[anon291]

> Suburbs can support great public transit, and it would be cheaper than cars for everyone.

While I agree... there is no way Americans will forgo cars. Americans love our rural and public and wild lands too much to not be able to simply visit at moment's notice.

Having lived in Europe, I understand how this works there. Europeans don't have the same relationship with nature that Americans often do. The ones that do usually have cars.

[mataug]

The point is not about eliminating cars. Cars are, and will continue to remain, an important form of transportation, especially in rural or remote areas.

Public transit and alternative forms of transportation such as bikes, are about

1. Reducing traffic, less people driving means less traffic for those that need to drive.

2. Improving safety within cities and suburbs, a car is far more dangerous than a bike or public transit

3. Reducing the cost of infrastructure maintenance, cars are heavy, especially EVs, a reduction in the number of cars on the road would lead to massive savings in the cost of maintaining our roads.

4. Removing the car burden, cars are a expensive depreciating asset, and for low-income folks they are a massive tax just to be able to travel to work. So folks who don't want to, or don't have the means to own a car, they should be able to travel without paying a huge time penalty.

5. Health benefits, less cars on the road means people who prefer to walk, bike can do so safely and gain some health benefits.

6. Cars are noisy, noise pollution is linked to bad health outcomes, less cars = less noise on public areas.

[bluGill]

Americans do not have to forgo their cars. They just need to forgo a single car. Most families I know have a car per adult, and often a spare in case one breaks. However they could easily drop down to one truck (not car, though maybe a SUV or minivan) for those rural/wildlands trips and other things that need a truck. All we need to do is give them a good option for the 90% of trips that are not those things: getting to work, getting groceries, running to schools, going to church, the game, the bar...

Just because we can't eliminate all cars doesn't mean we can't/shouldn't have great transit. Focus on make a system that is useful for people for the 90% of trips at less cost than the one car they are getting rid of to pay for it.

[manuelabeledo]

Let’s not kid ourselves. Americans love their cars because they want short term convenience.

Cars trips in the US are, in their vast majority, short and between common places like grocery stores, gyms, schools, etc.

[anon291]

Absolutely, and if you eliminated all of that... most americans would still want a car, because it lets them get out.

Look... I live in the inner city. Realistically, I walk everywhere most of the week. However, I keep a car so I can get to the mountains 50 miles away. That is the main reason I keep a car and my main usage of it (and to also visit family and friends who live more rurally).

[foxyv]

Imagine if you could get to those same mountains without needing to worry about parking or traffic. When you get there, you don't have to dodge cars constantly or walk 10 miles into the back country to get away from road noise. It's silent aside from the sounds of birds and the wind in the trees.

When I go to the mountains in America I hear the constant drone of cars and generators...

[dreamcompiler]

The other problem (that Europeans often don't understand) is just how big America is. Texas alone is twice as big as the UK and Ireland combined.

My point is that covering America with train tracks would cost $trillions. Yes, there was a time when we built something on that scale: The interstate highway system. But those days are long over. American politics is now far too gridlocked to build a public bathroom, much less a trillion-dollar public transit system. Even if it ended up saving money and the planet.

[bluGill]

Don't let big become an excuse. Sure the US is too big to go NYC->LA via train. However DC->Boston is still a great route to run a train, a high speed train on that route should decimate plane and car travel on the route. Connecting everything east of the Mississippi via train (and possibly just a little west) makes perfect sense. There is also a great north-south route along the west coast.

Yes building those trains would cost a lot. It shouldn't be trillions (that it will be is a problem we should fix!). Lets not be defeatist: lets demand better of our politicians. We have good ideas of where things are going wrong, but politicians see transit as a way to throw money at union labor and consultants (democrats); or a complete waste (the Republicans). Both sides need to do better.