[megablast]

> One of the real problems with cars is that the cost of highways and roads isn't factored into the travel, it comes from the bucket of government, whereas trains and trams have to include the cost of the rails.

Lots of costs aren't factored into cars.

Cars in the USA kill 40,000 people every year and seriously injure or disable over 4 million. No one really cares about the deaths, unless it happens to someone you know, and then they still keep driving. But that has a huge financial cost as well. Think of all the extra hospitals, equipment, staff, vehicles required to look after those people.

Then the pollution they cause is not costed, and that also kills people and makes them sicker.

And that is just the start.

[ctdonath]

Anyone is welcome to move to a low-pollution low-vehicle area and live a no-car life. There's a whole lotta such space in the US.

Yes, cars cause "unfactored costs". They also improve life, making the lives of hundreds of millions possible & prolonged. You can't complain about the costs without comparing the savings.

[TulliusCicero]

> Anyone is welcome to move to a low-pollution low-vehicle area and live a no-car life. There's a whole lotta such space in the US.

No there isn't. In fact, I can't think of a single one. Living in rural areas means being super dependent on cars. The center of major cities are less car dependent, but still there's plenty of cars around in every city in the US. There's nowhere in the US like Amsterdam or Copenhagen or Tokyo.

> They also improve life, making the lives of hundreds of millions possible & prolonged.

Hardly anyone wants to get rid of cars entirely. But you can look at societies with substantially fewer cars and they have higher lifespans, and generally higher quality of life.

Almost like it's better to have options, rather than America's extreme car dominance.

[Mirioron]

>Living in rural areas means being super dependent on cars.

You say that because you're unwilling to give up the comforts that car use provides. Do you think that people elsewhere didn't have to give up anything when they decided against car use? You might think that it's fine to mandate bikes, buses and walking instead of cars, but pretty much everybody would rather have a car during a cold winter.

[TulliusCicero]

> You say that because you're unwilling to give up the comforts that car use provides.

Nope. I don't have a car. For a family of 3.

> You might think that it's fine to mandate bikes, buses and walking instead of cars, but pretty much everybody would rather have a car during a cold winter.

I'm not mandating anything; you are. I want options that make not-driving viable, while you're for the side that wants to force everyone to drive.

I don't even mind driving, I just hate being required to drive, which is the case in most US cities, because they were designed to make everything else worse.

[chadcmulligan]

> making the lives of hundreds of millions possible & prolonged

How so?