>>1153030But you can just drive by car instead. What's the point of having extensive public transit if it ends up being slower than driving, less reliable and less comfortable?
Here driving isn't a convenient option for many due to high costs, congestion and lack of parking space, yet public transit is also inconvenient. This kind of catch-22 is called a "farmer's dog" here, he doesn't eat the vegetables, nor does he let others eat them.
I'm all in favor of keeping on reducing car space here as has been done for the past couple of years, but public transit needs the corresponding improvements. As car space was reduced over the last 10-20 years, public transit has become ever more crowded while neither capacity nor efficiency has increased, instead it decreased somewhat following the economic crisis.
It's not always easy to keep up a high-grade public transport, and as soon as quality declines somewhat it rapidly becomes inconvenient to use. That's why it has been so easy to kill transit systems in the past.
You guys in america think that having extensive transit infrastructure and coverage must automatically mean better mobility, but it's not always like that. It's like a high-wager bet: if you do it well, then you win at life and have a city with awesome transit and it's no problem that you reduce car space because few people will need to drive, and everyone lives happily ever after. If you lose, you might end up with a city that's not laid out for massive car use, but a transit system that is inconvenient.
With a car-based approach you have little to win, but little to lose. You know what you're dealing with in terms of car-centric planning, you know the negative effects this will have, and that it will never not have some traffic, but otherwise car use is easy and convenient.
