That’s such a nonsense argument.
80% of the US lives in an urban area. That has plenty of options for walkable neighborhoods with public transportation. The reason that those don’t exist are active policy choices that people have voted for and keep voting for.
I think that’s exactly what that person is saying though. There is plenty of opportunity for good public infrastructure, but bad policy and auto lobbies have prevented them from happening. A good example is how most neighborhoods are not allowed to be located with businesses/shops/restaurants, and vice versa. This simple change would make so much more of the country more walkable
The shitty thing is before WW2, America had some of the best public and most profitable transportation infrastructure in the world. American railroad tycoons were some of the most wealthy individuals in the nation for a time even and before that it was steamboat tycoons. As you say auto lobbyist ruined it all unfortunately and AmTrak is a sad excuse of what’s left.
It’s easy to be cynical and point your finger at the corporations and politicians. They certainly play their role in the problem, but placing blame solely on them is really uninformed.
People in the US are spread way the hell out. It’s difficult for lower population areas to institute mass transit that is economically viable due to the low density and distances involved.
And as far as major urban areas with really high population densities? Not everyone who works in a large city lives there. Some people travel 1-2 hours one-way to make more money in the city and live somewhere much more affordable in the suburbs. It’s very hard to effectively service all of the suburban areas that surround large cities.
Bottom line, it’s as much of a logistical problem as any other reason.
Commuting from the suburbs to the city center is a perfect use case for advanced high-capacity public transportation. It’s something that most cities on earth manage, the US could too.
Also this isn’t theoretical. The deliberate prevention of new and in some cases destruction of existing public transportation in the US to increase car dependency is well-documented.
The pressing question is: why must public transport he economical viable when its supposed to enable the economy by moving people from their homes to the working place?
The consequences of what exactly? Living in a really big country with a much lower population density than Europe?
That’s such a nonsense argument. 80% of the US lives in an urban area. That has plenty of options for walkable neighborhoods with public transportation. The reason that those don’t exist are active policy choices that people have voted for and keep voting for.
Have you even been to the US? Even most of the urban areas have horrible public transit and even worse infrastructure for biking.
Maybe get off your high horse and engage in reality.
Maybe vote for somebody who will give you better public transport and cycling infrastructure.
I think that’s exactly what that person is saying though. There is plenty of opportunity for good public infrastructure, but bad policy and auto lobbies have prevented them from happening. A good example is how most neighborhoods are not allowed to be located with businesses/shops/restaurants, and vice versa. This simple change would make so much more of the country more walkable
The shitty thing is before WW2, America had some of the best public and most profitable transportation infrastructure in the world. American railroad tycoons were some of the most wealthy individuals in the nation for a time even and before that it was steamboat tycoons. As you say auto lobbyist ruined it all unfortunately and AmTrak is a sad excuse of what’s left.
Living in a country under laws written by oil corporations, in cities whose public transportation was privatized and destroyed by car manufacturers.
Yes… I’m occasionally sorry I was born too. Thanks for that.
I just answered the question. IDK why you’d take that as a personal attack.
It’s easy to be cynical and point your finger at the corporations and politicians. They certainly play their role in the problem, but placing blame solely on them is really uninformed.
People in the US are spread way the hell out. It’s difficult for lower population areas to institute mass transit that is economically viable due to the low density and distances involved.
And as far as major urban areas with really high population densities? Not everyone who works in a large city lives there. Some people travel 1-2 hours one-way to make more money in the city and live somewhere much more affordable in the suburbs. It’s very hard to effectively service all of the suburban areas that surround large cities.
Bottom line, it’s as much of a logistical problem as any other reason.
Commuting from the suburbs to the city center is a perfect use case for advanced high-capacity public transportation. It’s something that most cities on earth manage, the US could too.
Also this isn’t theoretical. The deliberate prevention of new and in some cases destruction of existing public transportation in the US to increase car dependency is well-documented.
The pressing question is: why must public transport he economical viable when its supposed to enable the economy by moving people from their homes to the working place?
Yes but no. What you say came later.
Fyi, Europe is bigger
What about rail? What about EVs?
What about trading in those giant penis extensions you drive for something more fuel efficient?