• pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because people want a means to travel independently, as in they are in control and not riding with strangers.

    /s

    • pohui@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is a luxury that should be severely limited. I hate screaming children on flights, but I don’t want us to all start chartering private jets, even if somehow becomes affordable.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        The U.S. needs to grow up and get off of its post-9/11 authoritarian kick. Then plane and airport design and system setup can go back to being about the convenience of the flyer and not the obscene hellhole it is now that is driving people away from supporting public transit.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please keep your garbage ideas away from America. Freedom is more important than anything, and cars are a great enhancer of personal freedom. So I will be keeping my cars and my independent luxuries.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        🤷 I don’t actually agree with the sentiment. I am describing how other people feel about it. I don’t even own a car. I actually want high speed rails. All I am telling you is that that is how opponents feel about it, and to get what you want, you have to address those feelings, probably in some form of marketing campaign.

      • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Large swaths of the US were populated around the railroads. The cities had old style walkable centres before they were demolished to make way for cars. Even LA was built up around a streetcar network which was at the time the largest in the world.

          • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The big dig was replacing an urban highway that already demolished much of the city and shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and it shouldn’t have been replaced. When you have land constraints the answer is easy: don’t build for the car.

            The way forward isn’t that complicated. Electric cars don’t fix most of the problems with ICE cars, and they’ll need vast amounts of lithium and other materials to produce. We’ll spend just as long replacing every car with an electric one as it would take to build out a decent amount of non car dependant infrastructure. And the way to do that isn’t difficult either, just stop building new car dependant places, remove euclidean zoning codes, and start adding some transit and bike lanes. The dutch didn’t get their bike infrastructure overnight, it was done by redesigning roads whenever they needed to be rebuilt anyway. The same can be applied elsewhere.

              • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Small towns can be super walkable, since you can easily walk anywhere in town. But yeah at some point cars do make more sense, and at that point it isn’t much of a problem since most people live in urban areas anyway.