politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
https://feddit.nl/post/33741803
Please tell me how cars are an effective method of mass transportation.
In America, cars are the only effective method of transportation for 98% of the population. Is that ideal? No. Is that reality? Yes.
I'm all for advocating for mass transportation but right now, and for 50 years minimum (best case scenario, completely made up) cars will continue to be necessary for the majority of Americans.
Mass transit makes sense in cities, even between surrounding towns. But as soon as you get more rural public transit is so out of scope. It's always easy to see the people who spent their whole life in urbanized areas by how unrealistic they talk about this subject.
Pick 5 random suburban Americans, not even urban, and have someone design a public transit system and schedule that won't add 2 hours to their daily commute.
Like yeah, we absolutely need more mass transit, high speed rail, etc., but those are a few of MANY MANY steps to reduce the number of cars in America.
The thing is, how much do we collectively spend on cars, infrastructure, and roads only for most cars to sit doing nothing 90% of the time? I don't have specific numbers but it seems to me like if all of that money was spent on public transit then it would still be cheaper to have a tram coming by every five to ten minutes even in suburban areas with low passenger volume.
I don't think it's ever going to happen though given the lack of public desire and vested interests at play though.
As the above comment mentioned, time is also a factor. My old beater that I bought for $800 that costs about $350 a year to keep on the road keeps my commute time a lot lower than it would be otherwise. I have a friend in a country with better public infrastructure than mine. His commute time by car is 3 times shorter than it is by bus, and he lives in a significantly denser area than I do.
Right, but two things to keep in mind.
If the same amount of money was poured into public transit we could probably get that travel time down.
Is commute time the only thing that matters and should it be given priority?
For example, if someone told you that taking their helicopter was a three times shorter commute than taking their car to work what would you think of that? I know you indicated that your car cost very little to buy and operate, but their are a number of costs with that car that are being externalized. The roads that it drives on, the pollution it produces, the space/parking it takes up when it's not being driven, etc.
If public transit were almost as good (doesn't have to beat it) as individuals driving, how much more space would we have for additional housing, public spaces, or other amenities?
If you take all of this those externalized factors into account and decide that commute time still trumps the other advantages then that's where you are at and I understand. I don't agree, but I do understand.
I personally LOVE driving, but hate commuting. Fun car on twisty back roads? Yes please. Sitting in traffic or even moving along at a decent pace on the highway but need to be hyper aware of everyone around me? Much less enjoyable. I personally would have no issue with a longer commute on public transit if I could read a book or play games while I did it.
Please tell me how mass transit is effective outside of urban areas. Are you proposing a bus service to every backwoods holler? Are farmers supposed to schlep their supplies, equipment, and products around on a bus?
No thanks