[yupper32]

> As you say it is technically the solution.

No, I said technically people will adapt and take the shitty and overrun public transportation because there's no other option. It's not a solution because it often drastically increases travel time, put people in danger because public transportation without proper security is much more dangerous, and overall it will rightfully piss people off.

The solution is improving public transportation. This isn't something that people are advocating for. They just want the cars out.

[TedKroft]

The people who want cars out absolutely want improved public transportation.

[yupper32]

Then they should say that and frame their arguments around that. That's my entire point. Do you see any mention of public transportation improvements in the comment I originally replied to? No, you don't.

The movement has no hope if the movement is simply trying to get rid of cars. "Fuck cars" as they say.

[munk-a]

As the original poster I'd mention that I'd love to see a much better public transit system but that I've also seen it repeatedly stymied by car-centric interests. I've seen stupidly large bus exchanges placed in the middle of fields because all the land closer to what people actually want to get to is covered with acres of parking and I've seen bus lanes shot down because of the expected impact on traffic. We need to accept that car infrastructure will be degraded to actually get meaningful transit changes and city densification efforts through and those box stores in lakes of parking need to die as a default footprint to build retail. If it takes seven minutes to walk from one storefront to the next then you're never going to get people out of their cars no matter how many buses you throw at the problem.

At the end of the day it comes down to: car infrastructure, walkability - choose one.