You’re saying people love inconvenience and that’s why everyone should bend over backwards to support the overwhelmingly inconvenient infrastructure to maintain inefficient and inconvenient traditions.
It isn’t a minor inconvenience. It completely ruins infrastructure, eliminates vast amounts of space, destroys the environment, and sucks people’s time.
The infrastructure can all work together, it can take up no more space than it does now, it can even be done in less. It won’t destroy the environment if it’s done correctly, why is every rebuttal of yours just hand waving that can also just be handwaved away?
The freedom to go when and where takes less time actually, bad infrastructure makes it take longer. Public transport will never be faster and more convenient than personal travel. I scan stop on a whim where I want, if public transport did that it work take hours. That’s why fast transports like mag trains stop so infrequently with large stops. Buses go from there and there is other options, but it’s all guess what, time…….
Private transport will always be most time economical, it’s hilarious that you think that’s a valid point on your side.
No it cannot. Car centric infrastructure necessarily destroys the environment far more and takes up far more space.
I’m not hand-waving your points, I’m pointing out why they are terrible points.
The rest of your comment is baseless and rejects reality. Proper public transit is faster and doesn’t require vast amounts of space, and with proper urban planning you can go anywhere you want whenever you want. You can’t with cars, it takes forever to get where you need to go, because cars carry far less people per square meter.
Lmfao. This community is a joke. Must be, to be this ignorant of reality.
It doesn’t have to take up more space, claiming the same thing, while denying reality (places do it already) is quite the walled garden you’ve made for yourselves here.
It’s quite simple. Cars hold far fewer people per square meter than public transit, and need wide roads for traffic and potential accidents. They destroy the environment and require infrastructure like stoplights, that waste minutes at a time.
Cars can stop anywhere, buses, if they did that for passengers instead of set stops, it would take a day to make a route.
You are sacrificing convenience, and both can coexist, the roads are already needed, lights too, even for buses and cabs and what not. They wouldn’t just magically disappear with public transport.
Again, lacking the reality. What you’re suggesting for what people want, can’t happen, since it would be far more time consuming, for everyone involved.
Good thing nobody wants buses to do that. You are quite literally imagining the least efficient form of public transit to avoid making an actual point. Cars clog infrastructure and you can have non-bus methods when you need to go more specific places.
Cars work well for smaller, more spread out towns. They can’t really stop anywhere in most large cities - there’s just no parking for them. The space is simply too valuable to waste on parking other than loading zones and taxi stands.
There’s just too many people wanting to move about to accommodate them with cars. At these scales mass transit is more convenient.
Even my city relies on public transit, and it’s only around 200k people, 400k in the metropolitan area.
You’re saying people love inconvenience and that’s why everyone should bend over backwards to support the overwhelmingly inconvenient infrastructure to maintain inefficient and inconvenient traditions.
It’s anti-science and anti-progress, lol
I’m saying some people can get over a minor inconvenience. You do when you take a slower method of transport like public, walking or biking.
So yeah YOU can love an inconvenience, but others can’t…? Shit take yet again…
You’re ignoring that it can be done correctly and is in some places. Why do people always conveniently do this?
It isn’t a minor inconvenience. It completely ruins infrastructure, eliminates vast amounts of space, destroys the environment, and sucks people’s time.
The infrastructure can all work together, it can take up no more space than it does now, it can even be done in less. It won’t destroy the environment if it’s done correctly, why is every rebuttal of yours just hand waving that can also just be handwaved away?
The freedom to go when and where takes less time actually, bad infrastructure makes it take longer. Public transport will never be faster and more convenient than personal travel. I scan stop on a whim where I want, if public transport did that it work take hours. That’s why fast transports like mag trains stop so infrequently with large stops. Buses go from there and there is other options, but it’s all guess what, time…….
Private transport will always be most time economical, it’s hilarious that you think that’s a valid point on your side.
No it cannot. Car centric infrastructure necessarily destroys the environment far more and takes up far more space.
I’m not hand-waving your points, I’m pointing out why they are terrible points.
The rest of your comment is baseless and rejects reality. Proper public transit is faster and doesn’t require vast amounts of space, and with proper urban planning you can go anywhere you want whenever you want. You can’t with cars, it takes forever to get where you need to go, because cars carry far less people per square meter.
You have no points at all, just vibes.
Lmfao. This community is a joke. Must be, to be this ignorant of reality.
It doesn’t have to take up more space, claiming the same thing, while denying reality (places do it already) is quite the walled garden you’ve made for yourselves here.
It’s quite simple. Cars hold far fewer people per square meter than public transit, and need wide roads for traffic and potential accidents. They destroy the environment and require infrastructure like stoplights, that waste minutes at a time.
Cars can stop anywhere, buses, if they did that for passengers instead of set stops, it would take a day to make a route.
You are sacrificing convenience, and both can coexist, the roads are already needed, lights too, even for buses and cabs and what not. They wouldn’t just magically disappear with public transport.
Again, lacking the reality. What you’re suggesting for what people want, can’t happen, since it would be far more time consuming, for everyone involved.
Good thing nobody wants buses to do that. You are quite literally imagining the least efficient form of public transit to avoid making an actual point. Cars clog infrastructure and you can have non-bus methods when you need to go more specific places.
You’re just inventing reasons to mald.
Cars work well for smaller, more spread out towns. They can’t really stop anywhere in most large cities - there’s just no parking for them. The space is simply too valuable to waste on parking other than loading zones and taxi stands.
There’s just too many people wanting to move about to accommodate them with cars. At these scales mass transit is more convenient.
Even my city relies on public transit, and it’s only around 200k people, 400k in the metropolitan area.