“Giving people more viable alternatives to driving means more people will choose not to drive, so there will be fewer cars on the road, reducing traffic for drivers.”

Concise, easy to understand, and accurate. I have used it at least a dozen times and it is remarkable how well it works.

Also—

“A bus is about twice as long as a car so it only needs to have four to six passengers on board to be more efficient than two cars.”

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Do you think ~90% of the 30 million people in Shanghai are all white collars who lost touch with society? What about 99% of Singapore?

    Those places are so densely populated that they can afford a good public transport system. But look at other cities in the world - or, more precisely, their environment - and you will soon see a serious lack of public transport once you leave the cities. Yes, people are living there.

    These places public transit, including intercity, is far, far superior to driving, so people use it.

    That is totally fine. I was not talking about city dwellers, they do have access to public transport in most cases. I’m especially talking about the people not living in the city centers.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s not actually true. Our decentralized system of roads and cars is actually more expensive than a robust rail and bus system. And I’ve been to other places, in Europe and South America. They all have better developed mass transit. You don’t need to be South Korea. You just have to be willing.