Poll of the Day > could you imagine how amazing america would be with a proper train system

(+) Yeah! (+)

LinkPizza posted...

Sure But we already have them. If this was before we created them, thatd be different Since we already have them, though, we dont need to build them again

For this plan, wed need a lot not only to build the whole train system, but a lot to also redo the whole public transport system, as well And would probably have to rebuild whole cities to make it actually work well And even then, youd need to get people to want to use it

Just maintaining this stuff is expensive. Highways are still being expanded to accomodate more cars (spoiler:this doesn't help), massive parking lots and garages are still being built. If half that money went to supporting public transport I would be so happy.

imlikegutsfr posted...

Just maintaining this stuff is expensive. Highways are still being expanded to accomodate more cars (spoiler:this doesn't help), massive parking lots and garages are still being built. If half that money went to supporting public transport I would be so happy.

still wouldn't change people not wanting to use the bus

Krazy_Kirby posted...

still wouldn't change people not wanting to use the bus

More open seats for me dawg

imlikegutsfr posted...

Just maintaining this stuff is expensive. Highways are still being expanded to accomodate more cars (spoiler:this doesn't help), massive parking lots and garages are still being built. If half that money went to supporting public transport I would be so happy.

Maintaining it is expensive, but you would also have to maintain the trains and buses, which is also expensive Since youd have to maintain both, I decided not to mention it But, yeah Either way, youre maintaining something And maintaining it is still cheaper than building it And expanded something it still cheaper than building something completely new And building things like a parking lot or parking garage one at a time here and there is still cheaper than building a whole train system for the whole country Of half of that money was used for public transport, it probably wouldnt change much depending on the where it was used

LinkPizza posted...

Maintaining it is expensive, but you would also have to maintain the trains and buses, which is also expensive

significantly less so, since there's less throughput when you pack more people onto fewer vehicles. the stress on roads comes from mostly the weight of the vehicle, not the weight of their passengers

LinkPizza posted...

And expanded something it still cheaper than building something completely new

no it's not??? you're building something new either way, and parking spaces inherently take up a lot of space by design (because you are storing cars there)

agesboy posted...

significantly less so, since there's less throughput when you pack more people onto fewer vehicles. the stress on roads comes from mostly the weight of the vehicle, not the weight of their passengers

I think think maintaining roads is cheaper than literally building a whole new train system I dont see how it couldnt be Not to mention, maintaining roads seems cheaper than maintaining buses, trains, and the railroads themselves

agesboy posted...

no it's not??? you're building something new either way, and parking spaces inherently take up a lot of space by design (because you are storing cars there)

When expanding roads, youre building on something old. Anything new youre building usually isnt much. Building a new railroad system seems like it would need a lot of extra space, as well So more building than a a couple extra lanes of highway And I never said parking spaces didnt take up a lot of space, so I have no idea why that was mentioned

LinkPizza posted...

Since we already have them, though, we dont need to build them again

You don't have to bulldoze any more buildings to build them again, but you do have to rip them up and replace them periodically, and that costs pretty close to the amount it takes to build them in the first place. Road maintenance is a massive expense that single-handedly keeps most American cities from being solvent and forces them to rely on significant state and federal subsidies. Anything that reduces that need will pay for itself much more quickly than most people realize.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But like it or not, the state of the world as it is kind of necessitates it.

Not really. Yes, overhauling everything is a massive undertaking, but overhauling everything isn't necessary. There are plenty of opportunities for incremental improvements, both to existing infrastructure and as a principle guiding future developments. High-speed rail connecting cities is absolutely one of those opportunities, given how easy it is to develop effective transit around a major train station (even if all you do is have a few buses leave shortly after the train arrives/arrive shortly before it departs, travelling to other transit hubs that then schedule their routes around those buses).

As much as people like to cling to the "we can't have real transit because America's too new!" excuse, most of the car-centric development that has come to typify America only happened post-WW2, and that same boom happened all over most of Europe as well (since a sizable number of those "old cities" were forcibly redeveloped by high explosives during the war). Most of the European cities and countries that are now considered paragons of sustainable, human-friendly city design (including the urbanist wet dream that is Amsterdam) aren't that way because they were always that way, they're that way because they recognized that car-centric design was a problem and started trying to fix it, a process that took quite a long time to yield the benefits they get to reap now. There are ways to force improvement to happen all at once (Paris has actually taken a lot of those steps in recent years, and is an interesting study in that regard if you're looking to learn more about that), with varying effectiveness and costs, but overall what's needed are incremental improvements and the change in philosophy that comes with recognizing that things are getting better with those improvements.

It's also very much worth noting that America was initially built around trains. That infrastructure has of course been gutted since those days, and city design no longer reflects the principle of developing around stations, but those bones are still there in the way that cities are distributed. The geography supports rail connections between cities, whatever other improvements are needed to take full advantage of that.

LinkPizza posted...

So I could use my vehicle at my destination

This is always brought up as an issue with long-distance train travel, but that's not a problem that's unique to trains. Air travel also has to deal with it, and it works just fine there even though the problem is worse for airports because of how far away from things they innately have to be. If you're just getting to your hotel, take transit (if a functional system exists), a cab, or uber. If you need a car while you're there, rent one or use a car share. Those options cost money, certainly, but generally a lot less than 14+ hours of your time, however much gas you need, the wear and tear that puts on your car, and parking costs, to say nothing of the safety considerations (driving is inherently more dangerous than other modes of transportation, and doing it for that long adds further risk due to fatigue) and extra accommodation costs for trips that are long enough to take multiple days.

LinkPizza posted...

And even then, youd need to get people to want to use it

If it exists as a viable alternative to driving, people will use it. Driving sucks (especially commuting in heavy traffic, which even those who do enjoy driving can agree is a miserable experience), and a very large number of people do it purely out of necessity. Remove that necessity by creating alternatives, and people will gladly take advantage of them.

The fact that it would be an overall improvement is exactly why itll never happen.

MURICA

adjl posted...

You don't have to bulldoze any more buildings to build them again, but you do have to rip them up and replace them periodically, and that costs pretty close to the amount it takes to build them in the first place. Road maintenance is a massive expense that single-handedly keeps most American cities from being solvent and forces them to rely on significant state and federal subsidies. Anything that reduces that need will pay for itself much more quickly than most people realize.

Except the fact that well still be using them a lot even with the trains. Meaning well still be paying for them. And thats on top of building a whole new train system, as well So the cost only goes up New public transport may lower the cost, but not by much In the end, I still think fixing roads is cheaper than building a cross country train system

adjl posted...

This is always brought up as an issue with long-distance train travel, but that's not a problem that's unique to trains. Air travel also has to deal with it, and it works just fine there even though the problem is worse for airports because of how far away from things they innately have to be. If you're just getting to your hotel, take transit (if a functional system exists), a cab, or uber. If you need a car while you're there, rent one or use a car share. Those options cost money, certainly, but generally a lot less than 14+ hours of your time, however much gas you need, the wear and tear that puts on your car, and parking costs, to say nothing of the safety considerations (driving is inherently more dangerous than other modes of transportation, and doing it for that long adds further risk due to fatigue) and extra accommodation costs for trips that are long enough to take multiple days.

I never said or implied it was unique to trains. I was just answering the question that was posed. The time I drove home and back, I was fine with driving since Id have my vehicle home Thats all

adjl posted...

If it exists as a viable alternative to driving, people will use it. Driving sucks (especially commuting in heavy traffic, which even those who do enjoy driving can agree is a miserable experience), and a very large number of people do it purely out of necessity. Remove that necessity by creating alternatives, and people will gladly take advantage of them.

Just because it exist doesnt mean more people will use it Or a lot more From what Ive seen, most people who use it in the places Ive been have to And most people I know dont want to use it (for varying reasons from gross to time-consuming to confusing) And driving does suck. But some people would still rather get somewhere in a timely matter, or head straight there instead of a short tour around the city Many people already can take public transports, but like the convenience of personal vehicles You have to make it appealing to those drivers And even then, many still may rather drive

I've got an idea, what if we never ever fucking tried to improve even a single goddamn thing and see if that makes the country better

LinkPizza posted...

In the end, I still think fixing roads is cheaper than building a cross country train system

It isn't. Again, most people grossly underestimate how much road maintenance costs. There are quite a few municipalities where in order to cover road maintenance with just taxes, they'd need to tax everyone 70%+ of the median gross income (on top of all other taxes). Roads are hideously expensive and car-centric design results in land use patterns that don't generate enough tax revenue to offset that cost. It's just not sustainable.

adjl posted...

It isn't. Again, most people grossly underestimate how much road maintenance costs. There are quite a few municipalities where in order to cover road maintenance with just taxes, they'd need to tax everyone 70%+ of the median gross income (on top of all other taxes). Roads are hideously expensive and car-centric design results in land use patterns that don't generate enough tax revenue to offset that cost. It's just not sustainable.

Im not underestimating. I think it cost a lot. But its doesnt make sense to think it cost more than a new train system. Fixing roads already there has cost. But most of that should be material, which main consist of concrete and asphalt For a new train system, youd probably need some concrete, as well But also metal for the tracks Which I heard the faster trains usually use stronger material Dont forget the insane amount of trains youd also need for the tracks And the new stations theyll have to build How are all those materials cheaper than concrete and asphalt? Thats why I said it would be more expensive for a country wide train system Because all of that stuff together will cost more than road maintenance

LinkPizza posted...

And the new stations theyll have to build How are all those materials cheaper than concrete and asphalt?

because one train track has a lot more throughput than dozens of roads

at the very least, it's incredibly easy to monetarily justify linking large cities this way

agesboy posted...

because one train track has a lot more throughput than dozens of roads

at the very least, it's incredibly easy to monetarily justify linking large cities this way

Yeah. But it sounds like wed be building more than one track track One track seems kind of useless, tbh I was talking about a cross country train system And that would absolutely cost more No matter how much thought goes into one train track

And honestly, if it was built in the US, they probably use the same amount of thought for the train track as they did for the roads

Blightzkrieg posted...

I've got an idea, what if we never ever fucking tried to improve even a single goddamn thing and see if that makes the country better

*improves AI*

LinkPizza posted...

But it sounds like wed be building more than one track

And more than one track has a lot more throughput than even more dozens of roads. At its widest, the 401 Highway in Ontario is 18 lanes wide and that stretch moves an average of ~500,000 people per day. Each of the top three subway lines in Toronto carry more than that a similar distance, with the highest carrying over 800,000 a day. Maintaining a 18-lane highway is substantially more expensive than maintaining one subway line, while generating zero direct revenue (each of those 800,000 people pay like $3 per trip) to offset its costs, those using it have to actively do so instead of being able to do something else while they wait to arrive (whether that's something productive or just something fun), and using it is substantially more dangerous and stressful than using a subway. Bonus points where you can even still build on top of a subway (though this doesn't apply to surface rail, which most high-speed rail is), while a 18-lane highway is just a 250-foot wide swath of useless.

Also, while the idea is to build more than one track to establish a decent network, as I and others have said multiple times, that doesn't have to happen all at once. Start by building a couple of lines connecting cities that are already connected by multiple flights per day (so there's already established demand for rapid transit between them), spend a year or two collecting revenue from that to recover the cost (something else you're neglecting to consider: any form of mass transit yields some return on the investment, reducing the subsidies needed), then build a couple more lines connecting other cities that are similarly already easy to connect. As the network grows and becomes more useful, more people will use it, generating more revenue and funding further growth. There will still be a need for subsidies, both to get it off the ground and to operate it while keeping fares affordable, but it's a lot better to subsidize a system that moves people efficiently and partially pays for itself than to subsidize an inefficient system that pays absolutely nothing. That's just sensible investment.

adjl posted...

And more than one track has a lot more throughput than even more dozens of roads. At its widest, the 401 Highway in Ontario is 18 lanes wide and that stretch moves an average of ~500,000 people per day. Each of the top three subway lines in Toronto carry more than that a similar distance, with the highest carrying over 800,000 a day. Maintaining a 18-lane highway is substantially more expensive than maintaining one subway line, while generating zero direct revenue (each of those 800,000 people pay like $3 per trip) to offset its costs, those using it have to actively do so instead of being able to do something else while they wait to arrive (whether that's something productive or just something fun), and using it is substantially more dangerous and stressful than using a subway. Bonus points where you can even still build on top of a subway (though this doesn't apply to surface rail, which most high-speed rail is), while a 18-lane highway is just a 250-foot wide swath of useless.

Also, while the idea is to build more than one track to establish a decent network, as I and others have said multiple times, that doesn't have to happen all at once. Start by building a couple of lines connecting cities that are already connected by multiple flights per day (so there's already established demand for rapid transit between them), spend a year or two collecting revenue from that to recover the cost (something else you're neglecting to consider: any form of mass transit yields some return on the investment, reducing the subsidies needed), then build a couple more lines connecting other cities that are similarly already easy to connect. As the network grows and becomes more useful, more people will use it, generating more revenue and funding further growth. There will still be a need for subsidies, both to get it off the ground and to operate it while keeping fares affordable, but it's a lot better to subsidize a system that moves people efficiently and partially pays for itself than to subsidize an inefficient system that pays absolutely nothing. That's just sensible investment.

We can guess and assume itll have more thought out into it But it can just as easily become a hot mess If the US built a train system, it might even turn out worse than the roads, for all I know And its probably be more expensive here Taxes would probably rise just to pay the initial cost, which sucks since I cant afford to lose more money for something I wont even use And the ticket cost probably wouldnt be as low here Especially when the people who build it will probably be greedy As for building on top, it only works if you can get underground

It doesnt have to happen all at once, but I think the cost for a similar amount of track to road would still cost more, as you have to get the materials, land, lots of contractors for building, the trains, etc And Im not neglecting the revenue that can be made. Im just not even sure if it matters that much depending on who owns it Plus, who says the returns will be high I think theyll charge a lot, but that doesnt say how much theyll get to use on the other stuff I worked at a bus station for a while We definitely made like nothing there The only reason we could still run was because the city paid for it to work Even then, the bus station was like the redhead stepchild of the city Amen in the end, taxes will still be higher since they wouldnt be getting rid of roads. We just now also have trains that add to the amount we need to pay Which hurts me financially in the long run

LinkPizza posted...

We can guess and assume itll have more thought out into it

you keep saying thought when we say throughput

they are not remotely the same thing

agesboy posted...

you keep saying thought when we say throughput

they are not remotely the same thing

Than I guess were talking about different things

imlikegutsfr posted...

And I don't mean the shitty bus system we actually have today. It's not normal for a bus to take 3x as long to get to your destination than with a car.

It only takes that long because most buses are a half hour in between each new stop. Not counting when the buses are late. The buses also don't go everywhere.

We can guess and assume itll have more thought out into it But it can just as easily become a hot mess If the US built a train system, it might even turn out worse than the roads, for all I know And its probably be more expensive here Taxes would probably rise just to pay the initial cost, which sucks since I cant afford to lose more money for something I wont even use And the ticket cost probably wouldnt be as low here Especially when the people who build it will probably be greedy As for building on top, it only works if you can get underground

It doesnt have to happen all at once, but I think the cost for a similar amount of track to road would still cost more, as you have to get the materials, land, lots of contractors for building, the trains, etc And Im not neglecting the revenue that can be made. Im just not even sure if it matters that much depending on who owns it Plus, who says the returns will be high I think theyll charge a lot, but that doesnt say how much theyll get to use on the other stuff I worked at a bus station for a while We definitely made like nothing there The only reason we could still run was because the city paid for it to work Even then, the bus station was like the redhead stepchild of the city Amen in the end, taxes will still be higher since they wouldnt be getting rid of roads. We just now also have trains that add to the amount we need to pay Which hurts me financially in the long run

Dot dot dot. Dot dot dot. Dot dot dot. Dot dot dot.

rexcrk posted...

Dot dot dot. Dot dot dot. Dot dot dot. Dot dot dot.

You forgot stop.

LinkPizza posted...

We can guess and assume itll have more thought out into it But it can just as easily become a hot mess

"The US would be so much better with a proper train system."
"But what if they built a train system that sucked?"

Well then it would suck and not have a proper train system. That's not a counterargument, that's a hypothetical failure state.

LinkPizza posted...

And Im not neglecting the revenue that can be made. Im just not even sure if it matters that much depending on who owns it

Making revenue means fewer subsidies are needed to run it. That's the bottom line.

LinkPizza posted...

I worked at a bus station for a while We definitely made like nothing there The only reason we could still run was because the city paid for it to work

And I can guarantee you that, despite how little you made and how relatively unused the buses are, the city spent less money per person moved than they've spent on car-only routes.

LinkPizza posted...

in the end, taxes will still be higher since they wouldnt be getting rid of roads. We just now also have trains that add to the amount we need to pay

The thing I think you're struggling to understand is that most cities don't just maintain the status quo when it comes to roads. This isn't a choice between "build new rail lines or don't build new rail lines," it's a choice between "respond to growing transportation needs by building a rail line/improving transit" or "respond to growing traffic needs by expanding the roads." The latter is a band-aid solution that, thanks to induced demand, usually just ends up making the problem worse within a few years. The former also induces demand, not but only does transit have significantly more capacity to absorb that demand than a comparable amount of new road does, transit gets better the more demand there is for it (more frequent routes, fewer subsidies needed) and the development it encourages is much easier to build new infrastructure around and generates more tax revenue (usually a net positive, unlike car-dependent single-family suburban properties that are usually tax-negative despite being mostly inhabited by upper-middle class people).

If you live somewhere that is actually just maintaining status quo and doesn't have traffic problems? Maybe there are indeed not any cost-effective improvements to be made there. But that's not true for most cities in the US, and given how common mindsets like yours are because people have spent their whole lives believing that cars are the best way to get around and that every possible alternative will be less efficient and more expensive (false on both counts), I'm inclined to guess that you're probably similarly missing the opportunities for improvement.

adjl posted...

"The US would be so much better with a proper train system."
"But what if they built a train system that sucked?"

Well then it would suck and not have a proper train system. That's not a counterargument, that's a hypothetical failure state.

Except thats not what my counter-argument was for. It was for when I thought you were saying it would have more thought put into it instead of more thoughtput

adjl posted...

Making revenue means fewer subsidies are needed to run it. That's the bottom line.

Thats only if they use the revenue to actually run and upgrade it, though

adjl posted...

And I can guarantee you that, despite how little you made and how relatively unused the buses are, the city spent less money per person moved than they've spent on car-only routes.

Probably not They dont even fix the roads here as it is And they have to keep paying the bus station constantly since it cant even support itself in the least And thats just running it Not to mention the cost of new buses and vans (when we get them), the fuel, the other vehicle fluids, and parts

adjl posted...

The thing I think you're struggling to understand is that most cities don't just maintain the status quo when it comes to roads. This isn't a choice between "build new rail lines or don't build new rail lines," it's a choice between "respond to growing transportation needs by building a rail line/improving transit" or "respond to growing traffic needs by expanding the roads." The latter is a band-aid solution that, thanks to induced demand, usually just ends up making the problem worse within a few years. The former also induces demand, not but only does transit have significantly more capacity to absorb that demand than a comparable amount of new road does, transit gets better the more demand there is for it (more frequent routes, fewer subsidies needed) and the development it encourages is much easier to build new infrastructure around and generates more tax revenue (usually a net positive, unlike car-dependent single-family suburban properties that are usually tax-negative despite being mostly inhabited by upper-middle class people).

If you live somewhere that is actually just maintaining status quo and doesn't have traffic problems? Maybe there are indeed not any cost-effective improvements to be made there. But that's not true for most cities in the US, and given how common mindsets like yours are because people have spent their whole lives believing that cars are the best way to get around and that every possible alternative will be less efficient and more expensive (false on both counts), I'm inclined to guess that you're probably similarly missing the opportunities for improvement.

The problem is the choice probably wont be between "respond to growing transportation needs by building a rail line/improving transit" or "respond to growing traffic needs by expanding the roads." The choice will probably be "respond to growing transportation needs by building a rail line/improving transit and expanding the roads" or "respond to growing traffic needs by expanding the roads." Chances are they wont stop expanding the roads just because we get the train system Theyll just expand the roads with or without the train system

And its not exactly false depending on different things. For many people, cars will be more efficient depending on where they are, where they are going, and any other specifics depending on the person

LinkPizza posted...

Except thats not what my counter-argument was for. It was for when I thought you were saying it would have more thought put into it instead of more thoughtput

Ah, well then disregard that.

LinkPizza posted...

Thats only if they use the revenue to actually run and upgrade it, though

If they don't, take away their subsidy, charge them with fraud, and expropriate the company's assets to sell them to a company that will actually do what they're being paid to do.

LinkPizza posted...

Probably not They dont even fix the roads here as it is And they have to keep paying the bus station constantly since it cant even support itself in the least And thats just running it Not to mention the cost of new buses and vans (when we get them), the fuel, the other vehicle fluids, and parts

"Not fixing the roads" isn't a viable cost-saving strategy. If they aren't able to afford to fix them, that's going to become a massive problem in the next decade or so.

LinkPizza posted...

The choice will probably be "respond to growing transportation needs by building a rail line/improving transit and expanding the roads" or "respond to growing traffic needs by expanding the roads." Chances are they wont stop expanding the roads just because we get the train system Theyll just expand the roads with or without the train system

The actual decision will indeed be some sort of middle ground, but that doesn't meant the priority can't be shifted away from focusing on cars at the expense of everything else at all times. Prioritizing a transit-oriented approach where it's viable to do so will yield better long-term results than prioritizing a car-oriented approach. Prioritizing a car-oriented approach where transit or other alternatives can't be made viable is the only option, so obviously that's what will be done in those cases.

Though, saying that, they can indeed stop expanding roads when transit takes some pressure off of the system. After all, there's no sense widening a road that's already never full, and having viable transit and other alternatives does reduce traffic volumes.

LinkPizza posted...

And its not exactly false depending on different things. For many people, cars will be more efficient depending on where they are, where they are going, and any other specifics depending on the person

It is false that every alternative to driving will always be worse, which is the philosophy that has guided American infrastructure investment for the last 60-odd years. Some people are in situations where driving is the only option (in cities, this is almost invariably because of poor design choices that favour cars at the expense of everything else), and they can be expected to keep driving. Whatever the personal circumstances that make driving necessary, though, the fact remains that single-occupant vehicles are one of the least efficient ways to move people around (leaving out obvious outliers like private jets). They should be treated as a last resort in cases where more efficient solutions aren't accessible, not the default, and in those cases it should be recognized that it's a matter of circumstances preventing them from accessing more efficient options instead of framing it as "driving is more efficient for them." It's only "more efficient" because no other options exist.

adjl posted...

If they don't, take away their subsidy, charge them with fraud, and expropriate the company's assets to sell them to a company that will actually do what they're being paid to do.

Thats not always how it works. Rich people can afford good lawyers that help them keep most of their money, while using the least amount possible to keep their business afloat And they might even be able to get the people to keep paying a higher tax to keep the business afloat while keeping lost of the profit for themselves

adjl posted...

"Not fixing the roads" isn't a viable cost-saving strategy. If they aren't able to afford to fix them, that's going to become a massive problem in the next decade or so.

They dont seem to care much here Its already a problem, and they let it go on Its not a viable solution, but its the solution that saves them the most money That said, they still make it look like somebody it fixing it But they really arent

adjl posted...

The actual decision will indeed be some sort of middle ground, but that doesn't meant the priority can't be shifted away from focusing on cars at the expense of everything else at all times. Prioritizing a transit-oriented approach where it's viable to do so will yield better long-term results than prioritizing a car-oriented approach. Prioritizing a car-oriented approach where transit or other alternatives can't be made viable is the only option, so obviously that's what will be done in those cases.

Though, saying that, they can indeed stop expanding roads when transit takes some pressure off of the system. After all, there's no sense widening a road that's already never full, and having viable transit and other alternatives does reduce traffic volumes.

You can only shift priority away from cars if there is a reason to. If the amount of cars keep rising, where the amount of people that need a train dont, then they will keep focusing on cars. If the amount of both rise, then they will try to stay on both The only way they shift away from cars is if the amount drops, which it most likely wont I think most people value their time, as well So, going somewhere close, theyll probably drive. Same with family road trip. Going somewhere far, theyll probably still fly Itll mostly be use by some people who may want to go somewhere a couple hours away So, most people will probably still be on roads. Even if it doesnt rise as fast as normal, roads will probably still need expanding quite a bit

When not expanding roads to prioritize transit, thats basically trying to force people to use transit. And that can be bad if people cant use transit for what they need to do, or its much less efficient than driving That said, it also doesnt mean people will stop using cars and start using transit It just means theyre letting a problem get worse to try to force people to do what they want, which is going to cause a greater pushback And could essentially waste money making something better that doesnt need extra money at that current time And while I think having other options can reduce traffic, thats if enough people actually use them If not many more people are actually using those options, the it wont exactly help traffic at all

adjl posted...

It is false that every alternative to driving will always be worse, which is the philosophy that has guided American infrastructure investment for the last 60-odd years. Some people are in situations where driving is the only option (in cities, this is almost invariably because of poor design choices that favour cars at the expense of everything else), and they can be expected to keep driving. Whatever the personal circumstances that make driving necessary, though, the fact remains that single-occupant vehicles are one of the least efficient ways to move people around (leaving out obvious outliers like private jets). They should be treated as a last resort in cases where more efficient solutions aren't accessible, not the default, and in those cases it should be recognized that it's a matter of circumstances preventing them from accessing more efficient options instead of framing it as "driving is more efficient for them." It's only "more efficient" because no other options exist.

I dont think every alternative to driving is worse Though, I do think most will be Of course, the specifics matter And its only the least efficient of youre trying to count everyone as a whole. But people dont always care about everyone. People care about themselves. And in most cases, personal vehicles are the most efficient way to get them where they are going They need to get where they are going Thay said, there are many cases when its more efficient for cars like most people working on military installations or people just going out to grab something to eat (in certain cities based on the public transport they have, like in my city as an example) Or if anyone doesnt want to be out for long Most situations are based on the public transport in the area. Like in my area, we have 8 bus routes, each being an hour long, with one bus per route In most cases, thats way more inefficient than just driving somewhere, or driving somewhere and backEven with 15 and 30 minutes between each bus, it can be inefficient based on where youre going, what youre doing, and stuff Most people are going to use cars as a last resort since its more efficient, and gives you more freedom Why lose both efficiency and freedom for no reason?