this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
720 points (94.4% liked)
Greentext
3994 readers
1501 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why we need good public transit on top of good biking infrastructure. The two working together let's you get anywhere a car can go while not taking a lot longer.
You're not wrong, but that's not going to work over the entire country. There's just too much space to cover; the country would go bankrupt trying to provide mass transit everywhere that it's needed. So while this could be, if you could convince people to actually do it, a solution in urban areas, it's never going to work out in the thousands of miles of country and they have the exact same problems. They just have less traffic and more empty space to cross.
We didn't go bankrupt making a car-centric infrastructure, we won't go bankrupt building adequate mass transit and micromobility infrastructure. In fact, we will probably profit greatly in myriad ways.
Acktually a fair few counties in the US have gone bankrupt building car-centric infrastructure, because it's ruinously expensive and doesn't even come close to being covered by the taxation they put on cars. Mass transit and bike infrastructure costs are miniscule in comparison and sometimes even actively gain money.
Micromobility infrastructure lets gooooo!