[image] Cars are an incredibly inefficient way to move people

It really fucking sucks that the auto industry lobbied the US government so goddamn hard in the 30’s - 70’s and got so much of this country built on car centric infrastructure while also systemically dismantling countless forms of public transit nationwide too. Most major cities and metropolitan areas used to have a pretty comprehensive streetcar system, yet where are they now? That’s right, manufacturers like GM bought majority stakes in those companies and then had their infrastructure dismantled all in the name of “progress.”

I did a bicycle+light rail for a year and it took me about 2x the time to get everywhere I needed to go, but I could do it in a car centric city. You can't expect rural folks to have access to public transportation though. Suburbs are a stretch too in some areas.

I take the light rail and bus a bit just because driving through a major city is cancer aids. Takes way longer to get anywhere, I see the bus driver fist fight drunk passengers kinda often, and got a knife pulled on me twice on the rail. None of that happens when I drive places myself.

I'll be down to clown on cars with y'all, but the people who currently take public transit need to be dealt with first. Done getting robbed because I decided to take the rail home from a baseball game instead of drive.

Yes, but context matters. Nobody is taking a train up the street to get groceries. And using a car (or a huge ass truck) for that is often overkill.

Bikes FTW!

I'm struggling with this average vs potential. If I stand on a 3.5m wide sidewalk on average I'm going to see 15,000 people pass me by? And there is no room for potential improvement as the sidewalks are completely full on average? And how are we figuring cars can potentially be improved by 33%? Are all cars 3/4ths full already?

I'm very pro public transit, I'm just unclear what is being shown in this chart.

Inefficient energy wise. Not timewise.

I don't understand this visualisation. Perhaps I'm lacking context. Anybody willing to do ELI5... maybe ELI15? What quantity is being compared and what are potential passengers?

Unfortunately, I'm immunocompromised, so most of these options are too high risk.

Efficiency is not the objective. In fact, were all energy and materials used in making and powering cars from relatively renewable sources, it wouldn't be a problem. I am aware they're not. All else being equal, efficiency is a worthwhile goal. But the tradeoff for inefficiency here is the freedom to go where you want when you want.

There are places here in Europe, contrary to what some people in this community might claim, that simply cannot be accessed by train. Smaller villages and the like.

Access to a car is useful. Ownership might not be unless you live there. But cars have their place.

Does "BRT double lane" refer to one 3.5m lane out of two, both together transporting 86k/hour due to leapfrogging efficiencies, or to both lanes together at 7m total? I think it's important to maintain consistency with the 3.5m theme!

People don't drive cars because they think they're efficient in absolute numbers. They drive cars, because cars are way more comfortable and faster than anything else in everyday life.

No mention of motorbikes. Am sad.

Where is the plane?

Mods are an incredibly inefficient way to moderate people.

Gonna use some of that suburban rail to travel dooway-to-doorway. Oh wait. No, you can't. It is almost as if having options for different needs is important. Instead let's use overly simplistic explanations for a rather complicated problem.

Really the only justification for a car is when you have kids. I have 3 of them, and a car is super super useful. But yeah, for everyone else, use public transport.