Mandatory plug of the capacity by means of transport diagram. TLDR is that cars are the least efficient way to transport people (compared to walking, cycling, busses, trams and trains).
Mandatory plug of the capacity by means of transport diagram. TLDR is that cars are the least efficient way to transport people (compared to walking, cycling, busses, trams and trains).
The most obvious reason that cars dominate though, is freedom and autonomy of movement. "Capacity" doesn't mean much when you're trying to get to an appointment in 15 minutes and you have to...
Exemplary
The most obvious reason that cars dominate though, is freedom and autonomy of movement. "Capacity" doesn't mean much when you're trying to get to an appointment in 15 minutes and you have to figure IF there is a bus that runs close by and IF the schedule will fit the time you have and IF you have the money or bus pass in hand and IF you can get to the bus stop in time to make the next one... or just get in your car and go. Which is why public transit will never dominate in society that highly values time, freedom of movement and autonomy. Convenience wins every time.
IF you have enough gas/battery and IF you can find a parking space and IF you have the money/app to pay for parking... there are considerations for driving that you're glossing over. Personal...
or just get in your car and go.
IF you have enough gas/battery and IF you can find a parking space and IF you have the money/app to pay for parking... there are considerations for driving that you're glossing over. Personal vehicles are more convenient in most cases but that's also because modern cities (at least in the US) have been built around car infrastructure rather than public transit. It also doesn't need to be that way though.
Yes, but those are the owner's problem, and that's still the autonomy most people value. If I don't make a job interview because I forgot to fill up, that's MY problem to own. If I don't make the...
IF you have enough gas/battery and IF you can find a parking space and IF you have the money/app to pay for parking... there are considerations for driving that you're glossing over.
Yes, but those are the owner's problem, and that's still the autonomy most people value. If I don't make a job interview because I forgot to fill up, that's MY problem to own. If I don't make the job interview because the bus driver forgot to fill up that's beyond inconvenient.
Following your logic, if capacity isn't crucial for most people and they view cars as tools for autonomy, doesn't traffic become a major inconvenience? Every time someone drives, they contribute...
Following your logic, if capacity isn't crucial for most people and they view cars as tools for autonomy, doesn't traffic become a major inconvenience? Every time someone drives, they contribute to the traffic that inconveniences everyone else.
Your original comment suggests that public transit can't offer freedom of movement. Yet, in heavily congested cities, cars don't provide the freedom you mentioned either. Trips become much lengthier due to traffic jams.
While it's not up to individuals to overhaul transportation systems, dismissing public transit based on its current flaws means accepting perpetual traffic as the norm. But traffic congestion isn't inevitable.
True freedom lies in reliable public transport. In cities with punctual trains, you don't hear complaints about the hassles of public transit. A comprehensive, frequent, and reliable network defines freedom. It means navigating public spaces without the need for an expensive machine.
Even on a well run train, an individual is still forced to comply with other's expectations. In one's car, you can listen to whatever you wish, as loudly as you wish, eat your smelly lunch, sing,...
Even on a well run train, an individual is still forced to comply with other's expectations. In one's car, you can listen to whatever you wish, as loudly as you wish, eat your smelly lunch, sing, have a private conversation with a passenger, take personal calls, even release gas and pick your nose if you wish. You can bring along as much or as little goods as will fit in your vehicle and if you want you can even take a nap while you're parked because it's not shared space - that's autonomy. I don't care how efficiently a public system runs, like most, I highly value having my own space as part of my freedom and autonomy.
I feel much safer in a train than a car and find it more relaxing because I am not driving. I think it is a more moral choice because it is exceedingly unlikely that someone will be injured as a...
I feel much safer in a train than a car and find it more relaxing because I am not driving. I think it is a more moral choice because it is exceedingly unlikely that someone will be injured as a result of my choice to travel by train (whereas if I drive a car, no matter how carefully, the odds are much, much higher than I might kill a pedestrian). I also find that sometimes I have really interesting conversations with people I would otherwise have never met (and people outside my social 'bubble') which is nice.
And that is awesome! The two experiences are very different, I think the issue many of us take with this attitude is that we all subsidize it. In the US, state and local governments spent over 200...
I highly value having my own space as part of my freedom and autonomy.
And that is awesome! The two experiences are very different, I think the issue many of us take with this attitude is that we all subsidize it.
In the US, state and local governments spent over 200 billion dollars annually on road infrastructure - and have for a number of decades - while Mass transit spending amounts to ~$65 billion. There is some overlap, but imagine what our infrastructure could look like if we shifted models. Granted, it's probably not an outcome that you would hope for, but for many of us it's a more pleasant future.
And I highly value the ability to choose between multiple feasible options of travel including biking, public transit, or just plain walking. In a location that doesn't have every building spaced...
And I highly value the ability to choose between multiple feasible options of travel including biking, public transit, or just plain walking. In a location that doesn't have every building spaced at like 500 feet apart to accommodate minimum parking requirements, those become easier options, and then I can get out of my car so you have more space to use yours.
Driving is a much better experience when everyone on the road actually wants to be driving there, and everyone who doesn't want to drive has alternative options. That's what autonomy means, my decision for me and your decision for you. Maybe I have to leave 10-20 minutes earlier for this hypothetical appointment if I don't drive, but that's also just part of the personal responsibility and planning that goes into being on time.
I'd like to push back on that idea. Here in the US we actually have incredibly restricted freedom and autonomy of movement, unless you are in a car. Going from town to town, city to city, is often...
Exemplary
The most obvious reason that cars dominate though, is freedom and autonomy of movement.
I'd like to push back on that idea. Here in the US we actually have incredibly restricted freedom and autonomy of movement, unless you are in a car. Going from town to town, city to city, is often impossible without a car or bus to take you from one hub to the next. Much of our country is connected via highway, with no alternative means of transiting between places. So you're right in that cars provide the most freedom and autonomy of movement, but only because we have sacrificed others modes of transit to make that so. I'd also say cars and car based infrastructure limit freedom in general. Anytime you are in a public space you are subject to the rules of the road and cars are given a heavy priority. We need to stay out of the road, we need to wait until cars finish driving to cross the street, expansive areas of downtown locations are covered with parking, in some cases stores are only accessible via car... I would say that isn't freedom, that's a prescriptive way to move about the world.
Which is why public transit will never dominate in society that highly values time, freedom of movement and autonomy. Convenience wins every time.
Secondly, convenience is only true because that is how the domestic system was built. I've replied to another comment but I'm going to copy it here: In the US, state and local governments spent over 200 billion dollars annually on road infrastructure - and have for a number of decades - while Mass transit spending amounts to ~$65 billion. There is some overlap, but imagine what our infrastructure could look like if we shifted models. Our federal, state, and municipal spending create that convenience and sacrifices other methods of transit as a result.
I've lived in Amsterdam and boy howdy is it a different story. Cars are inconvenient. Pedestrian and bike infrastructure is incredible. Their public transit systems are timely, clean, and easily accessible. It was easier for me to jump on a bus to get home from the airport than it was to grab a cab, literally 15 minutes shorter and I would be dropped off 1 block from my house. I think you're reality is informed by the place you live and the experience you have but that doesn't mean alternatives aren't just viable, but they exist and have been running smoothly for decades.
public transit will never dominate in society that highly values time, freedom of movement and autonomy.
I suggest a trip to the Netherlands, or even just a conversation with someone from there.
There is one huge difference when comparing countries transportation infrastructure. Physical size. The Netherlands could easily have great public transport but that's largely because it's a...
There is one huge difference when comparing countries transportation infrastructure. Physical size.
The Netherlands could easily have great public transport but that's largely because it's a miniscule country. You can drive across the furthest two points in the country in about 4 hours. Only about 400 km on the longest route. With 18 million people in only 42000 sq km.
Where I live in Canada, 4 hours is how long it takes to drive to the closest city. To travel across the country? About 72 hours or 7000 km. With only about double the Netherlands at 38 million people and an area of 10 MILLION sq km. Only 2x the population but 238x the size of the Netherlands. Of COURSE, we're never going to have the public transportation infrastructure of a small, densely populated country.
Half the population of Canada lives in an urban metro area comparable to New York, or London, or Paris, or etc. 81% of Canadians live in an urban area, compared to 82% for America. No one's...
Half the population of Canada lives in an urban metro area comparable to New York, or London, or Paris, or etc.
81% of Canadians live in an urban area, compared to 82% for America.
No one's talking about forcing everyone in Grande Prairie to ride a train to work, we're talking about giving people in urban cities an option that isn't sitting on the 401 for 2 hours every rush hour to get home.
This is a silly excuse. No one expects all of Canada to have Netherlands-level infrastructure, but there are densely-populated metro areas in Canada that have little excuse for having as shit...
Of COURSE, we're never going to have the public transportation infrastructure of a small, densely populated country.
This is a silly excuse. No one expects all of Canada to have Netherlands-level infrastructure, but there are densely-populated metro areas in Canada that have little excuse for having as shit public transit as they do. It's absolutely possible to have good public transit in these subsets of the country.
As for servicing the whole of a larger country, it's certainly not impossible to do a lot more with passenger trains than Canada is currently doing -- if there's sufficient investment. Look at China's train network for a sense of what's possible there.
This is often said, but not true. If you compare the Netherlands in terms of population per area, it's very similar to the New England states. But in terms of public transportation, urban...
This is often said, but not true. If you compare the Netherlands in terms of population per area, it's very similar to the New England states. But in terms of public transportation, urban planning, etc. It's still radically different.
Many of the central lying states of America with not much in the will indeed always need a degree of cars. But in transportation as a whole they would still benefit a lot from trains going through the major cities and connect the west and eastern parts of the USA.
Transportation is not a function of just size, population, urban/rural but all of them.
The USA could easily have good public transportation in most of the densely populated areas and still have the car infrastructure required for the less dense parts. In fact, given the efficiency of rails, it would probably open up budget for it.
I'm just going to echo the other comments: This isn't a catch all or prescriptive for rural areas. I use Amsterdam as an example of what can be achieved in dense urban settings. Like they have...
I'm just going to echo the other comments: This isn't a catch all or prescriptive for rural areas. I use Amsterdam as an example of what can be achieved in dense urban settings. Like they have mentioned we have urban density on a scale similar to Europe, we just don't have the matching funding for public infrastructure. This is in large part to special interest groups who make arguments similar to yours.
You're not wrong that remote locations require car/truck based infrastructure. My question is why are we subsidizing it?
Absolutely true in many car-dominated environments, which at this point is most of the Western world. Is it true everywhere? I'm not so sure. I used to live in NYC; when I lived there, I set foot...
The most obvious reason that cars dominate though, is freedom and autonomy of movement.
Absolutely true in many car-dominated environments, which at this point is most of the Western world.
Is it true everywhere? I'm not so sure. I used to live in NYC; when I lived there, I set foot in a car about once a year, and even then it was only so I could visit friends or relatives who lived in car-dominated areas outside of NYC.
Within NYC, the most pedestrian-friendly place in the US, and easily the city with the most comprehensive public transit system in the US, it was more convenient to get around on foot, or via the subway, or by bike. Just finding a parking space adds tens of minutes to the end of each car ride, let alone the traffic you contribute to by driving. Most other methods of transport scale better, so in a dense environment they literally work better because driving's efficiency is ruined by traffic and parking. And even better, whether you walk, bike, or take public transit, they're all orders of magnitude cheaper (and therefore more accessible) than driving, which requires, at a minimum, thousands of dollars a year.
I've visited and at times lived in other parts of the world where public transit and walking infrastructure is better. In all cases, those investments resulted in more walking, biking, and public transit convenience in a city environment. If you don't believe me, try visiting somewhere in the Netherlands where you can get around exclusively by bike -- you have even more autonomy of movement than a car because you aren't constrained by parking spaces. Or just think about Disney, which every American seems to love... you can't drive around the park, but you don't feel like your freedom and autonomy of movement is limited there, do you?
Now, in suburbs and rural areas, you're probably correct (to a point -- with the right design, small towns can be strongly connected by trains in a pretty convenient way). But suburban sprawl is unsustainable. The infrastructure, whether it be bridges, roads, or utility lines is rotting faster than suburbs can fix it, so we're eventually going to have to abandon that model of living.
Folks in rural areas ought to get around by car, though accommodations should be made so that folks can bike and walk easily for short trips, especially in small towns. Small towns also ought to be connected to regional trains with schedules often enough to make those trains a viable option for movement between cities and towns where you don't need a car -- whether it's an urbanite visiting a friend who lives in a rural area or a rural dweller traveling to the big city for a doctor's appointment. Leave the cars to the niche they're best suited to: ad-hoc long-distance hauls of small domestic loads. But our over-reliance on cars in the USA is killing us, it's killing the environment, it's killing our wallets, it's killing our health, and it's killing our communities.
This is only true in places where cars receive ridiculously huge infrastructure investments. Of course non-urban areas will always be a problem (they generate considerably more greenhouse gasses...
This is only true in places where cars receive ridiculously huge infrastructure investments. Of course non-urban areas will always be a problem (they generate considerably more greenhouse gasses per-capita, require much more energy to move people larger distances, etc) but if we consider cities only cities built on a very old-fashioned model (i.e. just cars) have this problem (so a lot of American ones). If you look at for example London (central-ish) or Zurich (including the metro area) in my experience, in most cases it is faster to go by public transport than it is to drive around.
However, if we design cities around public transport and walkability you can get excellent connectivity with high speeds. With regard to schedules, the Swiss have really worked this out with clock-face timetabling (e.g. Swiss railway stations run trains in to stations a few minutes to the hour, and have them all depart shortly after so that it's possible to connect). Short-distance trains then run in between. They then do their best to make local transport infrastructure line up with this. The end result is that one can commute very effectively.
About your "capacity" point, the issue is that cars tend to end up in traffic (obviously adding more lanes makes this much worse) which means that they have both higher latency and lower throughput (i.e. the truly terrible combination). Compare this to e.g. London's underground system where the frequency of trains is sometimes every 1.66 minutes and you can begin to see how trains are superior.
This is key. Cars are absolutely the least efficient way to transport large numbers of people but that was never their intent. Obviously in larger cities like Amsterdam, transportation priorities...
This is key. Cars are absolutely the least efficient way to transport large numbers of people but that was never their intent. Obviously in larger cities like Amsterdam, transportation priorities should emphasize capacity and efficiency in moving large numbers with less trips. It is interesting though that with Amsterdam's focus on cycling as a primary mode of transportation, car owners are now feeling the squeeze rather than the opposite that has been happening in other large more car-leaning cities of the world.
The emotional argument is strong and I agree with your reasoning, even in a city like Amsterdam. Sure, the bicycle dominates because it's easier, but there's still a lot of cars precisely because...
The emotional argument is strong and I agree with your reasoning, even in a city like Amsterdam. Sure, the bicycle dominates because it's easier, but there's still a lot of cars precisely because of your reason.
I've lived in Utrecht in an area where the car or bike were more useful than public transport. Public Transport was either far away, had a crappy schedule, had me standing in the rain waiting for a bus, or all three. At least in my car I was dry, warm, on my own time, and happy.
Responses to you seem to favour rational reasoning: capacity, efficiency, etcetera. But that doesn't even come into question for people taking the car, they just want autonomy.
If you need to get from point A to point B in say, Vienna, you'd be a fucking lunatic to get into your car. Subway drives in sub 5 minute intervals, there is a tram and there are buses. If public...
If you need to get from point A to point B in say, Vienna, you'd be a fucking lunatic to get into your car. Subway drives in sub 5 minute intervals, there is a tram and there are buses. If public transit leaves at short enough intervals, which becomes viable in cities from 150k residents on, you don't have to check any timetables. You just walk to the nearest station and get on the next train/tram/bus.
I think it's very obvious you've never been to Amsterdam or known a Dutch person. Dutch people do very highly value their time and autonomy. Good transit systems, like the one in Amsterdam, also...
I think it's very obvious you've never been to Amsterdam or known a Dutch person. Dutch people do very highly value their time and autonomy.
Good transit systems, like the one in Amsterdam, also don't require the planning you describe. They simply run frequently enough that a you'll be able to catch a ride soon after you reach the station.
Fernande Van Tets with Daniel Bellamy Since 2019, the city council has tried to remove as many car parking places as it can get away with, but there's still not enough space for residents. Many...
Fernande Van Tets with Daniel Bellamy
Since 2019, the city council has tried to remove as many car parking places as it can get away with, but there's still not enough space for residents.
This summer, local authorities in Amsterdam closed one of the city's major traffic arteries to cars in a six-week trial.
Although Amsterdam is probably the most bicycle-friendly city in the world; this time they may go further than ever.
Many cyclists were of course happy.
"I found the experiment very positive. Apart from the fact that it is super nice when you live here, you can hear how loud it is here … and today isn’t so bad, there are days when it’s much worse," said one bike-riding man using the artery," said one Amsterdammer who spoke to Euronews.
But the trial greatly annoyed car-owning residents who are finding it very difficult to drive in, out, or around their city.
"The cyclists have a priority in Amsterdam actually, so I think it’s hard. We also have a car and when we need to use the car it's difficult," countered one car-owning but frustrated woman.
'We are really struggling with space'
Cars are clearly losing the battle for space in the city but everyone feels a bit squashed on the roads when commuting to and from work.
"We are really struggling with space in Amsterdam," Melanie Ter Horst, the city's deputy mayor said.
"We don’t have enough space for everyone to get from A to B. And that’s why we need to make more space for cyclists and pedestrians."
Garages for bikes
"Now we are creating many underground parking garages for bikes," Horst said.
A giant underground bike park was built in 2017 and is cleverly located near Amsterdam’s Centraal Station which around 200,000 travellers travel through every day - and about half of them arrive by bicycle.
Promoting cycling
A sped-up video of the construction projection showed just how complex it was and how serious the city is in promoting cycling.
But unbelievably, despite having space for nearly 7,000 bicycles it is not the largest, that's a record still held by the city of Utrecht.
I can't help but find the justifications given for car culture (that I've experienced) to be incredibly selfish. Yes, cars are a private and you don't have to rely on anyone else. But they're also...
I can't help but find the justifications given for car culture (that I've experienced) to be incredibly selfish.
Yes, cars are a private and you don't have to rely on anyone else. But they're also one of the leading causes of death, incredibly polluting, restrictively expensive, and so on.
The reality is that highly populated urban areas gain nothing from giving cars the highest priority, and in fact only reduce the living quality of anyone who doesn't have access to one.
Having been to the Netherlands and seen how things could be, it's a bit annoying when the only justification people have for cars is "I like them".
Mandatory plug of the capacity by means of transport diagram. TLDR is that cars are the least efficient way to transport people (compared to walking, cycling, busses, trams and trains).
The most obvious reason that cars dominate though, is freedom and autonomy of movement. "Capacity" doesn't mean much when you're trying to get to an appointment in 15 minutes and you have to figure IF there is a bus that runs close by and IF the schedule will fit the time you have and IF you have the money or bus pass in hand and IF you can get to the bus stop in time to make the next one... or just get in your car and go. Which is why public transit will never dominate in society that highly values time, freedom of movement and autonomy. Convenience wins every time.
IF you have enough gas/battery and IF you can find a parking space and IF you have the money/app to pay for parking... there are considerations for driving that you're glossing over. Personal vehicles are more convenient in most cases but that's also because modern cities (at least in the US) have been built around car infrastructure rather than public transit. It also doesn't need to be that way though.
Yes, but those are the owner's problem, and that's still the autonomy most people value. If I don't make a job interview because I forgot to fill up, that's MY problem to own. If I don't make the job interview because the bus driver forgot to fill up that's beyond inconvenient.
Following your logic, if capacity isn't crucial for most people and they view cars as tools for autonomy, doesn't traffic become a major inconvenience? Every time someone drives, they contribute to the traffic that inconveniences everyone else.
Your original comment suggests that public transit can't offer freedom of movement. Yet, in heavily congested cities, cars don't provide the freedom you mentioned either. Trips become much lengthier due to traffic jams.
While it's not up to individuals to overhaul transportation systems, dismissing public transit based on its current flaws means accepting perpetual traffic as the norm. But traffic congestion isn't inevitable.
True freedom lies in reliable public transport. In cities with punctual trains, you don't hear complaints about the hassles of public transit. A comprehensive, frequent, and reliable network defines freedom. It means navigating public spaces without the need for an expensive machine.
Even on a well run train, an individual is still forced to comply with other's expectations. In one's car, you can listen to whatever you wish, as loudly as you wish, eat your smelly lunch, sing, have a private conversation with a passenger, take personal calls, even release gas and pick your nose if you wish. You can bring along as much or as little goods as will fit in your vehicle and if you want you can even take a nap while you're parked because it's not shared space - that's autonomy. I don't care how efficiently a public system runs, like most, I highly value having my own space as part of my freedom and autonomy.
I feel much safer in a train than a car and find it more relaxing because I am not driving. I think it is a more moral choice because it is exceedingly unlikely that someone will be injured as a result of my choice to travel by train (whereas if I drive a car, no matter how carefully, the odds are much, much higher than I might kill a pedestrian). I also find that sometimes I have really interesting conversations with people I would otherwise have never met (and people outside my social 'bubble') which is nice.
And that is awesome! The two experiences are very different, I think the issue many of us take with this attitude is that we all subsidize it.
In the US, state and local governments spent over 200 billion dollars annually on road infrastructure - and have for a number of decades - while Mass transit spending amounts to ~$65 billion. There is some overlap, but imagine what our infrastructure could look like if we shifted models. Granted, it's probably not an outcome that you would hope for, but for many of us it's a more pleasant future.
And I highly value the ability to choose between multiple feasible options of travel including biking, public transit, or just plain walking. In a location that doesn't have every building spaced at like 500 feet apart to accommodate minimum parking requirements, those become easier options, and then I can get out of my car so you have more space to use yours.
Driving is a much better experience when everyone on the road actually wants to be driving there, and everyone who doesn't want to drive has alternative options. That's what autonomy means, my decision for me and your decision for you. Maybe I have to leave 10-20 minutes earlier for this hypothetical appointment if I don't drive, but that's also just part of the personal responsibility and planning that goes into being on time.
I'd like to push back on that idea. Here in the US we actually have incredibly restricted freedom and autonomy of movement, unless you are in a car. Going from town to town, city to city, is often impossible without a car or bus to take you from one hub to the next. Much of our country is connected via highway, with no alternative means of transiting between places. So you're right in that cars provide the most freedom and autonomy of movement, but only because we have sacrificed others modes of transit to make that so. I'd also say cars and car based infrastructure limit freedom in general. Anytime you are in a public space you are subject to the rules of the road and cars are given a heavy priority. We need to stay out of the road, we need to wait until cars finish driving to cross the street, expansive areas of downtown locations are covered with parking, in some cases stores are only accessible via car... I would say that isn't freedom, that's a prescriptive way to move about the world.
Secondly, convenience is only true because that is how the domestic system was built. I've replied to another comment but I'm going to copy it here: In the US, state and local governments spent over 200 billion dollars annually on road infrastructure - and have for a number of decades - while Mass transit spending amounts to ~$65 billion. There is some overlap, but imagine what our infrastructure could look like if we shifted models. Our federal, state, and municipal spending create that convenience and sacrifices other methods of transit as a result.
I've lived in Amsterdam and boy howdy is it a different story. Cars are inconvenient. Pedestrian and bike infrastructure is incredible. Their public transit systems are timely, clean, and easily accessible. It was easier for me to jump on a bus to get home from the airport than it was to grab a cab, literally 15 minutes shorter and I would be dropped off 1 block from my house. I think you're reality is informed by the place you live and the experience you have but that doesn't mean alternatives aren't just viable, but they exist and have been running smoothly for decades.
I suggest a trip to the Netherlands, or even just a conversation with someone from there.
There is one huge difference when comparing countries transportation infrastructure. Physical size.
The Netherlands could easily have great public transport but that's largely because it's a miniscule country. You can drive across the furthest two points in the country in about 4 hours. Only about 400 km on the longest route. With 18 million people in only 42000 sq km.
Where I live in Canada, 4 hours is how long it takes to drive to the closest city. To travel across the country? About 72 hours or 7000 km. With only about double the Netherlands at 38 million people and an area of 10 MILLION sq km. Only 2x the population but 238x the size of the Netherlands. Of COURSE, we're never going to have the public transportation infrastructure of a small, densely populated country.
Half the population of Canada lives in an urban metro area comparable to New York, or London, or Paris, or etc.
81% of Canadians live in an urban area, compared to 82% for America.
No one's talking about forcing everyone in Grande Prairie to ride a train to work, we're talking about giving people in urban cities an option that isn't sitting on the 401 for 2 hours every rush hour to get home.
This is a silly excuse. No one expects all of Canada to have Netherlands-level infrastructure, but there are densely-populated metro areas in Canada that have little excuse for having as shit public transit as they do. It's absolutely possible to have good public transit in these subsets of the country.
As for servicing the whole of a larger country, it's certainly not impossible to do a lot more with passenger trains than Canada is currently doing -- if there's sufficient investment. Look at China's train network for a sense of what's possible there.
This is often said, but not true. If you compare the Netherlands in terms of population per area, it's very similar to the New England states. But in terms of public transportation, urban planning, etc. It's still radically different.
Many of the central lying states of America with not much in the will indeed always need a degree of cars. But in transportation as a whole they would still benefit a lot from trains going through the major cities and connect the west and eastern parts of the USA.
Transportation is not a function of just size, population, urban/rural but all of them.
The USA could easily have good public transportation in most of the densely populated areas and still have the car infrastructure required for the less dense parts. In fact, given the efficiency of rails, it would probably open up budget for it.
I'm just going to echo the other comments: This isn't a catch all or prescriptive for rural areas. I use Amsterdam as an example of what can be achieved in dense urban settings. Like they have mentioned we have urban density on a scale similar to Europe, we just don't have the matching funding for public infrastructure. This is in large part to special interest groups who make arguments similar to yours.
You're not wrong that remote locations require car/truck based infrastructure. My question is why are we subsidizing it?
Absolutely true in many car-dominated environments, which at this point is most of the Western world.
Is it true everywhere? I'm not so sure. I used to live in NYC; when I lived there, I set foot in a car about once a year, and even then it was only so I could visit friends or relatives who lived in car-dominated areas outside of NYC.
Within NYC, the most pedestrian-friendly place in the US, and easily the city with the most comprehensive public transit system in the US, it was more convenient to get around on foot, or via the subway, or by bike. Just finding a parking space adds tens of minutes to the end of each car ride, let alone the traffic you contribute to by driving. Most other methods of transport scale better, so in a dense environment they literally work better because driving's efficiency is ruined by traffic and parking. And even better, whether you walk, bike, or take public transit, they're all orders of magnitude cheaper (and therefore more accessible) than driving, which requires, at a minimum, thousands of dollars a year.
I've visited and at times lived in other parts of the world where public transit and walking infrastructure is better. In all cases, those investments resulted in more walking, biking, and public transit convenience in a city environment. If you don't believe me, try visiting somewhere in the Netherlands where you can get around exclusively by bike -- you have even more autonomy of movement than a car because you aren't constrained by parking spaces. Or just think about Disney, which every American seems to love... you can't drive around the park, but you don't feel like your freedom and autonomy of movement is limited there, do you?
Now, in suburbs and rural areas, you're probably correct (to a point -- with the right design, small towns can be strongly connected by trains in a pretty convenient way). But suburban sprawl is unsustainable. The infrastructure, whether it be bridges, roads, or utility lines is rotting faster than suburbs can fix it, so we're eventually going to have to abandon that model of living.
Folks in rural areas ought to get around by car, though accommodations should be made so that folks can bike and walk easily for short trips, especially in small towns. Small towns also ought to be connected to regional trains with schedules often enough to make those trains a viable option for movement between cities and towns where you don't need a car -- whether it's an urbanite visiting a friend who lives in a rural area or a rural dweller traveling to the big city for a doctor's appointment. Leave the cars to the niche they're best suited to: ad-hoc long-distance hauls of small domestic loads. But our over-reliance on cars in the USA is killing us, it's killing the environment, it's killing our wallets, it's killing our health, and it's killing our communities.
This is only true in places where cars receive ridiculously huge infrastructure investments. Of course non-urban areas will always be a problem (they generate considerably more greenhouse gasses per-capita, require much more energy to move people larger distances, etc) but if we consider cities only cities built on a very old-fashioned model (i.e. just cars) have this problem (so a lot of American ones). If you look at for example London (central-ish) or Zurich (including the metro area) in my experience, in most cases it is faster to go by public transport than it is to drive around.
However, if we design cities around public transport and walkability you can get excellent connectivity with high speeds. With regard to schedules, the Swiss have really worked this out with clock-face timetabling (e.g. Swiss railway stations run trains in to stations a few minutes to the hour, and have them all depart shortly after so that it's possible to connect). Short-distance trains then run in between. They then do their best to make local transport infrastructure line up with this. The end result is that one can commute very effectively.
About your "capacity" point, the issue is that cars tend to end up in traffic (obviously adding more lanes makes this much worse) which means that they have both higher latency and lower throughput (i.e. the truly terrible combination). Compare this to e.g. London's underground system where the frequency of trains is sometimes every 1.66 minutes and you can begin to see how trains are superior.
This is key. Cars are absolutely the least efficient way to transport large numbers of people but that was never their intent. Obviously in larger cities like Amsterdam, transportation priorities should emphasize capacity and efficiency in moving large numbers with less trips. It is interesting though that with Amsterdam's focus on cycling as a primary mode of transportation, car owners are now feeling the squeeze rather than the opposite that has been happening in other large more car-leaning cities of the world.
The emotional argument is strong and I agree with your reasoning, even in a city like Amsterdam. Sure, the bicycle dominates because it's easier, but there's still a lot of cars precisely because of your reason.
I've lived in Utrecht in an area where the car or bike were more useful than public transport. Public Transport was either far away, had a crappy schedule, had me standing in the rain waiting for a bus, or all three. At least in my car I was dry, warm, on my own time, and happy.
Responses to you seem to favour rational reasoning: capacity, efficiency, etcetera. But that doesn't even come into question for people taking the car, they just want autonomy.
If you need to get from point A to point B in say, Vienna, you'd be a fucking lunatic to get into your car. Subway drives in sub 5 minute intervals, there is a tram and there are buses. If public transit leaves at short enough intervals, which becomes viable in cities from 150k residents on, you don't have to check any timetables. You just walk to the nearest station and get on the next train/tram/bus.
I think it's very obvious you've never been to Amsterdam or known a Dutch person. Dutch people do very highly value their time and autonomy.
Good transit systems, like the one in Amsterdam, also don't require the planning you describe. They simply run frequently enough that a you'll be able to catch a ride soon after you reach the station.
Fernande Van Tets with Daniel Bellamy
Since 2019, the city council has tried to remove as many car parking places as it can get away with, but there's still not enough space for residents.
Many cyclists were of course happy.
But the trial greatly annoyed car-owning residents who are finding it very difficult to drive in, out, or around their city.
'We are really struggling with space'
Garages for bikes
Promoting cycling
I can't help but find the justifications given for car culture (that I've experienced) to be incredibly selfish.
Yes, cars are a private and you don't have to rely on anyone else. But they're also one of the leading causes of death, incredibly polluting, restrictively expensive, and so on.
The reality is that highly populated urban areas gain nothing from giving cars the highest priority, and in fact only reduce the living quality of anyone who doesn't have access to one.
Having been to the Netherlands and seen how things could be, it's a bit annoying when the only justification people have for cars is "I like them".