Sure, that should be an option too!

If you visit Europe or Japan, you'll find that trains and airplanes both exist, and both are popular and inexpensive. That's what I'd like to see happen elsewhere in the world as well, rely less on personal vehicles and more on mass transit, though preserve each as an option.

No, nothing has "infested" Lemmy. It's just that many people understand, that rails are much more efficient than roads and that individual traffic on large scale has no future. At least if you want our future to be survivable.

Sure, we can absolutely have both, we should just be preferring mass transit to personal transit for populated areas.

In my area, we have:

• one major corridor with a big highway (5+ lanes) and a commuter train line
• a light rail system in the urban area, with some branches extending to the suburbs
• old freight rail line that connects to the existing light rail system and passes through several suburban areas, but doesn't have light rail service
• long stretches of "nothing" (~50 miles) to smaller metro areas, and after a few hundred miles goes to a popular tourist destination

We've been having more traffic recently, so what's the state-wide transportation system's decision? Delay expansion of rail and expand the highway.

What we should instead be doing is:

1. extend light rail through existing rail line through busy corridor - great alternative to the commuter rail since it goes different places
2. increase housing density along rail lines through zoning changes, and mix in commercial zoning w/ residential
3. improve cycling and pedestrian infrastructure with a focus on connecting to rail infrastructure
4. reroute cars to make it less convenient to get around in the city by car - i.e. nudge people toward using transit instead of personal vehicles

Transit will never fully replace personal vehicles, but it can drastically reduce the need for driving within urban and suburban areas. Rail lines are a lot cheaper to maintain than roads, and trains can carry a lot more people than cars. In other words, if we can get people to use trains more than cars, we can reduce our spending on transportation infrastructure.

We should absolutely keep and improve our existing highway infrastructure, but we should also be phasing out a lot of our road infrastructure in densely populated areas in favor of mass transit options that move people more efficiently.

I agree with you! Fuckcars takes it to such an extreme I find it very very difficult to side with them. Cars have their uses

I would gladly pay for it. Unfortunately most of us that would gladly pay for it can't afford to pay for it. And the people that could afford to pay for it don't get rich by spending their own money. They want everyone else to spend their money on it so they can use it for free.

What is the reason why no one wants pay for it?

Except we have no power to pick better representative because the party picks them and we get to choose between two identically useless options.