• TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Reading through these comments I’m realizing a lot of the people who are advocating for cars, because they offer greater flexibility and autonomy, aren’t taking one critical thing into consideration: cars are useless without roads, and other necessary car infrastructure. You can’t use a car to get from your home to your work without someone first paving a road between them. So, if we’re going to have to build and maintain transportation infrastructure regardless, why not build infrastructure that will facilitate moving as many people from one place to another as efficiently as possible?

      • teije9@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        yes, bikes use roads, but a bike doesn’t need a ‘bike stop’ for you to be able to get off the bike.

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Yes, but bikes don’t need as much infrastructure, because bikes are typically used for shorter trips, and they are much smaller and lighter. Buses transport many more people than passenger cars, so they can transport more people using the same, or less, infrastructure.

        I don’t expect every house to have its own train stop, I expect people to live much more closely together. Cars really are a necessity when everyone is very spread out, but, again, the more spread out everyone is, the more infrastructure must be built and maintained. You think it would be ridiculous for every house to have its own train stop, but you don’t think it’s ridiculous for every house to have a road built to connect it to everything else, regardless of where that house is. The truth is, neither is cost effective or efficient.