If for nothing else, you gotta admit that a two-hour commute to work during rush hour twice a day and five times a week can get pretty tiresome.
This is America, what do you mean “public transportation”
>>1986331Because public transit is full of Americans.
>>1986331>a two-hour commute to work during rush hour twice a day and five times a week can get pretty tiresome.Public transit does not make a 2hr commute any less tiresome.
>>1986344at least you’re not the one driving, which means you can spend that time browsing your phone or reading a book
>>1986345As well a sparring fellow bus and train ride
I dislike how I have to pay for it in taxes, how it's a constant negative cost to taxpayers that rarely turns a profit even when it is successful, and I don't like high population density or having to fight with a million other people for the same resources in a tiny geographical area.
>>1986348we pay taxes for useless things anyways
>>1986345>relaxes>ends up on a /pol/ webm thread
undesirables end up on puiblic transportation.In my area it's been like that for 20+years.If I am just going nearby it's okay, but the light rail goes to some ghetto stops, and that's where you get mugged.
>>1986331Why ESLs shit up the website so much?>you gotta admit that a two-hour commute to work during rush hour twice a day and five times a week can get prIt's a half hour commute for Americans because they're not using public transit.
>>1986331A certain group of "people" use the little public transit that exists and everyone else hates them. See New York.
>>1986372At this point it's schizos of every color on that public transit and it's still half the time to drive a car unless you're going into midtown Manhattan during rush hour then it's merely the same amount of time
>>1986331Why Euros hate public transit so much too?
>>1986331>you gotta admit that a two-hour commute to work during rush hour twice a day and five times a week can get pretty tiresome.Why lie?
>>1986387i’d rather spend 40 minutes in transit with free will than 20 minutes driving and focusing on the road
>>1986368not where i live
>>1986331>, you gotta admit that a two-hour commute to work during rush hour twice a day and five times a week can get pretty tiresome.You're right, /n/igger fanfiction of the burden of car ownership does get tiresome.
>>1986395the problem is bad transit design, not transit itself
The automotive industry has undeniably had an enormous amount of swaying influence over most American development. Car companies have lobbied for their own interests non-stop for decades in a way that almost invariably results in urban planning that is at best neglectful of the pedestrian and at worst intentionally malicious to those who do not own their own vehicles.The thing is, the fact that this has been going on for so long means that pretty much everyone alive today has grown up in a car-dependent turbocapitalist hellscape and as a direct result of that has grown well acclimated to a society that treats pedestrians like trash, to the extent that they're not really even aware that this is in any way problematic.So of course when a vocal minority of people advocate for change that radically reshapes the environment in which we live, it's perceived by most people as a direct attack on the very identity of this country. America doesn't have an infrastructural problem, America IS its infrastructural problem. Any attempt to undermine or revise the system we've already built for ourselves, regardless of whether or not that system is actually effective or even ethical, will be interpreted as an attempt to undermine or revise even the things people do like about this country. Which is why you often hear people who are concerned about "15-minute cities" fearmonger about how a society that doesn't require its citizens to own their own expensive and otherwise unnecessary items just to continue living in it is indeed an evil, fascist society that restricts personal freedoms and actively encourages the installment of a surveillance state. Even though that doesn't really make any sense.Most Americans hate public transportation (and really most public resources in general) because they have always lived in a society that actively neglects huge swaths of its own and are grasping at straws to defend what is naturally their status quo.
>>1986395>picking the city with the most giant hills for the comparison now do Chicago
>>1986345Truth. This is why I want a self driving car. 4 hours to visit the rents would be a regular thing if I could just flip open a book, jerk off, anything. I find driving for more than an hour so mentally draining.
>>1986390If you are commuting to work your will is irrelevant.
I take transit every dayWhat I hate is numtots who have strong, obnoxious opinions on it based entirely on yimby twitter takes
>>1986414>What I hate is the people who are generally on my side about these things but are sometimes kind of annoying and smug about it and not the guys who are actively going out of their way to defend and engage in the kind of rhetoric that aids corporate greed at the expensive of weakened public transit and worsened degradation of the areas we all live in because, hey, at least those guys aren't being dicks about itincredible, very based of you sir. own those libs
>>1986419by "those libs" you mean "those libertarians" or "those performatively woke white liberals who are profoundly disgusted by my existence while pretending not to be for a couple of years before they inevitably snap and flee to portland"
>>1986420that's a hell of a lot of projection but, sure okay
Public transport is one thing, I'm honestly more shocked at how little walkability there is in the USA in terms of amenities.In all the places I've lived in the UK since I was born there has been some form of supermarket, mini market, newsagents, co-op etc within 10 minute's walk from my doorstep, with actual sidewalks and pedestrian crossings and so forth. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, I'd be happy to be proven wrong but as I understand it, outside of cities or more traditionally laid town small towns that's a rarity in the states.I read something earlier about someone who drove for an hour to get a haircut or who would drive for 3-4 hours to check out a restaurant, which seems crazy to me.
>>1986421so you're telling me you don't think the main problem with public transport is minorities? because we both know that's what you think>>1986427it's highly regional, east of the mississippi it's not unusual for there to be people living in houses (SFH boo hiss) within walking distance of a store, west of the mississippi that kind of "amenity" is considered a defect because people move out west to get away from people who don't look like them, so needless to say only poors live within walking distance of anything
>>1986331because its slow and full of violent retards who play music too loud and piss everywhere and are annoying. NYC literally has to have the national guard on the subway because someone gets murdered once a week on it
>>1986345>>1986331public transit is a good way to make a 2 hour commute into a 4 hour commute
>>1986437finally an honest yimby
>>1986438try a functioning city. if I were to go downtown from where I live it'd take 40-infinite minutes by car, transit takes 43 and rarely changes whereas driving can get completely fucked
>>1986444what the fuck are you talking about? the subway is constantly delayed
>>1986445read my first line, not everyone lives in your dysfunctional shithole
>>1986446where in the US is the public transit not shit?
>>1986436>so you're telling me you don't think the main problem with public transport is minorities?that is correct.>because we both know that's what you thinklmao. IMAX grade projection. have fun convincing yourself you're a mind reader I guess
>>1986390>40 minutes in transit with free>Paris: 10 tips for riding the Metro like a local>6. Be pushy>While you may have to push your way onto the Metro at any hour during the day, it’s especially common during the morning and evening commute. When the doors open, the wall of people can seem daunting, but giving an angry “pardon!” and a little elbowing will help you get aboard.>Touching isn’t balked at, so don’t be afraid to use your hand and physically reposition someone if they won’t move. Locals know the drill. And once in the train, squashed in the crush of people, you’ll often notice quite a bit of vacant space that has gone neglected. Locals love standing near the door, apparently. Laws of diffusion rarely apply.
>>1986444>try a functioning c... ACK!>>1986387
>>1986391nobody cares where you live>>1986397the problem is your faggy crying about cars
>>1986408>car-dependent turbocapitalist hellscapeyou're free to move to Venesuela to enjoy your anticapitalist utopia any time, scum
>>1986446project some more, pedro
>>1986444Why do transit trannies always lie so much?
>>1986467what else do you expect from paris
>>1986480It's interesting that you didn't mention one of the many capitalist countries in existence that actually keeps their capitalism in check and isn't continually being buttfucked by Ford Motor Company as a result. You could've said the Netherlands, France, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Japan,
>>1986479>>1986480>>1986481>>1986482>>1986493>americunt seething this hard about the existence of busesi bet he cries bacon grease too
>>1986444Unless some junkie walks onto the tracks, then transit is overcrowded and takes forever.
>>1986515>You could've said the Netherlands, France, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Japan,>>1986386>>1986387
>>1986436The main problem with transit in America is junkies, if we could throw them into work camps till they get clean and execute all meth/fentanyl dealers then transit would be much more viable.
>>1986519This doesn't even address all or most of the concerns car-dependent infrastructure can raise. It's worse for the environment, it's more expensive and more dangerous, it ostracizes people who can't afford their own vehicles and forces those who can to buy them even when they otherwise would have no particular reason to. It creates cities that are just worse to live in for everyone, including car owners. Additionally, the resources you posted don't even necessarily suggest that the solution leading to generally reduced transit time is specifically driving and not better public transportation design. Transporting large numbers of people in individual vehicles is objectively less efficient than grouping the same people together using public transportation even if in practice the former ends up being faster than the latter because there are so many different compounding factors involved. Speed and efficiency are distinct things and you are conflating them.
>>1986519retard alerthttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-10-18/why-american-commute-times-are-difficult-to-compare-to-other-countries
>>1986427>as I understand it, outside of cities or more traditionally laid town small towns that's a rarity in the states.You're correct, but probably don't really appreciate the scale of the United States and the massive number of people who live in each type of area. Bongland just doesn't have anything like the vast expanses of the midwest.I just dropped a google streetview dude randomly in ohio and landed in a small suburb 25 miles from the center of Cincinnati. It's 1 mile from a big grocery store, about a 20 minute walk and looks like almost half is along what would be an unpleasant rural highway. But it's a really easy, 4 minute drive. Traffic congestion in the area is highly unlikely.The town has 6,000 people and they're all spread out in McMansions and modest single-family homes. There are basically two primary factors driving the lack of "walkable" amenities here, and they are factors that /n/ either ignores or incoherently rails against.1. Sheltered, suburban design. The homes are in single-zoned residential neighborhoods that explicitly discourage commercial traffic and random passersby. This keeps the residential zones peaceful, clean and quiet. Residents walk their dogs and kids play touch football in the street. Even without hard zoning, this layout would be inconvenient for businesses who WANT traffic and random passersby.2. Low density. There just aren't enough people living within a 10 minute walk of any one location within this small suburb to make it worth opening a business catering to only those few hundred people. The suburb itself is adjacent to rural areas with forests and farmland. I see a park with a lake and several baseball fields just to the east. A nature preserve is nearby. This means businesses will aim to capture customers from much further distances and will accommodate them with parking and so on.
>>1986427>I read something earlier about someone who drove for an hour to get a haircut or who would drive for 3-4 hours to check out a restaurant, which seems crazy to me3-4 hours for a restaurant is crazy and would be very unusual. It would have to be one hell of a restaurant and probably a special occasion. 1 hour is not crazy, though. Again, it is the density issue. A quick search suggests it's common for large cities to have 500 people for every restaurant. I'm willing to bet the average for smaller, non-tourist cities it's closer to 1:1000. So a little residential suburb of 6,000 people probably doesn't have more than 6-10 restaurants, including fast food like McDonalds and Shitty Wok. Meanwhile, a dense city neighborhood where you have 20,000 people living in a few blocks, you can easily support more restaurants than you have the space to host.
>>1986331>Why Americans hate public transit so much? It's inherently inferior to personal transit and never preferable under any circumstance until I'm attempting to travel across multiple states.
>>1986556>I just dropped a google streetview dude randomly in ohio and landed in a small suburb 25 miles from the center of Cincinnatipicrel
>>1986345driving on cruise control while listening to music is the nice part about going to work in the morning
>>1986517Enjoy your fleas
>>1986515>actually keeps their capitalism in check and isn't continually being buttfucked by Ford Motor CompanyWhat does 60% taxation have to do with "keeping capitalism in check" or the jewish world government of Ford Motor company at bay?
>>1986521>concerns car-dependent infrastructure can raiseConcerns of trannies like you. As for the benefits, you kill yourself more often which everyone would like.
>>1986549>cope and denial: the postYou will spend hours in the stinky bus and you will like it.
>>1986480I hope your kids enjoy their at least 16 years of prison. This world sucks so much.https://youtu.be/W2nB0zchM4I
>>1986593>no coherent argument, just foaming ragelmao okay cagie, whatever you say cagie
>>1986591>safety, environmental sustainability and economic accessibility are all "tranny concerns"Carbrain is one hell of a drug. You literally just want everything to be worse.
>>1986521>Transporting large numbers of people in individual vehicles is objectively less efficient than grouping the same people together using public transportation even if in practice the former ends up being faster than the latter because there are so many different compounding factors involved. Speed and efficiency are distinct things and you are conflating them.You do realize that the "mass transit is more efficient" argument relies on the transit being 100% full, right?
>>1986622>implying a bus carrying only 70% of its total capacity for passengers is somehow less efficient than each of those passengers driving themselves in individual vehicles
urbanists will try to delete 3/4 of the bus stops because "it's just crippled old ladies who can't survive without that one bus stop 100 feet from that other bus stop" and then when nobody takes the bus anymore it's a great success because now you can make it 45 minutes between buses without affecting ridershiplaunch all yimbys into the sun
>>1986629>I hate yimbys because they always [proceeds to describe the exact opposite of yimbyism in every possible sense]
>>1986630https://pedestrianobservations.com/2017/08/23/anti-infill-on-surface-transit/please kill yourself
>>1986632you are a retarded npc with no reading comprehension skills
>>1986633you're a demon actively destroying everything that was ever good
>>1986629accessibility is the enemy of efficiency
>>1986626Right, now tell me about how rolling around empty buses and trains at night is still efficient.
The light rail nearby just had a shooting occur in it.1 fatalty, 2 in critical condition.https://www.kcra.com/article/sacramento-light-rail-station-shooting/60271043I drove nearby this place about an hour or two before.
>>1986621>safety, environmental sustainability and economic accessibilityYes. Stop being poor, subhuman.
>>1986617I know you will not have kids seeing as you project your life in an apartment with your single mom as prison.
>>1986408>...Because they have always lived in a society that actively neglects huge swaths of its own and are grasping at straws to defend what is naturally their status quoThis is really long-winded way of saying we just really don't want to ride the same bus as impoverished, uneducated, mentally unwell, or brown individuals. Still, the core premise is correct.
>>1986638that's not what you said. you said they had to be 100% full which they do not. terrible sleight of hand there.
>>1986642You think not being poor will somehow exempt you from the impacts of climate change or make driving inherently safer than walking or taking public transit for you and no one else?
>>1986638If that doing that dramatically reduces the number of individual motorists in general than the negative impact is still mitigated by the positive.
>>1986647>climate changefuck off nigger
>>1986640thank god cars are bulletproof
>>1986480>distancing yourself from the problem fixes the problemthis is a curious insight into the american psyche
>>1986649A single "motorist" contributes to society infinitely more than all the raging anti-car trannies combined.The only thing you deserve is to be beaten to death with a pipe wrench.
>>1986652The problem is you.
>>1986653Sweaty fingers belonging to a Ford guerilla marketing executive 100% typed this post.
>>1986636your willful ignorance is going to fuck us all over in the end
>>1986650Denying the existence of climate change doesn't protect you from it btw
>>1986655>AIDS-ridden tranny fingers that never worked a day in his life typed this post.
>>1986657Promoting the lie of global warming won't make your desperate attempts at controlling society any less obvious.
>>1986658Kill yourself with a mortar launcher retard.
>>1986657Attacking common car owners because you're too cowardly to go after megacorporations or the Chinese won't save you either.
>>1986660Dilate and hang yourself disgusting tranny.
>>1986659>people are trying to control you by pointing out the ways in which the design of the city you live in was influenced by automotive conglomerates with the intention of forcing you to buy shit you absolutely don't needIs your IQ the same as your age?
>>1986664>the ways in which the design of the city you live in was influenced by automotive conglomerates with the intention of forcing you to buy shit you absolutely don't needAre the aliens also in on it?
>>1986661Nobody is trying to make cars illegal dipshit. If you want a car, or need one to perform a task that intrinsically requires one, you can buy one. The problem is what happens if you don't want or need one.The point is that cities should be developed in a way that enables its citizens to live comfortably without HAVING to buy a car they don't need or can't afford, not that anyone should be restricted from driving at all costs. The only people attacking you are car manufacturers you fucking retard.
>>1986656nothing would please me more than to fuck you people over now, or in the end, whichever is sooner
>>1986665>we've slipped into the "car companies don't lobby" phase of the discussionSeriously though how much are they paying you?
>>1986667>Nobody is trying to make cars illegal dipshit.scroll up and find out why nobody believes your fabricated gripes
>>1986654>criticize an american>the american responds as if you'd criticized a nazi>on the side of the nazihow telling
>>1986670so are the aliens is or not in your redditbrained conspiracy theories?
>>1986674>call out a communist scum>the commie responds like a commie>dies in one hithow typical
>>1986669exactly, which is precisely why nobody should listen to you when it comes to the way things should be run. it's a shame you're allowed to vote given how much you want to fuck everyone over.
>>1986677with the way you behave, you deserve to be fucked over. at least he recognizes his activity as destructive, while you aren't despite being just as malicious
>>1986677yes I'm familiar with your agenda. relax though if your team wins the next election they can just make voting great again, and then you won't have to worry about any more "illegal voters" supporting stuff you don't like
>>1986675>so are the aliens is or notYou're so mad you're having a fucking stroke lmao
>>1986678>>1986680seethe fashies
>>1986682you will never be a woman
>>1986682remember when you were pretending not to be utterly disgusted by minorities taking public transportation? at least you stopped pretending. how's the weather in portland btw?
>>1986671Point to the posts where any of that happened.
Lovely thread boys
>suggest public resources in America should be strengthened and that Americans deserve more>Americans throw tantrums in responseevery fucking time
>>1986686it's being heavily monitored and deliberately derailed by paid shills because the automotive industry cannot afford to have americans elect not to buy their product
>>1986688>deleting all the bus stops and forcing me to use special "protected" bike lanes or they'll murder me with a miniature urban assault truck is in my interests, if only I wasn't a stupid brown MS-13 gang banger with calves the size of cantaloupes or I might be able to understand that yimbys know what's best for me
>>1986690so true bestie
>>1986690Unmedicated schizo meltdown or generative AI botpost?
>>1986692as soon as figure 01s become cheap enough for boeing diversity hires like myself to afford I'm going to get a john forester bot and make it ride around on a giant TCR screaming vehicular cyclist propaganda 24/7
>>1986689>thread comes to a screeching halt as soon as anon points this outhm
>>1986646He also forgot to mention that those "train is more efficient" arguments ALSO assume your origin and destination are within a couple blocks of a train stop, and also that the train(s) run more or less straight there, as opposed to having to ride from your origin, to a hub, back outward to your destination.
>>1986667>Nobody is trying to make cars illegal dipshitRiiiiiiiiiight, just like nobody wants to take away my guns or my gas fucking stove, and nobody is going to force me to get a vaccine, and the government would never spy on me, and...
>>1986698>>1986699>thread picks right back up again as soon as someone points out that it came to a screeching halt when someone else pointed out how it's obviously filled with shillshm
>>1986643I wouldn’t want to be born in this world in the current state that it’s in. So I also don’t want to condemn any person to that as well.
aaaaand now it's halted again. somebody at Ford is getting fired roflmao
>>1986395What cagie retards don't realise is that more people using public transport means LESS cars on the road which means LESS TRAFFIC for you ungrateful motherfuckers.
>>1986705don't bother, he's not arguing in earnest. he's a paid shill.
>>1986706I'll argue with whoever I want thanks
>>1986710ah, so you're one of them. gotta foster artificial conflict for subversive purposes somehow, eh?
They don’t. In fact, even republicans majority agree we need better transit.The problem is that oil companies have bought out a group of Republican politician politicians to make them deliberately cripple our transit systems.
>>1986711Yeah I wish I was being paid for this shit dude
>>1986713>They don’t.[EXTREMELY LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER]
>>1986717You're replying to a shill or a bot, it's posted that same basic message many times here. Occasionally it will mention the Koch brothers like it's 2004 again
>>1986705Fairy tales spread by urbanists. Public transit makes barely any dent in traffic even in public transit oriented countries >>1986386
Americans don't like public transit because some lady in california just got her leg eaten on the train
>>1986725what about the guy that was shooting at cars on the freeway for fun?
https://media.amtrak.com/2020/09/americans-continue-to-strongly-support-more-rail-and-public-transit/?print=print75% of Americans agree that we should be shifting more trips to passenger rail and public transit to address the impacts of transportation on climate change.The majority of Americans – 64% and 65% – view public transit and passenger rail favorably after the pandemic, with support rising from pre-pandemic levels for both public transit (58%) and passenger rail (59%).Nearly half of all Americans – 47% and 46% – think we should be investing more in public transit and passenger rail, respectively.81% of Americans support Congress providing more funding to address railroad crossing safety after learning government statistics show that approximately 95% of all rail-related deaths involve drivers going through a crossing or a person on the tracks.
>>1986750None of this matters much. The overall political pressure for better passenger rail in the US is low.
>>1986331Because using public transportation in the US means that you'll have to interact with the lowest tier of citizens unfortunately. I took my parents when they visited my place on a ride on the Trinity Rail Express to visit downtown Dallas and I literally saw two young dudes in the corner of the stop casually start tying cords around their arms and start injecting heroin, and some random insane person was dancing around in their underwear and running down the rails out of sight to God knows where. I don't know what it is about urbanists and pro-public transit people that refuse to acknowledge that this keeps happening and is the reason why Americans prefer to keep riding in cars even if it means dealing with traffic. Because at least in a personal vehicle, I can ignore the homeless and drug addicts by physically separating them but in public transit, they're in the same space as me smoking blues and trying to start shit. Simply put, as long as public transit in the US continues to act as holding pens for the insane, bums, and druggies then normal people won't use it.
The T in boston is always breaking down and catching fire and is filled junkies and nasty ghetto people. Only losers take it.
>>1986750>>1986917Yeah it's easy to get people to confess support. But when it comes down to actual budgeting and deciding between projects A or B, others tend to win.
>>1986919That's insane. The vast majority of public transport users in my country are normal, what's wrong with you guys?
To me, in this video Limmy is trying to cope with the noise of the traffic by self-administering a dose of Frosty Jack’s. That’s how I interpret it.https://youtu.be/80Dbl0O0r7k
>>1986939>TexasThat's what's wrong with that guy at least. They send doctors and teachers to jail for doing their jobs. Everyone worships this crazy doomsday pedophile cultist for "standing up to the big gubmint", meanwhile they'll gladly send the SWAT team after you if you don't mow your lawn. The only way to fix Texas is hydrogen bombs, and lots of them.
>>1986331Ah yes, be stuck for 3h in a driveable culvert managed by diversity hires instead.Anon, when I get off at work at 5 and get on the road, I can reach my in-laws who live 140mi away from me in 2h. Typically takes me Yes I'm a speeding enjoyerI don't even have commute, but do this trip on Fridays sometimes.
>>1986939Everything is spread out so driving is more convenient most of the time. This leads public transit to be used primarily by people who can't afford a car or lost their license for drunk driving or some stupid shit like that.
>>1986387It's not a paradox, the longer a commute takes by car the more attractive public transport looks by comparison.
>>1986348>I don't like high population densityspoilers my dude: high population density is how youy get tax dollars.low density is a net drain on taxes and has bankrupted several cities already.
>>1987034
>>1987037well yeah. when your public transit is so awful that you have to be poor or desperate to use it, that's who's going to use it.
>>1987034>low density is a net drain on taxesCountdown until halifax.jpg
>good city design is for commies and trannies nowinteresting how the US at it's most racist and conservative used to have good public transit.
>>1987113Honestly that's a major part of WHY America had better transit then, you would have a space separate from darkies and public junkie behavior was not at all permitted.
>>1987118and the only bearable public transportation options are anything that still has 1st and 2nd classes, at least.
>>1987034>high population density is how you get tax dollarsOnly works in areas that are wealthy. Poor people in high density area, get fucked.>net drain on taxes and has bankrupted several cities already.This is a myth propagated by Charles Marohn.
>>1987122>Only works in areas that are wealthy. Poor people in high density area, get fucked.good city design has a mixture of all incomes in all areas. slums are a failure of city planning.
>>1987122I love my low taxes while living in super dense New York City. I definitely feel like I get the most out of the low taxes here, just the excellent schools, low crime, great public transit, clean streets and well maintained infrastructure
>>1987119>1st and 2nd classes,Stop with your racism.
>>1987049But only redeeming quality of public transit it is cheaper. When you get into hight income bracket of people who can afford cars these people stop using public transit.
>>1987191... in America, because the public transit is so awful that you have to be poor or depserate to use it.When you build good transit then everyone uses it.
>>1987194see>>1986386either you're wrong or nobody built good public transport ("It wasn't real socialism!!")Here in Aus they spend billions on public transport and it still sucks
>>1987194>When you build good transit then everyone uses it.Where is you "real communism" is build again?>>1986386>>1986387
>>1986331Only poor minorities use public transit in the US. Public transit is only in cities where poor minorities reside.I'm 32 and have never used public transportation in my life and never will.
>>1987156I didn't catch the snark on first reading. I actually do love my low taxes heret. property owner in NYC
>>1987124>good city design has a mixture of all incomes in all areasMixing incomes isn't "natural" city design. You can do that through heavy subsidies and you still end up with slums.>slums are a failure of city planningLow-income areas are going to happen either way. You just need the infrastructure for it, otherwise you end up with favelas.
Public transport only works if:1) it’s reliable2) it’s not outrageously slow compared to driving3) it’s cheap4) it’s clean and not a place where people feel unsafe. 5) population density is high enough for it to function. Since America is a huge land mass with a lot of people preferring to be further apart from each other, public transport is never going to work as well as it does in Europe. You’d need a cultural shift but it still isn’t natural for people to live in skyscrapers like cattle anyway. Someone will undoubtedly turn up and say it’s what should be done but that goes contrary to everything science tells us about human beings
The larger American cities are all massively expanding their transit systems, actually. And it’s the most car-dependent places that are implementing the biggest change. One significant hurdle though is all the red tape we put up for transit-friendly housing styles, so that reduces ridership. But if you look at places like LA Dallas or Austin they’re all building out big transit expansions.
>>1987225So you're paying $10-15k a year and then get ass fucked by DOB because your sidewalk is breaking from the tree in front of your house you can't do anything about because it's NYC Parks that owns it but it's roots are making a bee line for your foundation? And then the DEP sewer main breaks and the city drags its feet for the next 3 years on a payout after you got a few feet of shit water in your home?NYC has low taxes for literal billionaires and project dwellers, anyone with a net worth of $50k-$1mm can get fucked and acts as pay pigs for them
>>1987306sounds like a skill issue
>>1987252LA is run by a bunch of commies, that’s to be expected. Not so sure about republican states like Texas and Florida. Public transport should be up to standard and worth using but there’s absolutely no need to achieve it at the expense of those people who are able to drive. I don’t know if you’ve watched Cash Jordan on YouTube but he goes into NYC’s problems in depth and it’s pretty bad there, whatever anyone here may say. All their efforts to shoehorn people into ever tighter living and transport spaces is only making the citizens miserable
>>1987334>real estateeasiest way for a low IQ, low-morals idiot to make some money, he must be seething over that recent court rulingremember that libsfortiktok is in real estate. so is the kushner family and the trump family
>>1987334Florida residents have voted in favor of HSR and public transit multiple times in the last few decades, only to be blocked by the state government.
>>1987335Real estate is where the money is. That’s why the banks are into it. But I digress. Population densities are FAR too high which is the reason there is so much congestion. There’s 8 billion people in the world. I remember clearly there being like 6 billion in what 2004. Granted they are not all in the USA but it puts things into perspective. All those people need transport and the road/rail network hasn’t been upgraded to compensate because the government is too busy squandering money on vanity projects.
>>1986331because as much as I love interurbans and streetcars (grew up in Boston), it unfortunately means I have to interact with the exact kind of people you'd expect in a modern day inner city. the Red Line in particular seems to really attract the weirdos. and as much as I'm sure everyone wants to blame inner city niggers, it really is schizos of all colors you gotta watch out for. the Chinese were a plague on the Green Line for a while.
>>1986654genuinely what in the fuck is he doing with his hand? who taught this kid how to make a fist? and why is that something that apparently needs taught now?
>>1986921what's fucked is it wasn't always that way. even in the 70s and 80s it was way more efficient that it is now. granted the 70s and 80s is probably the last time the T saw any real money. the Type 7 LRV was the last reliable "anything" they've purchased recently. go look at a before and after of the Ashmont terminus on the Red Line and then try and explain how its an improvement in ANY way.
>>1987195>>1987222>>1986519>>1986724half the countries in that shitty graph have awful transit, it purposefully leaves out most of the greatest places for public transit in the world and also the data is from 2014. and places like the netherlands having above 50% car usage does not mean people hate public transit, most people use various forms of mobility and I can't be sure since that dataset is unavailable but I highly doubt the people taking cars for transportation ONLY take cars.
>>1986331Non-Whites on them
>>1986331I love mass transit. Heavy rail and light rail are great and efficient.But they suck as a daily commute option because the headways are always too damned long and it's always a 3 leg trip or worse. They're far better used for bar hopping and visiting the metro area than for actual daily commuting.>get dressed>get in car at 8:00>drive 15 minutes between office parks with few cars on the road>park>enter building at like 8:30>happy boss, low stressversus>get dressed at 6 in the fucking morning, be out the door by 7.>wait 10 minutes outside>catch a bus to the station>20 minutes go by>hit traffic on the bus, wait an extra 5>arrive at station platform at 7:20 instead of 7:10>there_goes_your_fucking_train.jpeg>next train at 7:45>wait 25 fucking minutes at the train station, homeless people and inclement weather as a free trip bonus>depart train station on train>stop at every goddamn podunk station for 5 miles>arrive at destination station at 8:40>walk or bus or bike to actual destination + 20 minutes>enter the fucking building>9:15 late death glare from boss
>>1987334I’m sure and I know that all major American cities are expanding their transit and bike lane networks.The American government has kept population densities artificially low for several decades but in recent years there’s been a lot of upzoning to allow more transit-friendly housing types.
>>1987405Frequency and stunted networks that really only take you to/from the CBD are the perennial problems of every US rail system except NYC, DC, and to an extent the SF area.
>>1987409NYC's sewer system literally can't take more people in some areas due to overdevelopment
>>1987392>Hong Kong >average commute via public transit 46 min>average commute via car 28 min>average house area per capita 13 sq m, US 50 sq m.Gosh I love been bug, live in thee pod and love public transit!
>>1987409Of course they are, they’ve gotta keep up with the status quo. Doesn’t mean it’s actually working out or that people are happy using it. Public transport works in Japan because they’re well organised and you’ll get kicked off if you’re rowdy. You can throw money at it all you want but without policies enforcing reliability and cleanliness people still aren’t gonna hop out of their cars. Not that there’s anything inherently bad about cars anyway. My view is buses/trains/trams are like any other public service. They SHOULD WORK WELL regardless. And then you can be 100% sure people will gravitate towards it for convenience or to save money. Absolutely no need to regulate private transport further. When was the last time you saw a politician get on a bus or train? They don’t. They take a blacked out car or even a full motorcade. Rules for thee but not for me - every politician ever
>>1986331>two-hour commute to workonly cityfags commute like that, I've never had to drive more than 10-15 minutes to work
>>1986373yeah but parking
They don’t, in fact Americans have routinely voted in favor of transit expansions. Look at Austin TX for example.
>>1987433What's wrong with having a small house? Your fat ass couldn't fit through the door?
>>1987598I'm not some homo minimalist who wants to hear his neighbors arguing every night or have his packages stolen regularly
>>1987598>what's wrong with gruel? why would you want a nice steak when you could have a bowl of gruel instead? europeans really think like this
>>1986387>Why lie?Because the truth doesn't look good when trying to push an anti-car agenda
>>1987584Oh good guess we can stop making these kinds of threads then, since public transit is supported in the US so much
>>1987697Hit the nail on the head there
>>1987602But you don’t NEED it. How dare you have something better than what you can just barely survive with - every anti-car person ever.
>>1987598Coincidentally I don’t care to have a large house. Too much hassle. I still don’t want to live in a high rise block of apartments. Human beings were never meant to live in such cramped conditions. If we tried to house animals with the same philosophy there would be a public outrage calling it animal cruelty. Yet left wing people think it’s perfectly ok to squeeze people into accommodation smaller than some people’s garage or garden shed. The declining birth rates will fix the issue in time but only if we don’t continue to propagate policies that are designed to keep everyone except the 0.5% elite in equal misery
TL;DRToo many people are squashed into the same area. It’s unnatural and unhealthy. Government policy promotes it coupled with unchecked immigration. Result is people being housed like cattle with traffic congestion levels to match. Americans are generally used to much lower population densities than seen elsewhere and object, thus they insist on “inefficient” low population density which necessitates cars and disfavours public transport. Not rocket science
>>1986331I used to ride mass transit all the time. Then I got my own wheels, and at least in America, I never want to go back.Averaging 10 miles an hour while rubbing elbows with piss-soaked hobos and belligerent welfare moms is not safer or more relaxing than driving a car. I've had way more close calls with mass transit assaults than car accidents.I would LOVE to get around by train, but not in this community. Maybe if we had privatized mass transit so they actually bothered to clean it and kick the homeless out, I'd feel safe. Until then, no thank you.
>>1987598>What's wrong with having a small houseask him
>>1987742>clickbait garbage thumbnail>RS, 7,99,11,55,100 WORTHusually I make fun of people for having pajeet derangement syndrome but maybe the PDS people were right
>>1987744
>>1987747at least the commas are after every 3 digits in this one
>>1987343What really puts things in perspective is that the huge population boom has been blacks in africa with an assist from poos in india
If you live in a shithole like this, it’s not going to be transit-accessible because the population density is so low. However in the last 10-15 years American cities have been building a lot more multifamily housing which has steadily made things more transit-friendly.
>>19877512020 USA population: 329 million2000: 281 million.More people= more congestion. You need entirely new cities on the vast areas of unused land to accommodate the extra demand, but nothing has been done. That’s an awful lot of extra demand on infrastructure
https://youtu.be/0sH0__SpV88
>>1986350Kek
>>1987786>You need entirely new citiesWhat the fuck do you think has been happening in the growth regions of the country for the last 20 years?God damn the capacity of /n/ to post unforced stupidity and ignorance is astounding.
>>1986349>We should spend more money on useless stuff.Like your education for starters.
>>1987814Tell me one new city built from scratch. I can’t think of any. Urban sprawl doesn’t count as its contributing to the problem.
>>1987786Literally just build up. LA is as geographically constrained as Tokyo (both sit between the ocean and nearby mountains), yet LA covers both more square miles and houses far less people, while simultaneously having a far higher cost of living than Tokyo does.
black people
>>1987777>large detached housing with lawns in a safe area no more than a 10 minute drive from a shopping area >"umm actually it's a shithole because I can't hear my neighbors fucking or ride a bus with brown people"
>>1987852California Forever is an attempt to make a new city from scratch, and it was mentioned ITT. But cagetrolls are also claiming it won’t work.
>>1987886this looks like a 12 year old mapping out his new minecraft town or some shit "industry & technology" lmao
>>1987890Looks very uninspired. Who could possibly care except a shill or a bot
>>1987861Except that causes even more congestion. It’s TOO MANY PEOPLE PER SQUARE KM. you clearly can’t think outside of what the propaganda schooo textbooks have been babbling for the past few decades
>>1987907It doesn't if you zone based on foot/bike mobility instead of assuming from the outset that every person owns a car and uses it for every trip they make. All the times I've visited Tokyo, I don't recall ever seeing anything worse than I-10 in LA or I-75/85 in my own city.
>>1987720>Maybe if we had privatized mass transitthis has been a dream of mine that'll never come to fruition (unless I become a billionare overnight). find a bunch of these old trolleys in the woods and restore em (like Philly is SUPPOSEDLY doing), then open my own private trolley line. aside from money the issue would be "where" though. and how do you make something like that actually pay for itself? (which seems to be the issue a lot of transit agencies have)
>>1987961So why does London have so much congestion? City build centuries ago that’s gradually sprawled all over the place as time passed. Modern London was NOT designed around cars. It’s got one of the oldest underground railway networks in the world. Look at how bad the traffic is there. The difference is the Japanese are disciplined and well organised. You'll have to fix America’s personal safety problem before such ideas even become imaginable. It all works in Japan because of order and a disciplined society. They take pride in it all. I heard many bus drivers in the U.K. don’t even last 5 years, due to the abuse they suffer from passengers and pressure from their bosses + the government constantly blocking off roads and putting up speed restrictions. They move on to drive semi trucks instead. Tells you a lot about the system. And again. Punic transport=/= walking. Buses use roads the same as cars do. You know what’s really efficient? Motorcycles. Barely bigger than the person who rides them. Yet they’re always frowned upon as a symbol of poverty, hence countries try to get rid of them as their economies develop. That says it all. Pandering to agendas.
>>1987968Motorcycles are death machines (10 times more injury and death per mile traveled then cars) in any normal circumstances they should be just banned. Were banned cars without seatbelts. But how more dangerous cars without seatbelts? Like 50%? Still banned. Motorcycles are 1000% more dangerous and are somehow allowed? Titanic size double standards.
>>1987720>privatized mass transit so they actually bothered to clean it and kick the homeless outThree problems with this:>Kicking out the homeless is expensive>It also means no public funding>Passenger mass transit is rarely profitable
>>1987997Funny thing is Marshrutkahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarshrutkaOn post USSR space solved all 3 problems with the flick of the fingers.This is why liberals seethe so much about them
>>1987852>from scratchThat's why you're so stupid, as if the charter itself is what matters, not the fact some sleepy crossroads grew by 500%+ with associated new infrastructure, homes, schools, parks, etc.Like just spend a tiny bit of time researching the actual world before parroting dumbshit you saw on twitter or reddit.
>>1987968>Punic transport=/= walkingYes everyone knows phoenecia was a thalassocracy but surly they had to do something to get around when they reached the port, this seems like a non-sequitur or as the french would say, une non-sequiteur, btw while we're on the topic should protected shipping lanes be a thing? There could be naval cannons on both sides and if the ship veers off course it would be curtains for that boat
>>1987886Call me a communist, but I would never live in a city owned by a company. A private entity does not invest a billion dollars into a project "for the people" without some kind of catch.
>>1988019There's been a lot of company towns in the US, actually. And most suburbs in general were just laid out and built by a developer at once or in phases. I used to live in a "mega development" in Long Island City and it was a good experience, except the architecture was boring.As for California Forever, I don't have any doubts about its ability to succeed as an investment because the housing shortage in the area is so bad. I just think NIMBY politicians will try to kill it.
>>1987965Trolleys were private before the government killed the trolley companies with mandated 5 cent fares and regulated them out of existence with the Public Utility Holding Company Act.
>>1988032>I don't have any doubts about its ability to succeed as an investmentSweet...California Forever has Chang's vote!
I just wish I had bar within waking distance
>>1987981Except people make a choice to get on a motorcycle. By your logic we should ban anything that is statistically risky. And to use anti car peoples’ logic, more motorcycles/less cars means you’re less likely to get hit by a driver on his mobile phone
>>1988009You clearly don’t grasp the problem that is urban sprawl. You have to start over from scratch in entirely different areas or Greater London repeats itself
>>1988009You also forgot that building new cities would create jobs in the construction industry and the infrastructure could be designed with modern lifestyles in mind. Road networks could be purpose built to accommodate BOTH motorised and active transport rather than trying to adapt existing towns that were built for a bygone era. Here’s an example. You build a bypass. Previously the road would’ve only been designed for motorised traffic. Now the same road is made with an extra lane (separate from the traffic) for pedestrians/cyclists. You can replicate such strategies all over the place. You can’t exactly modify existing streets when they’re lined with buildings And let’s face it with population increase being what it is, you’re going to need new cities anyway
>>1988033>GovernmentJust say Jews, anon. It can't be ignored at this point. They ruin everything they get their grubby little claws on, they kill their host nation, and then they move on.In a nation without kikes these wouldn't be rotting in the woods.
>>1988056>you’re going to need new cities anywayWhy?
>>1987880>large detached housingyes, sure>safe areayeah anywhere where you don't have to interact with people is safe, but most suburbs like that are not insular white communities and rural areas are seedy as fuck (my mom lives in one, it fucking sucks)>10 minute drive from shopping areawow you can have such easy access to walmart and goyslop fast food owned by a few large companies! make sure not to do anything your neighbours dislike with that lawn or your houses paint color or you may get a visit from the HOA.
>>1988076To house all the extra people. Cities are like gravity. They sprawl as houses/apartment blocks congregate around a set of desirable services or jobs. You need to create entire new settlements a significant distance away to prevent runaway population density. This helps to alleviate congestion on both the roads and general public services like hospitals and schools. I am suggesting instead of building around public transport we instead go for a more hybridised approach and aim for that sweet spot where there’s enough people to warrant building major infrastructure but not so many people in one spot that they all squabble over it. The results? Happier people, more productivity and general well-being. P.S. I ride a bicycle, for a long time it was my main transport. I still use it for leisure. It’s good fun, but I understand I am a cause for concern so I move over ASAP and let everyone pass me, if I have no choice but to ride on a road with motorised traffic around. I love bikes and riding ‘em, I just hate governments telling me how I’m allowed to get to wherever I’m going. We can coexist without issues but it requires mutual respect. Something that’s severely lacking in western society
>>1988126>To house all the extra people.That can be done in current cities for the most part. Like the other anon said, a city can grow by hundreds of percent. There is no shortage of existing cities that are DESPERATE to attract residents, business, and industry. Use those before embarking on a utopian dream.
>>1988133You’re talking about squeezing as many people into an area as physically possible. I’m saying it’s deeply unhealthy for the people who have to live there. We aren’t cattle you know.
>>1988133Also I appreciate you not calling me an idiot like the others were
>>1988133In all fairness you have a point about some cities having unused capacity. My main issue is governments are obsessed with the idea that “you can manage” with little to no regard for the quality of life for the citizens. I’m saying we need to spread the population out, however it’s achieved. There’s vast land mass out there that’s totally undeveloped and not being out to good use. It makes sense to put people there. We should be aiming for maximum quality of life at all times. Living in an apartment the metaphorical size of a shoebox doesn’t sound much fun to me. I prefer a small place to live but it’s purely selfish. I realise millions of others want a proper house or something. There has to be a population density sweet spot where things are reasonably efficient without lifestyle quality suffering. What that number is I don’t know but there must be a way to find out
>>1988055>You clearly don’t grasp the problem that is urban sprawl.Urban Sprawl is not a problem. You haven't even defined any problems clearly, just made some vague hand-waving about overpopulation.>You have to start over from scratch in entirely different areasStarting from scratch is essentially impossible for a massive list of reasons that should be obvious to anyone with a brain.1. City growth is always driven by economy first and economies are heavily shaped by geography. You can't just move New York Harbor to West Virginia because you want a do-over on the urban planning. This concept isn't obvious to Redditors for some reason.2. Every parcel of land is divided up and claimed, even in a country as large as the US, to say nothing of Europe. You literally can't start from scratch because any place where a large city might be feasible already has at least a village or a town there or is valuable farmland. You're always going to be growing from what's already there.3. The population of the Western US is already stressing scarce water resources (which are getting even scarcer as the North Pacific High strengthens). We certainly don't need MORE cities out west, the ones we have are bad enough.>You also forgot that building new cities would create jobs in the construction industryYou can't just build shit for no reason. Opportunities for profit must exist there before construction can be worthwhile. A large city needs a strong economic core.>>1988126>Cities are like gravityYeah and the center of that gravity is the economic core. Sure you can maybe grow little villages from scratch (or almost scratch), but you can't just plan out and build city infrastructure and expect it to be viable without considering the long-term economic viability. In reality this means you build near existing cities or natural resources.
>>1988149Sorry I was rude before.But seriously, your posts are crazy and not in the good way. > There’s vast land mass out there that’s totally undeveloped and not being out to good use.There's almost no land that is "totally undeveloped" and not also one of:1. Extremely inhospitable like the middle of the desert or rugged mountains2. A nature preserve3. Already near an existing large city
>>1988153So tell me where it ends? You think living in single room accommodation or sharing an apartment with several other people is a good thing? Or generational mortgages? Building new cities to house people is not building for no reason. It’s to spread the demand for services. If they are too close together they will once again converge on the same central point. There’s apparently billions of dollars for vanity projects and to send overseas yet the government won’t actually do something about how cramped living conditions are. It absolutely can be done, but profiteering and taxation takes priority over human quality of life. Even Trump once said new cities were needed. Cities grow by two things. Infrastructure. Jobs. The less places with decent infrastructure are available, the more people squabble over the few areas that have services to offer. It’s the 21st century. We’ve put men on the moon. We’ve got hypersonic jets. We’ve got ways to access or purify water supplies that in the past were impossible. All that and billions of dollars to spend like it’s water, yet the people are told to squash up and deal with it. Very poor. Someone’s making enormous amounts of money off of it.
>>1988046>I just wish I had bar within waking distanceI live in a rural area where houses sit on large lots and due to new development I can walk to a bar within 15 minutes. It's behind a gas station.I dare say that unless you (or your parents) live in the middle of nowhere (extremely rural) you can find a restaurant with a full bar even in suburbia. You may not like it, but it's there.
The mixed zoning argument is overrated. Suburbia was created because people don’t want to be squashed up like bees in a hive. Some people then complain everything is too far apart. Here’s the thing. You have to use what you’re given. If the nearby shops are expensive, too bad. If your skills don’t match the nearby employment opportunities, too bad. If you don’t like the nearby bar or sports facilities.. well I guess that’s also too bad. The rich will get all the best services while the poor are stuck with what they’ve got. The rich will call a taxi or keep their cars while the poor are taxed out of the choice. Kids won’t be able to get to better schools because getting there will be prohibitively expensive or inconvenient. It’s unending.
>>1986348Why do public services have to be profitable? They're public services.You also pay for roads with your taxes.
>>1988151>There’s vast land mass out there that’s totally undeveloped and not being out to good useWe've already caused the largest global extinction event since the asteroid wiped the dinosaurs, let's not make the problem worse. Just because it looks empty to you doesn't mean the land doesn't contain vital ecosystems for the planet. >Living in an apartment the metaphorical size of a shoebox doesn’t sound much fun to meThis is a choice. Want a 2 bedroom so you have a study/library along with your bedroom and common area? Go for it. Nobody advocating for density is advocating for everyone to be stuffed into 400 sqft studios. That kind of housing should exist so that college students and singles just entering the workforce, or poor working class singles or fixed income retirees, can have a private home without roommates close to where they work or in neighborhoods where they aren't forced to drive for everything. But it should also exist alongside larger apartments, condos, rowhouses, etc. All of those types are needed. One of my biggest issues with the US rental market right now is that 3 bedroom apartments are rare and 4 bedroom apartments are almost unheard of, same for condos, making it very difficult for people to start families without either taking a stupid long commute or dumping huge amounts of money on a SFH closer to their work.>>1988156>you can find a restaurant with a full bar even in suburbiaYou can find bars in suburbia yeah, but can you walk to it? Closest one today to my childhood home is 3 miles away, and it didn't exist at all until I was in high school. Walking or biking to it would put you on the tiny shoulder of a 50mph road where nobody is expecting to see peds or cyclists. Today the road's wider, but there's still no sidewalk or shoulder despite every free plot of land being developed into a small SFH subdivision.
Several points. 1) reduce density to a manageable level that doesn’t make serious congestion unavoidable in the first place. 2) focus on quality of life rather than statistics. It’s not only the roads that get congested. It’s also the hospitals and other key services. 3) as per above, make public transport worth using. Ensure it’s clean and tidy at all times with reliability to match. Public transport has a stigma for a reason. Get rid of said stigma and many will gravitate towards it to save money or for convenience. 4) fix public safety if you want people to use “active transit”. Design new roads with pedestrians and cyclists in mind as well as motorised traffic. This may mean more expensive projects but it’s easier to make the new roads suitable for this century than try to modify roads from 100 years ago. But hey, nobody builds roads anymore despite the very obvious need for them. Railway development is sorely lacking too. In other words our public services are garbage. 5) Deregulate. Blocking off roads to vehicles/replacing lanes with bike lanes will cause bottlenecks. You need to keep things flowing or the buses will be stuck in traffic jams too. Let’s be real adapting to massive population increases is expensive and nobody wants to pay for it. Instead we are told to share a tiny apartment with several strangers and be thankful we aren’t on the street with the drug addicts. That’s no way for humans to live. It’s treating us like cattle when there is no need for it other than to satisfy the greed of corporations and the insatiable hunger of governments for power.
>>1988133The problem is everyone keeps moving to the same 10 metro areas in the country (NYC, Boston, DC, Miami, Atlanta, LA, SF, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Denver and Seattle)Start encouraging development in the Midwest.
They don’t. It’s just difficult to build good transit here. But we’re getting better at it all the time.
>>1987861>Literally just build up. LA is as geographically constrained as TokyoDude, majority of Tokyo is detached single homes Americans suburbia style only everything is cramped and have size for ants. Go check Google earth, stop judging Tokyo by Tokyo TV tower anime shots.
>>1988156>I dare say that unless you (or your parents) live in the middle of nowhere (extremely rural) you can find a restaurant with a full bar even in suburbiayou would think that but in my quite well developed area the vast majority of the housing is a minimum hour and half walk form anything but gas stations or macdonalds.
Because 1-3 minute walk to car + driving 12 minutes everywhere is not really that bad unless you are a kid. It beats 5 minute walk to bus and 12-20 minute bus ride with some (readers choice) people. Also, the car doubles as storage space.
>>1988167>Let’s be real adapting to massive population increases is expensive and nobody wants to pay for it.This.The subways and rail that are the heart of cities were built when the alternative of legging it or horse and buggy made it profitable for private industry. And those were still constructed with no worker safety, abusive eminent domain, and a bunch of companies went bust anyway.Roads exist because the government paid for them with Cold War money to move tanks in case Russia did a D-Day landing.Building transit is expensive, private companies can't make enough profit for it to be viable, and taxes can't be raised.
>>1988166>>1988232Just to play around, I went a little deeper in the suburbs than what I was doing earlier, so it's closer to half an hour than fifteen minutes. However, schools are much closer (because some people value schools being closer rather than bars) but certainly not a "minimum hour and half walk".
>>1988169That’s only a problem if those areas have shitty zoning that prevents housing construction.
>>1988252No, NYC at least is full. The sewers are overflowing and can't handle the additional capacity. The other areas get to sprawl out where new infrastructure is able to support the new residents.
So we can at least all agree it’s an expensive and time consuming enterprise that nobody wants to pay or take responsibility for, so instead we get second rate services and overcrowded cities. The importance of having reliable and cheap public transport isn’t even really up for discussion. It’s a sign of how bad the state of the nation is that it’s full of serious issues. All sorts of people use it. The disabled. Tourists. People who dislike driving or don’t want to pay for vehicle repairs. People whose destinations have little or no available parking. The option should always be there, and it should always provide a satisfactory service. The ultimate problem is cars and public transport are diametrically opposed. People who have cars don’t usually want to leave it at home and take a bus or train instead.Car ownership increases>demand for buses falls>bus service gets cut due to lack of use>people complain they are stranded without a car. But. What if the public transport was actually good? How many people would consider it worth spending 4 figures a year on a car when they had the option to say no? Considering the insane things people will do to save a little bit of money, I’d suggest quite a few. I know a guy in the Netherlands who said public transport works very well so he couldn’t be bothered to keep paying for repairs. That’s quite significant if you ask me.
>>1988155>Cities grow by two things.>Infrastructure.>Jobs.No, this is a misleading way to think about it, because where to jobs come from? Jobs come from economic activity and wealth generation. Where does wealth generation come from? Industry and trade balanced with sufficient stability and predictability to favor long-term investment (note: lolberts have trouble understanding the latter). Quality of life comes from a community's ability to channel its wealth efficiently, balancing individual freedom with infrastructure and shared services that the level of wealth can afford.It all starts with industry, and specifically industry suited to the human capital available. If your population is a bunch of 80-90 IQ simple working folk you'd better not develop your economy around a tech industry.
>>1988269Kill all homeless.
>>1988269There's also the inherent value of cities, that people would form roots with and want to stay even if there's economic downturns.Have you noticed that for as much as people gush over how they want cities to be more like university campuses, how quickly they empty out the second classes aren't in session?
>>1988312Sorry meant to reply to >>1988304
>>1988304People don’t go where there’s no work. Again it’s the gravity effect. You get something in place and it grows. The bigger it gets the faster it grows. From the get go they should’ve said hang on a minute this will spiral out of control and invested in a variety of places to spread the demand around but no, everyone has to squabble over the same postage stamp sized area of land/resources/infrastructure
>>1988312It’s funny. I know of a local authority who wants to make the city centre more less car friendly by blocking roads. It’s already easily accessible to pedestrians and bikes. All the major local businesses have stated they will close if the authorities go ahead, which will render the city centre absolutely useless - who cares if it’s a little more pedestrian friendly if there’s no shops or services to visit. The locals don’t want it either but the local government don’t care, it’s all about virtue signalling.
>>1988329Cont. This is exactly what I don’t like. Sure it’s great to have reasonable pedestrian access and good public transport but all too often it gets absorbed in a crusade against cars and motorcycles which only serves to make people miserable. All justified in the name of air quality (which is often fine) and climate change (which is highly debatable in relation to human activities). What we do know if you will be poorer and less happy.
The government gets taxes from making the roads slower. You might use 30% more fuel in the day than at night thanks to all the traffic lights. You can actually save a lot of money by changing your working hours so that you commute outside of peak time. I genuinely hope this is useful information to someone.
>>1988328Where does work come from?
>>1988269>The ultimate problem is cars and public transport are diametrically opposed.They aren't. Before COVID, it was more convenient in some cases to park in a large parking lot in the more suburban areas, then hop on a train to go downtown. The problem is the same people who are big advocates about mass transit start screeching about big parking lots adjacent to mass transit stations and how that's wrong.
>>1988386My point was more that people “graduate” from public transport when they get a car. Unless circumstances dictate otherwise they’re unlikely to choose to hop on a bus or train when they can do it in the privacy and comfort of their own vehicle. Personally I used my bike or walked prior to getting my car. But that was simply preference. I did use the train to get to places that were too far to walk/bike to however. But it’s true that proponents of PT often hate cars as an idea, deeming them selfish and inefficient or extravagant
>>1988409>My point was more that people “graduate” from public transport when they get a car.That tends to be true everywhere, though. You can obviously try to make public transit more appealing by having it free of crime and miscreants, but people are going to gravitate toward cars if they can afford them.
>>1988411I’m surprised there hasn’t been more “cars bad” type comments actually. Anyway I believe we should deal with the root cause of problems rather than treat the symptoms. People will disagree on what is correct but eh I’m glad I don’t live in a city like Paris (viciously anti car) or LA (overpriced hovel)
>>1988411>>1988409That's only true for places where infrastructure is favouring car use. People use cars because they're convenient, not because they feel they're an inherently better mode of transportation. If you remove, let's say, all public parking spaces in cities, you'd see the opposite effect, people would "graduate" to whatever is most convenient. Personally, I always take the train for city trips, even though I own a car. No headaches with city traffic, finding a parking spot, paying for a parking spot, etc. The train is infinitely more practical for that sort of voyage, in western Europe at least.
>>1988476>People use cars because they're convenient, not because they feel they're an inherently better mode of transportation.Convenience is one way to determine if something is better than another
>>1988476That’s called making life miserable for people. You’re purposely making life difficult for ordinary citizens for the sake of an ideal. It’s been tried in a lot of places. Since when did anyone vote to be taxed more? And yes it is a tax, it’s a tax on your freedom of choice and potentially also your time/comfort/privacy.
>>1988481This is correct. Cars are usually still faster even in severely anti car cities. Japan is unusual and while its efficiency is exemplary the fact nobody else seems capable of replicating it despite decades of trying and failing, probably means the markets should be left to decide for themselves. As I said I know a guy who gave up having a car because where he lived it wasn’t worth the repair/maintenance costs and. A difference of $1000 a year extra in their bank account is enough to make people switch if their priorities are different for whatever reason
>>1986387>Source: OECDOECD's what?
>>1988476>That's only true for places where infrastructure is favouring car use.No, because Europe and Japan are the same way. It may be more expensive to own and operate a car, but the principle is still the same.
>>1988493You're making the mistake of thinking that the current status quo is the natural condition. Automobiles are a modern innovation and they're convenient because so much of our built environment was designed or razed to prioritize cars. Similarly, the popularity of cars should not be interpreted as a sign of consumer preference because in many places the infrastructure and land use means there is no practical alternative to driving, so the options are constrained to choosing between driving a car and simply not traveling at all.
We don’t, America is expanding its transit systems a lot in the last 10-15 years
>>1988550NTA, but where's the mistake? They're convenient because they are a modern innovation, just as a washing machine is going to be better than a washboard, and a refrigerator is better than a damp hole in the ground. Even in areas with infrastructure that was not designed for cars (think Africa), the wealthier will still prefer cars and use them. If you want to change the definition of "wealthier" so it's only the top 30% of the population that use them instead of 90%, it won't change the facts.
>>1988585I applaud your logic. It’s literal regression. People bought cars because they’re faster and more comfortable. They generate enormous revenue for the government in taxation and employment for mechanics. Simply put they are a crucial part of the economy and without them society as we know it would collapse. The taxes alone.. ouch.Anyway back to my point, in days past the poor dreamt of having a horse. However horses need huge amounts of land and are very expensive. The car came along and became the natural replacement. Due to the easier storage and accessibility, popularity spread like wildfire. Costs came down as production methods were improved. For the first time, ordinary people had a level of independence their forebears could only dream of. If anti car people get what they are proposing we will be severely limited while the super rich enjoy empty city streets to race through without having to share road space with us plebs. We are all in this together, all these socialist/top down ideas only ever succeed in fattening the wallets of already rich people
>>1988614Cont.Here’s an example. London’s ULEZ. Guess who gets hit? The poor. People who can’t afford to update their cars. Lord Mayor Khan? Takes 3 bulletproof Range Rovers with a price tag of £400,000 because apparently, just one of these monstrosities isn’t enough for him to transport himself from A to B. This is exactly what I mean when I say the poor lose what little they’ve got while the rich hog the resources (in this case. Road space)
>>1988614>However horses need huge amounts of land and are very expensive. The car came along and became the natural replacement.no, the bike came along and sales boomed and roads were paved because the public demanded it for cycling. then Ford hooked up a bunch of bike parts to an ICE and the roads were already paved because bikes and lazy fatasses rapidly demanded all infrastructure. government conceded because cars required gasoline that could be taxed instead of bikes that required the rider wasn't a lazy fatass who couldn't be taxed so the fatasses won. like you
>>1988619A bicycle can’t get close to the carrying capacity of a horse. I’d like to see you tow a cart with your bike. And calling me a lazy fatso doesn’t add any weight to your argument. I can probably ride a bike faster than you and I used to ride over 160 km a week. Cope
>>1988619>Everyone who wants to go more than 20 miles, or more than 20mph, and not arrive dripping in sweat, or who needs to transport more than 10lbs is a lazy fatass>When bikes demand infrastructure it's a good thing because I like that, but when cars demand infrastructure it's a bad thing because I didn't like itIncredibly low IQ take
It’s funny. Without the taxes paid by drivers you won’t be having any of those bike lanes or bus lanes. Or even buses for that matter. There won’t be any money to pay for them. You vill pay ze road taxes and travel nowhere. You vill give up your car and get colds and coughs from being squashed up with scores of people on a train that’s on the verge of breaking down at any moment. You vill live in ze pod and eat ze bugs while reading government propaganda all day You vill own nothing and be a serf
>>1986644Nothing is stopping you from having a Rich People Bus that costs 20 bucks a ride. What you're really complaining about is that you're poor.
When alls said and done; the cars and guns are gone, cameras are watching your every move and you are assigned a job with UBI in your 15 minute locality when you become an adult…How are you ever going to have any independence or freedom? You’ll literally be a serf. Nothing but blind obedience as you look up at a photo of the government ministers with tears in your eyes, thankful for a crust of bread like it’s an exquisite gourmet. Absolutely revolting way to live.
>>1988628roads could be much more enjoyable without brown retards and women using them. this would require having other safe and easy modes of travel (and a white ethnostate). all of this could be done without restricting the freedoms of car drivers. the big issue is that americans let anti white jewish corporations and their useful idiots control the narrative. everyone should have the option to buy a car but a car is not always the best form of transportation. efficient roads and town planing can be to the benefit of everyone who lives and works there.
>>1988622>i’d like to see you tow a cart with your bike. >inb4 ebike doesnt countbarely uses any power and is roughly the same size as a regular bike.
>>1988652forgot pic
>>1988652That’s one of the most laughable things I’ve ever seen. I’ll be telling my tradie to either buy a truck or van or I’ll find someone else if I have to wait several hours for him to show up to do the job because he was more worried about a puff of exhaust smoke than doing the job I hired him for. Totally impractical and you know it.
>>1988653Plus that is literally the size of a Smart car or a Toyota Aygo. He’s not exactly reducing congestion and you know E-bike batteries catch fire for giggles.
>>1988649Well apart from the ethnicity stuff I agree (granted I am against uncontrolled immigration). But we absolutely can have a world where all kinds of traffic can coexist without problems, unfortunately the socialists won’t be happy until nobody has a car except for government officials
>>1987434my city councillor rides a bike
>>1987405>9:15 late death glare from bossI remember when I had to take like a 90 minute train/bus ride to work, but then the fucking unions called a strike so they only ran like one train an hour. Had to wake up at like 6 am and slug through a shitfight of a commute changing trains. Got into work all tired and fed up just as my boss casually parks in his space cheerfully whistling.
>>1988331This is what I've been saying. Congestion could be completely eliminated just by breaking the stupid assumption that 90% of jobs MUST start and finish at the same time.
>>1988624>Without the taxes paid by drivers you won’t be having any of those bike lanes or bus lanesMy property taxes pay for city roads regardless of whether I drive. Similarly, my income taxes pay for interstates and state highways, also regardless of whether I drive. Bike lanes are also far cheaper for the city anyways, since they take less space than a car lane to begin with and last much longer than a car lane since wear is a function of vehicle weight.
>>1988690>Bike lanes are also far cheaper for the city anywaysBecause you're taking existing road space away from other users. Nothing new was built.
>>1988690Cars are a massive source of revenue. Taxes on fuel, repairs, purchase price. Registration. It all adds up
>>1988692This is what I’m saying. Taking from Peter to pay Paul
>>1988657the entire thing including trailer is the size of a smart car, which can't tow anything and is way more expensive to own, but I have no issues with small cars anyway, I have one. owning more than you would ever require and plugging up roadways with single occupancy in an SUV or truck is what causes congestion.>>1988656noone said anything about using it for work, that's a different argument altogether (though many businesses can be run from a small electric vehicle like landscaping or delivery and in fact are already)
>>1988767Well the trailer is filled with wood. Coincidentally I have a small car too. Trucks and SUVs could be taxed more due to their size but the choice to buy and drive them should remain. You’re deflecting the point. I said cars took over from horses. They were more accessible, faster and could carry more. You corrected me saying that bikes came before cars. However bikes still couldn’t replace the lugging capacity of a horse. So my point still stands. Cars made huge distance transport for the masses in relative comfort easily accessible. Anti-car/eco zealots/cycling fanatics want to take them away. I don’t have a huge amount of money but I’m ok. I get by. My car gives me a quality of life and relaxation that I never imagined. And this is from someone with easy access to reasonable levels of public transport. In your world I’d be sat waiting in the rain for a bus that may or may not fit my schedule, and I’d never get to experience being in control of my life just a little. The roar of the engine as it sores towards the redline, the power at my fingertips. I do not even drive much, but those few sweet moments when it is possible are irreplaceable. It’s the one time I feel free. Just a little. I know someone who recently had to stop driving and he feels like something has been lost, despite the fact he never really cared about cars or going fast or anything like that. Public transport is sterile and nothing you can do will change that. Is the little adrenaline rush important? If you’re measuring it by statistics, no. But to the people whose souls it calms, it sure is. As Jordan Peterson said, nothing screams freedom like a 17 year old behind the wheel of a V8 Mustang. That freedom is exactly what left wing people hate. It’s fuelled by envy.
Cont. Yes it’s true there are idiots out there who misuse cars. And Americans are barely given any training. If European standard driving tests were implemented those accident rates people always talk about would plummet.
>>1986331Having to look your own society in the eyes is a fucking nightmare in large parts of the Western World of the 21st century.Driving in a cage allows you to avoid doing this. And America is one of the countries with some of the worst societies in the world.
Why are Europoors poor who can't afford cars?
>>1988795Cause Europeans are taxed to death. VAT + fuel duty in the U.K. which totals around 70% of the price of fuel. ULEZ in some cities further stings you by £12.50 a day if your car is old. Lowered speed limits ruin your fuel efficiency. Traffic lights are set up and rigged to make you spend more time idling. Many Europeans owned diesels as per government advice through the 90s and 2000s. When the DPF gets clogged (worsened by lowered speed limits and increased idling) you’re whacked with 4 figure repair bills unless you risk getting caught with a DPF delete.Insurance rates are much higher than in the USA for many countries. The further west you go the worse it gets - Poland and the other eastern bloc countries are typically much less strict and easy going. Taxes you are obliged to pay to use the roads is very high. Fuel is much more expensive than in America. Germany on average is €1.821/litre as opposed to €1.507 in Poland and €0.554 in Russia. You can see a direct link between how liberal/progressive a country is and how expensive fuel is.
>>1986331Physical violence, theft, vandalism, and drug use. Push those out of public transit and more will give it a chance.
>>1988692>Because you're taking existing road space away from carsFTFY. Cars have a monopoly on road space today. There is 0 issue with giving road space back to pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit. The road was their shared public space long before rich people in private cars intimidated them out of it, and they make much more efficient use of that physical space than cars do.>Cars are a massive source of revenue. Taxes on fuel, repairs, purchase price. Registration. It all adds upIt all adds up but falls far short of actually paying for the infrastructure required for it. If your business earns you $10k a day but you spend $20k a day running it, are you actually making money? That's the point of reducing car dependency and encouraging alternate modes. Bikes and pedestrians essentially don't cause wear on concrete/pavement in comparison to cars, so upkeep on infrastructure for those modes is negligible. The alternative is taxing drivers for more to pay for the infrastructure they demand, because apparently up-front costs is the only thing carbrains understand.
>>1988865Poor people doesn't deserve any rights, just get a job so you can afford a car
>>1988865>The road was their shared public space long before rich people in private cars Another day, another post where /n/ pretends that horse and buggies didn't exist and didn't monopolize the streets because it's inconvenient to the narrative. Besides, most roads are in fact built for cars. If a city ordinance passed that forbid adding bike lanes on any road built after 1930, transit advocates would go apeshit.>because apparently up-front costs is the only thing carbrains understandWhenever someone mentions funding, someone will inevitably bring up a list of links instead of actually talking about it, whether the "Who Pays for US Roads v2.pdf" which conveniently leaves a lot of information about who pays for what (hint: gas taxes do not go 100% to highways), or something of Marohn's, which when talking about Ferguson blamed a high debt on suburban road design, which wasn't actually true at all.
>>1988849>transit advocates will try to downplay those and use "ackshually highways are less safe">transit advocates will point to the most ethnically homogenous, well-ordered countries as "good" public transit anyway
>>1988865Cars are a part of the economy. Repair the car? You pay tax on it. The gas station you fill your car up at, that pays taxes too. The people working in the gas station pay tax. As do the truckers delivering the fuel. It’s a huge business and you can’t pretend otherwise
>>1988875This is indeed correct. Also, cars carry people. If my car isn’t welcome I won’t visit your city. I’ll go somewhere else that’s happy to accommodate my preferences. And THOSE cities will get my custom. That’s where I’ll spend my money. When I first bought a car I soon found myself spending far more than I usually would, simply because I could get out and visit more places. Much of which results in spending money. You wouldn’t go for a ride on the bus for the sake of it, but you might go for a drive and decide you fancy a coffee and a cake. I know because I’ve done it many times. It’s pretty funny. A lot of places that discourage cars end up turning into “walkable” ghost towns as people stop visiting the city centre and order stuff off Amazon or visit shopping centres with parking, outside the city. So businesses close and people lost their jobs. It also transfers even more wealth to the Jeff Bezos and Co…
>>1988791>euros be like>>1986386
>>1988865>The road was their shared public space long before rich people in private cars intimidated them out of itYou didn't create new bike paths though. You just took away a lane from other users and called it your own. Thus, bicyclists can only win if motorists lose.
>>1988933What are you talking about?Europe is obviously included in "large parts of the Western World".If public security is ass, because you may get robbed any second by "people experiencing socioeconomic pressure", then public transport doesn't work out.America is simply a particularly bad example. Europe isn't quite as fucked as America, yet. Although the large-scale migration initiatives of the last decade already have taken their blood toll.That hits public transport hard.
>>1987968>So why does London have so much congestion?Two reasons: too many people have to cross the middle to get anywhere, and the megarich don't want the mess that is transit in the middle to be untangled.
>>1988152>Urban Sprawl is not a problem.Except that it increases the cost of delivering services. All of them.Denser cities are typically cheaper and more efficient to provide things like electricity and water to, transit works better, it's easier for police and fire services to give coverage, etc. This sort of thing is one of the basic reasons why cities grow in the first place.
>>1989070London is a “people based” city by design. It’s centuries old. Congestion is still a huge problem and the more roads they close to cars the worse it gets. Phrases like “make other methods of transport more attractive” is literally nothing different to saying “let’s make driving slow and inefficient and expensive”. And of course nothing actually changes. People keep driving because it’s still better than public transport even after all the red tape and taxes. That’s how bad public transport really is and that’s the U.K. so imagine how much worse for Americans…
>>1989072>Denser cities are typically cheaper and more efficient to provide things like electricity and water to, transit works better, it's easier for police and fire services to give coverage, etc.Lol heard it all before
>>1989114It’s all about money and never about people’s quality of life or freedom
>>1988875>another post where /n/ pretends that horse and buggies didn't exist and didn't monopolize the streetsSeems like pedestrians monopolized the streets prior to automobiles, picrelOn the actual subject of horse carts, they moved slowly, much slower than early cars, and horses can generally be trusted not to run over pedestrians unlike the typical dr*ver. Pre-car city streets were not "modern streets but with horse carts" like Anno 1800 would have you believe.Another example, from LAhttps://youtu.be/I9K8YjLG-4Y?feature=sharedPedestrians are standing in the street, crossing it whenever they like, horse carts aren't zooming by at 30mph.>this whole Strongtowns diatribe instead of an actual refutationSo you can't refute that a large portion of our property taxes and income taxes go to road construction and maintenance, regardless of how much we actually use them. I accept your concession.>>1988906>If my car isn’t welcome I won’t visit your city. I’ll go somewhere else that’s happy to accommodate my preferencesGood, fuck off.>>1988936See above. Roads were shared space before motorists pushed every other mode out with the literal threat of murder. Cars were and always have been a rich man's toy. Unlike actual modern conveniences like washing machines, which don't impact other people when you use yours, every additional car on the road makes driving worse for each driver. The physical space required for them makes them a non-starter for widespread use in urban areas. Period. Nobody cares if you drive out in your mcmansion suburb 20 miles away from the city, but your car is not welcome in the city proper.
>>1988903You've hit on something very important. How much money goes into purchasing, maintaining, insuring, and fueling a car? In the US, the typical cost is around $10k a year. That's a fuckload of money that could be put towards retirement savings, hobbies, vacations, etc. Government is still going to get it's cut through sales taxes, and with far less people being forced to drive (because public transit is non-existent in the face of city and state road repair budgets) the city saves money because the roads don't need to be resurfaced nearly as often. Win-win for everyone when you don't need a car for your daily life but can still buy and use one if you want.
>>1989329>So you can't refute that a large portion of our property taxes and income taxes go to road construction and maintenance, regardless of how much we actually use them. I accept your concession.Let me break it down for you: this post from 2014.https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/8/25/stroad-nation.htmland specifically this paragraph.>Cities are unprepared to fix things -- the tax base just isn't there -- and so, to keep it all going, they try to get more easy growth while they take on lots of debt. In 2013, Ferguson paidnearly $800,000 just in intereston its debt. By comparison,the city budgeted$25,000 for sidewalk repairs, $60,000 for replacing police handguns and $125,000 for updating their police cars. And,like I pointed out last week, Ferguson does what all other cities do and counts their infrastructure and other long-term obligations as assets, not only ignoring the future costs but actually pretending that the more infrastructure they build with borrowed money, the wealthier they become.The debt isn't from roads and infrastructure at all. The link goes to Ferguson's 2013 budget, where the $800k originated from a tax increment revenue bond related to a shopping center redevelopment, which clashes with the thesis of "single-family housing development causes more infrastructure and more infrastructure is more debt". So what's the deal? Is he deliberately framing this TIF debt as infrastructure debt, or too dumb to understand the difference?
>>1989329“Rich man’s toy”. 91% of Americans own at least one car according to a quick google search. Rich man’s toy? Not anymore. Hasn’t been for many decades. You clearly don’t know what murder is. You have to have intent to kill or commit harm. Nobody gets in a car with intent to kill or hurt anyone. Negligent? Maybe. That’s not murder, get your facts straight. You won’t look very credible if you can’t even get the basics right. Major facepalm moment. Pedestrians have sidewalks and footpaths. No reason for them to be in the road. Ordinarily I’d say jaywalking being a crime is bad but with people being glued to their phones 24/7 it’s not such a bad idea to make them use crossing points. Otherwise you will have people dying. At NO POINT IN HISTORY was it normal to not pay attention to your surroundings. You could get hit by a bicycle or a bus. It’s only the modern age with its self entitled creatures who shove their personal responsibilities on everyone else who think it’s unfair they should have to stop and check it’s safe before crossing a road. Utterly ridiculous
>>1989331Around $4.5k a year for me to run a car although I don’t do a lot of miles/km. that’s a conservative estimate and on very expensive insurance for a high powered car.For reference, without a discount card it can cost as much if not more for me to use public transport for a long trip than to simply drive - but I do own a diesel which can easily do 1000 km/600 miles on a tank, probably more if I was trying to save fuel but I only avoid braking and coast a lot if I see traffic or hazards ahead. Other than that I don’t care how much fuel I use. It’s my hobby. Government sure gets its unfair share and the roads are in a disgraceful state. But they have tons of money to throw at useless vanity projects that nobody asked for
>>1989331But you know that car is the apple of my eye. It’s kept immaculate. Hobbies? It is a hobby. I could trade it in and get something that doesn’t demand sky high insurance rates. The only other thing I care to spend money on is travelling, but I’m not really in the best position to do that at the moment for many reasons. By the time I am finances should easily permit it. But you know I pay tax to drive it. I pay for insurance which is also further taxes going to the government. I pay taxes in fuelling it. I pay taxes when I buy parts for it. I help keep mechanics employed. Who also pay taxes. Yeah cars cost money but they’re very useful and can be amazing fun if they happen to be the sort of thing you like - and while you may frown at someone flooring it down an empty highway, remember they pay money to put fuel in which means they’re further putting money into the economy by driving faster.
