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.

  • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, fair enough! I was thinking of places in the UK (and other areas of Western Europe I’m familiar with) where even ‘isolated’ houses are usually less than five miles away from a larger settlement. I’ve been in plenty of places where I’d just walk across or around a field to get to the nearest shop - which was more direct than taking the road!

    In terms of the rural US, I think you’re probably right that solving these problems with human-powered vehicles and public transport is, basically, too hard, and that cars are the best available solution. That said, it’s probably still worth building the infrastructure so people have the option of not using a car for the whole of every single journey.

    • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
      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.

      • 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.

      • 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.