>>1118105>not a wasteful luxury>better public transport (?)Since I can't understand if you meant to put a 'than' in your sentence, I'm going to address either case:
>better than public transportIt depends heavily on the mode of public transport available close to your home. A bus is no better, nor is a street running tram usually better. Suburban rail with express services could probably beat a car coming in from the outer suburbs, even though it has to stop at more points on the way in. The problem is once you get in to the heavily congested city and have to find a way to the car park, whereas the train will just keep moving if the network hasn't an hero that morning.
>it's still a better form of public transportCarpooling is definitely an effective means of transport and I encourage you to carpool. Mostly when I complain about
>wasteful luxuryI mean I'm sick of seeing one person SUVs ( especially yuropean ones) driving down congested streets in a big rat race.
>making your city a worse place to liveYou disregard other factors that make a city liveable, like the noise of traffic; the environmental impacts of highways on the human and natural environment such as light pollution, noise pollution and wasteful use of land. If a city is big enough, it deserves public transport.
>public transportation has all sorts of weirdosOnly where there is a stigma against using public transport. If people could overcome that stigma, perhaps start by travelling in groups in public transport, and begin to normalise taking it, then it wouldn't be a home for just social outcasts or undesirables. Of course I know not many people are willing to try to make a change for the better because of the inherent risk.
