• jmf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Mass transit makes sense in cities, even between surrounding towns. But as soon as you get more rural public transit is so out of scope. It’s always easy to see the people who spent their whole life in urbanized areas by how unrealistic they talk about this subject.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Pick 5 random suburban Americans, not even urban, and have someone design a public transit system and schedule that won’t add 2 hours to their daily commute.

      Like yeah, we absolutely need more mass transit, high speed rail, etc., but those are a few of MANY MANY steps to reduce the number of cars in America.

      • TonyOstrich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The thing is, how much do we collectively spend on cars, infrastructure, and roads only for most cars to sit doing nothing 90% of the time? I don’t have specific numbers but it seems to me like if all of that money was spent on public transit then it would still be cheaper to have a tram coming by every five to ten minutes even in suburban areas with low passenger volume.

        I don’t think it’s ever going to happen though given the lack of public desire and vested interests at play though.

        • jmf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          40 minutes ago

          As the above comment mentioned, time is also a factor. My old beater that I bought for $800 that costs about $350 a year to keep on the road keeps my commute time a lot lower than it would be otherwise. I have a friend in a country with better public infrastructure than mine. His commute time by car is 3 times shorter than it is by bus, and he lives in a significantly denser area than I do.