In the UK its 80% cars vans and taxis. About 15% rail. Very small parentage cycling and air. 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/300705/overall-use-of-transport-for-all-trips-in-the-united-kingdom/

 

 

9 hours ago, Fielder said:

In most cities, people with a car usually will drive it to work, rather than try to flag a bus. The parking lot where I work has a hundred cars. Nobody takes the bus (which stops a block away). Except when their car breaks down. There's an average of 3 people on each bus you see going down the street. Usually these look like very poor people.

The reason why is pretty simple though - the vast majority of infrastructure money is spent on car infrastructure, and so for most people the car ends up being the fastest option. Busses do not get any special priority, and so get stuck in the same traffic that the cars are stuck in. Therefore, the only people who take the bus are those too poor to afford their own car. In general the majority of people are not "car" people or "train" people or "bike" people - they're going to take the mode of transporation that is the fastest and most reliable, if they can afford it. in the US, that's almost always a car. In the Netherlands, it's often a bicycle. in Switzerland, it's usually a train. in New York, it's the Subway. Dutch people don't bike because it's genetic, they bike because the average speed of a bicycle in Amsterdam is faster than the average speed of a car in Los Angeles.

In New York, the Subway and busses are often faster than driving because they actually get public investment, and so people of all classes use public transit on a regular basis. If you take the 4 train at 8am on a tuesday, it is filled with well dressed people on their way to the office. If you take the M2 bus on the upper east side on a sunday afternoon, you will see many well-to-do retired people taking the bus to get groceries, go to the park, or visit local museums and restaurants. Of course, in smaller cities outside the US where public investment is made into transit that takes people where they actually want to go, people use it. It's especially great for older folks and the disabled who can't drive or are on fixed incomes as well, since they don't need to rely on a car to get to the places they need to go.

Edited April 10, 20233 yr by StAgre

More people use trains and busses in Europe for several reasons.  One is that Europe has less space than the USA, so most of the population is urban and most people live in condominiums that are usually closer to their workplace, therefore it is convenient for them to take a bus, bicycle, or walk. 

Another reason is that driving is generally more expensive in Europe due to the very high cost of fuel, high cost of vehicle ownership, and limited parking options.  This is why you see a lot of small cars there as opposed to the many large ones in the USA.

Lastly, traffic in most European cities is a nightmare due to very narrow 2-lane roads and a non-grid layout.  Most cities in the USA have a grid layout with wider streets, 4-lane streets, and even lanes for turning only, making driving easier and more practical.

New York city is the closest analogy to European cities. It has a high population density, highly developed bus and train network, and many residents don't even own a car.

I believe that most people in Europe would love to be able to own a larger vehicle and drive it to work as opposed to taking a bus or train.

Distances in the USA are also greater in general, with towns and cities further apart and suburbs miles from the city center, making bicycling or walking to work impractical in many areas.

Having said all that, I support development of light rail for many large cities in the USA, so that you don't get clogged freeways due to people who live 20 miles away driving in to work at the same time every day.  I think the light rail should be funded by the State and local taxpayers, not federal subsidies.  Why should I pay for some resident of a large city to have light rail when I live in a small town in Alabama?

Dave

The drawback to public transportation is that all of your fellow passengers are not friends and family. There's no telling what kind of people you will be in close proximity to for the duration. This would be a bigger issue here in the Americas than say in Europe.

Secondarily, the schedules are not your own, somebody else made them.  And you must conform, you can't be a little late. 

12 hours ago, dave2013 said:

More people use trains and busses in Europe.

Dave

 

They don't.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Passenger_mobility_statistics#:~:text=The car is the dominant,persons on average per car.

Most people drive to work. In the UK its 85%.

12 hours ago, dave2013 said:

believe that most people in Europe would love to be able to own a larger vehicle and drive it to work as opposed to taking a bus or train.

 

There are numerous large vehicles. More small ones than US, but many medium and large cars. 

 

12 hours ago, Fielder said:

The drawback to public transportation is that all of your fellow passengers are not friends and family. There's no telling what kind of people you will be in close proximity to for the duration

 

A good point. Anybody who has ridden on public transport has found themselves sitting next to someone they'd rather not.

On 4/9/2023 at 1:38 PM, Mike A said:

Local color commentary: “Little Boxes” was inspired by post-WWII housing development in Daly City, CA, which is on the southern border of San Francisco.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boxes

Also the theme song for "Weeds" !

32 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Wow. 

So much for "carbon neutral" and "net zero".

Dave 

 

85% is an average across the UK. Varies dependant on location. If you work in the centre of London or Birmingham, the trains are packed during the rush hour. Makes no sense to play space invaders and battle it out with insane motorists in Central London.

It's only 27%, for example, that drive to work in London.

If public transport isn't clean, safe, reliable across the nation, its less likely to be used. And people will do what's easiest for them.

Edited April 11, 20233 yr by martin-w

Meanwhile, back at the 3D printed ranch, here is an interesting alternative construction method which I don't think has yet been mentioned:

 

Edited April 11, 20233 yr by dmwalker

 

25 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

There will be no further replies from me, I promise.

 

My thread was supposed to be about 3D printing then it drifted into transport and now you've pushed it in the direction of politics and green issues, both of which we aren't supposed to debate on the forum.

Edited April 11, 20233 yr by martin-w

1 hour ago, dmwalker said:

Meanwhile, back at the 3D printed ranch, here is an interesting alternative construction method which I don't think has yet been mentioned:

 

Yes, I saw this the other day. I'm not convinced its a better alternative, as they claim in the video. Not sure how its superior when you have to lay, by hand, an outer leaf of bricks. 

Edited April 11, 20233 yr by martin-w

I did see this article which was really interesting.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/tecla-3d-printed-house

Seems like an interesting use of the technology is that it doesn't necessarily have to use concrete - any building material that starts liquid and hardens could theoretically be used, opening up opportunities to make use of local materials reducing costs and emissions associated with shipping building materials.

Edited April 11, 20233 yr by StAgre

25 minutes ago, StAgre said:

Seems like an interesting use of the technology is that it doesn't necessarily have to use concrete - any building material that starts liquid and hardens could theoretically be used, opening up opportunities to make use of local materials reducing costs and emissions associated with shipping building materials.

Interesting, but I don't think folks would like to live in a house made from processed cow or house manure and straw... 🤔

13 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Interesting, but I don't think folks would like to live in a house made from processed cow or house manure and straw... 🤔

These houses are in Italy, printed with earth. It's not made of manure 😐 

It's basically brick, but instead of making a bunch of small square bricks beforehand, and stacking them with mortar to build, the 3d printer just takes the wet brick material and prints into a single, giant brick that makes up the structure of the house.

Edited April 11, 20233 yr by StAgre

1 minute ago, StAgre said:

These houses are in Italy, printed with earth. It's not made of manure 😐

I was being facetious (mostly). I'm well aware that many natural materials could be used in the 3d printer. Adobe bricks after all are some of the most ancient of building materials.