[sloreti]

Or you take the view that if a city is investing in transportation infrastructure, it should focus on public transportation instead of building infrastructure for private vehicles that degrade the urban experience.

[scotth]

Or maybe do both? I don't see Americans getting rid of their cars, so look at it as harm reduction.

[jniedrauer]

I would. And if I would, so would others.

[kempbellt]

I wouldn't. And I'm sure many others wouldn't either for similar reasons.

Public transportation is great and I love using it when it makes sense, but in many cities it does not compete with the convenience and security of having a reliable personal vehicle.

The only place I felt public transportation was good enough to go without my own car was NYC - but I lived on a great train line that ran every few minutes reliably. I also didn't have any dependents that I was responsible for. Many people who lived nearby used the train but still had their own cars as a backup.

Even with how convenient it was for shuttling myself around, using it when needing to carry anything like groceries becomes difficult, and made me wish I had a car. Especially during rush hour where sitting is almost impossible.

I'm all for improving public transportation, but I do not see it being a replacement for personal vehicles in every way.

[908B64B197]

The issue is that public transit generally optimizes for throughput, and latency suffers.

The wealthier people are, the more latency sensitive they become.

[criddell]

Maybe the street chargers could be run for profit with the proceeds used to subsidize public transportation?

[rootusrootus]

The city should focus on what makes the most sense for their citizens. In some places that means public transit, in some places it means EV chargers.