[JumpCrisscross]

> The goal is to get people into taxis/uber, buses, subways, bicycles ... basically anything except a car

This attitude is part of why public transit in America is failing.

Americans love their cars. We're not going to recondition that. Designing systems that are anti-car doesn't lead Americans to ditch their cars. It leads them to ditch public transit.

This shuttle is a good example. Shuttles running between busses increases throughput while decreasing latency. It increases the chances that I go to the bus station versus reflexively calling a car. If I have to look up a timetable, though, I'm not going to do that: I'll call a Waymo.

Another missed opportunity is RORO rail stock, where folks can take their cars on a family vacation on a train. We don't have it because the rail folks are all anti-car. As a result, their projects get cancelled.

[const_cast]

Attempting to vaguely level the playing field is not "anti-car". Nobody in the US is "anti-car".

The reality is that we have conceded such an absurd amount of money, space, safety, noise, you name it, to automobiles that even if we reeled that back 90% we'd still be squarely in the "pro-car" space.

On one side, you have one concession that we spend trillions of dollars subsidizing and spend the majority of all space in our country getting to work. And then, on top of that, it's the primary cause of death for multiple demographics. And we still subsidize it.

On the other side, you have something we don't put any money into.

[convolvatron]

i dont think its because the train people are anti-car. if anything more the converse. Amtrak in the US used to heavily advertise the auto-train. they still run it along the southeast coast.

[JumpCrisscross]

> dont think its because the train people are anti-car. if anything more the converse

Train people aren't. Transit advocates, particularly in cities, have a tendency to be.