>>1323444>buses and trains and other polluting 'transportation'Where I live, all trains and most buses are electric, while only a few cars are. My point being that you shouldn't confuse the current state of a mode of transportation with its potential. Assuming everything runs electric, the order from best to worst for the environment is rail > bus > car. This is all because of energy consumption: the more people you carry per vehicle, the less vehicle mass you have to move per person. More importantly, rubber tires on road have significantly more friction than steel wheels on track, so a "rail car" still uses only a fraction of the energy a normal car uses. This is why /n/ spergs so much about trains and trams. This doesn't mean cars are useless, it just means that were its viable, people should be transported by rail. If not enough passengers for rail, use buses. If a destination or specific journey isn't convenient to travel by bus, THAN get in your car.
>>1323519>traffic congestion and parking problemsThis will largely be solved when less people drive their cars at the same time. For the rest, technology will help us out. A more advanced version of cruise control that is currently being tested in the Netherlands, connects cars to eachother to form a sort of wireless network in which they will accelerate and slow down simultaniously, allowing extremely short headways. This has been tested driving in mixed traffic on a highway with normal drivers and it worked great. All transportation is great for its own uses as long as fags and politicians keep their bullshit out of it and let scientists decide what's the most efficient.
>>1323517>reasonable replyThis thread is not for you. I only made it because there were suddenly 5 obnoxious car threads up and I figured there should be one for trains as well. My commute is usually actually that comfy though.
