In fact, insane car and highway infrastructure is actually a luxury. Funny how roads just magically spring up everywhere and they are 'required to live' but god forbid a bus that uses that road, that is luxury. Public subsidy of car infrastructure is far higher then for public transport.
> coincide with bus/train routes
There is this thing called planning. They put public transport where it is actually needed. Its not like 'ohh luck, they just so happened to build a train here'.
If your country has a serious imperative of doing public infrastructure correctly, then the amount of people who can reasonably be reached is very, very high.
And good urbanism isn't just density. Look at some railroad towns in the East, they have walkable rural urbanism. You don't need a car to live in such places. Or maybe one car for a whole large family.
Sure yes, there is some people who that doesn't include. But lets be fucking real, most people live in cities or in suburban areas. Or in sprawl town loosely attached to some larger metro area.
And in even more places trying to go threw or across the city takes longer with a car. Public transport is just fundamentally more efficient as a society.
If you had said 'some people need cars' that would be one thing, but to act like cars are normal and car infrastructure is standard and normal, and public transit is some sort of luxury that only fancy societies can afford and even then only once they have built their highway infrastructure.
A big problem with German public transport for example that right when they wanted to implement West German High speed rail, the unification with East Germany happened and new highway for cars took priority. And after that the EU believed the most important thing was building lots of highway all threw Eastern Europe.
Walking, biking and public transport should be the baseline, and if money is left over you can have fancy car infrastructure and parking is the luxury.
In fact, insane car and highway infrastructure is actually a luxury. Funny how roads just magically spring up everywhere and they are 'required to live' but god forbid a bus that uses that road, that is luxury. Public subsidy of car infrastructure is far higher then for public transport.
> coincide with bus/train routes
There is this thing called planning. They put public transport where it is actually needed. Its not like 'ohh luck, they just so happened to build a train here'.
If your country has a serious imperative of doing public infrastructure correctly, then the amount of people who can reasonably be reached is very, very high.
And good urbanism isn't just density. Look at some railroad towns in the East, they have walkable rural urbanism. You don't need a car to live in such places. Or maybe one car for a whole large family.
Sure yes, there is some people who that doesn't include. But lets be fucking real, most people live in cities or in suburban areas. Or in sprawl town loosely attached to some larger metro area.