don’t like cars and want to not need them. What are the transportation alternatives for rural areas? Are there viable options?

Edit:

Thank you all for interesting comments. I should certainly have been more specific-- obviously the term “rural” means different things to different people. Most of you assumed commuting; I should have specified that I meant more for hauling bulk groceries, animal feed, hay bales, etc. For that application I really see no alternative to cars, unfortunately. Maybe horse and buggy in a town or village scenrio.

For posterity and any country dwellers who try to ditch cars in the future, here are the suggestions:

Train infrastructure, and busses where trains aren’t possible

Park and rides, hopefully with associated bike infrastructure

No real alternative and/or not really a problem at this scale

Bikes, ebikes, dirtbikes

Horse and buggy

Ride share and carpooling

Don’t live in the country

Walkable towns and villages

Our greatgrandparents and the amish did it

A lot of you gave similar suggestions, so I won’t copy/paste answers, but just respond to a few comments individually.

  • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    @frankPodmore @betwixthewires Here’s a map of what the train network used to look like across rural Victoria (in Australia) in 1927: https://everythingismaps.github.io/img/historicvicrailmaps/1927%20Victorian%20rail%20map.PNG

    And here’s rural NSW in 1933: https://www.nswrail.net/maps/nsw-1933.php

    And here’s a video that @nerd4cities recently uploaded about the destruction of intercity train networks in the US: https://youtu.be/svao4PZ4bGs?si=K7zrMlZ4bvfmiRcC

    So yes, many rural areas and small towns in the US, Australia, and Canada used to have access to frequent and reliable train services back in the first half of the 20th century.

    Those train systems in many cases were privately run, so no direct taxpayer subsidies. At a time when overall populations were smaller.

    So what changed? Car-centric government policies.

    • betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What else has changed? Cars became available and roads were easier to build than tracks.

      I’m not against trains, I love them, especially the prospect of using them for long distance travel between rural areas. But people in rural areas use cars because there was a natural incentive to use cars: they’re faster than horses and trains and the roads were already there, bonus they can be used for work on the land as machinery. Car centric government policies really are an effect of the widespread use of cars. They entrench the current way things work and create inertia in moving forward from it, but they didn’t create it, at least not in the middle of nowhere.

      • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        @betwixthewires Cars faster than trains? If that’s the case in your country, then you have a serious underinvestment in rail.

        (Seriously, even V/Line trains in Victoria go faster than the 100 KP/h speed limit, and by world standards V/Line ain’t a great train service.)

        What happened in the US, Australia, and Canada was a massive investment in rural highway infrastructure by national and state/provincial governments after World War 2.

        In the US, that was Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

        In Australia, it was Gough Whitlam’s National Roads Act of 1974: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_(Australia)

        Many towns in the rural western US were railway towns. They were quite literally built around a train station.

        But after WW2, the US spent the equivalent of US$193 billion (adjusted for inflation) in just 10 years building new interstate highways.

        At the same time, the extensive already-existing network of rural railways saw service cuts, was run down, and had privately-owned lines become freight-only.

        Again, similar story in the other former British colonies.

        That was a choice by government. And the result of that choice is many people in those railway towns responded by buying a car.

        It didn’t have to be that way.

        In many parts of Europe and Asia, where leaders have invested in rail, you can live quite comfortably in many small towns without a car.

    • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks, that’s interesting! Always like it when I’m provided with evidence that I am, if anything, slightly too sympathetic towards cars.