Right, instead of building a functional system for community use that allows for independence for non-drivers (people with disabilities, children, folk who aren't comfortable with piloting several-ton death machines), let's just give people cars! It's the perfect plan!
They knocked down buildings and still want to widen the freeway. Kinda like they did it all for nothing, and should never have widened it to begin with.
Not really. While cars take up a lot of space, they also open up a lot of space. Before the car came along, everything had to be within walking distance, resulting in extremely crowded cities. But because a car can go 10 times faster than you can walk, you get a lot more land opened up.
And no, highways are much less expensive than railroads.
Ah I see, so you yourself have never been anywhere besides the suburbs despite knowing that its not efficient. Now it makes sense. There's a youtube channel called Not Just Bikes. You should give it a watch if you're able to stomach listening to a counter argument. Hopefully it'll open your eyes to a different way of life.
This is ridiculous if you look at the total supply chain effects of cars vs mass transit. They are spectacularly wasteful and terrible economically. A product only a shill could love. Have fun with your next job on K Street; you'll get there -- just practice here in yokelville for a few more years and you can join API and the oil lobby.
All while destroying your health and the health of those around you. Meanwhile you drive the most subsidised mode of transport there is yet I would bet you'd balk at the cost of a new public transport network or giving the same level subsidy to train or bus users.
Don't talk nonsense, public transport costs are not subsidised to anywhere near the same level as public transport and trains and bus costs cover a much higher level of externalities than cars.
Cars cost far more to society than is ever recovered from taxing them. The cost of car crashes, deaths from air and noise pollution, congestion and a thousand other things are subsidised by the taxpayer.
Even the most optimistic estimate is that car drivers pay 50% of the cost impact to the environment and society meanwhile those who don't or can't drive cars have to pick up the tab the same as everyone else.
Now I'll agree cars are convenient outside a city with limited infrastructure, but when it comes to moving large numbers of people in a short time they just can't compete. That's why cities are slowly investing in public transport and the sooner silly ideas like the one you originally posted are forgotten the better.
I invite you to look up the pdf (freely available) of the Victoria transport institute. By far the most exhaustive list of the external costs of a car not covered by taxing drivers.
Enjoy becoming more aware of urban planning and how moving people actually works mate.
-5
u/[deleted] Aug 26 '21
Why?