The person is talking about going to a stop and ride. You can’t just say that’s bad public transit then pretend it’s not an issue when you get called out.
My criticism is concerning those carbrained big vehicles. Look at those Cybertrucks and Jeeps and tell me that that’s not dangerous for pedestrians, bicyclists, children, and all alike. More dangerous for other car drivers as well.
Cars demand large parking spots, pollute the environment, aren’t convenient (you constantly need to watch traffic rules, get honked at, have to fuel, have to look for a parking spot, or can get fined…). With a bicycle, this is all much less the case, and with widespread public transit, all of that is gone. Much more convenient and luxurious!
Sure, I’ll admit – if you ignore all of those above, it’s attractive to be able to hop and go everywhere.
But with good public transit and pedestrian & bike infrastructure (as well mixed-use development), a carless life is much nicer. Hell, it’s actually nicer having a car when those things are present. More bicyclists and walking people, denser development - means fewer people on the road - means fewer traffic jams - means driving is nicer.
“Pretend is not an issue”? I’m making it the central issue, saying that is bad public transit, and therefore not a solution. That was me calling you out for strawmaning the discussion. Twice. You basically said “you want good public transit and less cars? You can’t have it because bad public transit requires cars.”
It’s a clutch for a public transit system that doesn’t serve the people. A park and ride is a symptom of a public transit that isn’t attending the population. It’s in no way, shape, or form an example of good transit.
The person is talking about going to a stop and ride. You can’t just say that’s bad public transit then pretend it’s not an issue when you get called out.
My criticism is concerning those carbrained big vehicles. Look at those Cybertrucks and Jeeps and tell me that that’s not dangerous for pedestrians, bicyclists, children, and all alike. More dangerous for other car drivers as well.
Cars are the problem. That’s the harsh fact.
And they also clog the roads.
It also takes like 15 kids in front of the SUV to see any kid. Hell, even with adults you can often not see them… They are very, very dangerous.
Cars demand large parking spots, pollute the environment, aren’t convenient (you constantly need to watch traffic rules, get honked at, have to fuel, have to look for a parking spot, or can get fined…). With a bicycle, this is all much less the case, and with widespread public transit, all of that is gone. Much more convenient and luxurious!
Sure, I’ll admit – if you ignore all of those above, it’s attractive to be able to hop and go everywhere.
But with good public transit and pedestrian & bike infrastructure (as well mixed-use development), a carless life is much nicer. Hell, it’s actually nicer having a car when those things are present. More bicyclists and walking people, denser development - means fewer people on the road - means fewer traffic jams - means driving is nicer.
I feel like you don’t know what a park and ride is.
“Pretend is not an issue”? I’m making it the central issue, saying that is bad public transit, and therefore not a solution. That was me calling you out for strawmaning the discussion. Twice. You basically said “you want good public transit and less cars? You can’t have it because bad public transit requires cars.”
Either discuss in good faith or I’m out.
Do you know what a park and ride is? Not everyone lives right next to public transit or is able to walk to it.
Also learn what a strawman is. Considering I never said any of what you claim.
It’s a clutch for a public transit system that doesn’t serve the people. A park and ride is a symptom of a public transit that isn’t attending the population. It’s in no way, shape, or form an example of good transit.