Sure in some rural places possibilities for public transit are limited. But in the US most people live in cities and they could very well have decent public transit, it’s a political choice to not invest in trains. .
I’m not saying cars don’t serve a purpose in sparesely populated areas, like West Virginia. They do. But cars are overused in places where public transit would be a thousand times more efficient, like big cities. Also, trains are perfectly suitable to cover large distances. I happen to go on holiday to Italy next week and I do it solely by train. And Europe doesn’t even have good high speed raillines. Perhaps less so than the US, but Europe also neglects public transit in favor of the car lobby.
The thing you’re still failing to realize is that most of America is comparatively rural, and the big cities do have subways, busses, elevated train lines, etc. And we do have amtrak, and people do use it, but it’s not feasible for most of the country to rely on trains for transport. The town my grandma lives in has 5,000 people (if that), no trains beyond freight, no busses, no cab drivers, uber sometimes, only if Big Steve is working right now and he likes to go up to the “city” nearby (not a city like Bos, NYC, Amsterdam, more like idk some small city in Albania lol) for bowling on fridays, so good luck.
I have not made a point of cars not serving a purpose in rural areas. If you say there are many rural areas in the US, then it is implied that I am not speaking of those areas. Cars are overused in densely populated areas where possibilities for public transit are immense, and cars are an extremely inefficient method of transport. Surely you’re not suggesting that there aren’t any densely populated areas in the US… And yes, of course there is some public transport already. But it’s far less than it could be and it needs proper investing. We’re not doing good on that front here in Europe, not good at all, but the US is hardly doing better. Efficient/collective solutions often seem to lose from individualistic options, despite the massive costs of the latter, and I find that a shame.
I literally already said that we have trains in our densely populated metropolitan areas where it makes sense to do so already, but most of the country isn’t those 10 cities.
As fun as talking in circles is I’m going to respectfully walk away from this thread now. Have fun in Italy, eat something cheesy for me.
Sure in some rural places possibilities for public transit are limited. But in the US most people live in cities and they could very well have decent public transit, it’s a political choice to not invest in trains. .
You ever been to West Virginia?
I’m not saying cars don’t serve a purpose in sparesely populated areas, like West Virginia. They do. But cars are overused in places where public transit would be a thousand times more efficient, like big cities. Also, trains are perfectly suitable to cover large distances. I happen to go on holiday to Italy next week and I do it solely by train. And Europe doesn’t even have good high speed raillines. Perhaps less so than the US, but Europe also neglects public transit in favor of the car lobby.
The thing you’re still failing to realize is that most of America is comparatively rural, and the big cities do have subways, busses, elevated train lines, etc. And we do have amtrak, and people do use it, but it’s not feasible for most of the country to rely on trains for transport. The town my grandma lives in has 5,000 people (if that), no trains beyond freight, no busses, no cab drivers, uber sometimes, only if Big Steve is working right now and he likes to go up to the “city” nearby (not a city like Bos, NYC, Amsterdam, more like idk some small city in Albania lol) for bowling on fridays, so good luck.
I have not made a point of cars not serving a purpose in rural areas. If you say there are many rural areas in the US, then it is implied that I am not speaking of those areas. Cars are overused in densely populated areas where possibilities for public transit are immense, and cars are an extremely inefficient method of transport. Surely you’re not suggesting that there aren’t any densely populated areas in the US… And yes, of course there is some public transport already. But it’s far less than it could be and it needs proper investing. We’re not doing good on that front here in Europe, not good at all, but the US is hardly doing better. Efficient/collective solutions often seem to lose from individualistic options, despite the massive costs of the latter, and I find that a shame.
I literally already said that we have trains in our densely populated metropolitan areas where it makes sense to do so already, but most of the country isn’t those 10 cities.
As fun as talking in circles is I’m going to respectfully walk away from this thread now. Have fun in Italy, eat something cheesy for me.