| > Public transport can be late, you have to deal with inconsiderate people, there are additional weather issues you have to deal with, e.t.c. People use public transport when it is convenient. If you are a rich country that has so many of these rich people then you can make your public transport good. If cars and roads actually had to compete in terms of cost benefits, driving would be far more expensive. > Same goes for living in apartments/condos versus having your own piece of land. Apartments of course are the way to go for densely populated areas, but with everything else equal, people generally would prefer to live away from others for very good reasons. Having single family homes isn't an issue. Having only single family homes and no commercial is the issue. Row houses can be very popular and cost efficient for people who don't want to be in an apartment. If you look at subburbs in the Netherlands for example, you will see a wild mix of different types of buildings, all still conected to public tranist and of course great bike infrastructure. As long as people pay tax for using more land (land value tax ftw) and the car is put into an appropriate place in the transport hierarchy. > First, there should be massive investments into autonomous driving Absolutely terrible choice. Even the best case outcome isn't great. If there is a place where self driving makes sense its in last mile transporting people in the subburbs. > The second is way looser regulation on electric bicycles/mopeds and investment into that sector in general. This isn't unreasonable. > The key to solving transportation is 2 fold. No the key is actually to have great bike and public infrastructure, and if you do most people will use it. If you also properly restrict cars specifically in cities and make drivers actually pay for all the issues with cars. Then biking and pubic transport will be incredibly popular. And the cars that are left over are far less of a problem. |