[icebraining]

But it's not more cars, that's my point.

Say public transport covers 95% of my needs. If I have cheap taxis, I'll use public transport most of the time, and cars only 5%.

If I have to buy a car because I can't afford those taxi rides, I might use it for 30% or 40% or more of the trips, since it just costs me a bit of gas (or electricity) - the fixed costs are sunk.

[emodendroket]

I mean, the incentives are also kind of backwards -- it's usually free to drive and you have to pay to ride the train. If we're really looking at climate cataclysm it might be worth thinking about changing that dynamic.

[thebradbain]

It's "free" to drive in the sense that you don't have to take money out of your wallet to get into the driver seat of your car, yes. But that doesn't account for:

  - The monthly payment on the car (if applicable)
  - Liability / collision insurance
  - Gas
  - Tolls
  - Parking
  - Repairs
  - Washes

With this in mind, public transportation is obviously way cheaper than driving – and exclusively using Uber may very well be in some cities, too.

But yes, I'd agree with you that many people don't seem to account for those hidden costs when justifying driving over taking public transit in a city that adequately supports it. Hopefully one day soon that will change.

[emodendroket]

Assuming you have a car (which is more or less necessary in most places you might live in this country), for any given trip it's very close to free to drive while the train is more expensive. And if you're thinking about parking and riding, between the higher cost of those tickets and the parking fee it's actually pretty expensive to do and driving all the way into the city is definitely cheaper.