Running errands on public transport is an absolute nightmare. Imagine having appointments, hauling bags of groceries and maybe even having a child or pet on a leash, all while trying to catch busses and trains. Public transport is great to get a lot of people to a common place, but that’s about it. Its not exactly cheap either. Where I live, a single one direction train ticket costs roughly as much as 2 liters (~½ Gallon) of gas. 2 liters can get me in and out of the downtown area about 3-5 times, depending on traffic. Or once with an hour of parking. If an electric vehicle would fall out of the sky into my lap and the only thing I had to care about is fuel (electricity) I’d definetly would save money and time compared to public transport. Public transport is absolutely necessary, but not the solution for everything.
Part of the problem with American public tranist is cities assume the transit to be directly profitable. Tramsit functions best when heavily subsidized (just like car infrastructure is). The value brought by transit it terms of property value and connectivity will outweigh the cost of subsidizing it.
I doubt the US even has a say in these dissussions. Their intercity train system is mostly commercial to transport goods from coast to coast or border to border. Sparse availability of public trains means spending roughly the same on 48 hours train ride or a 1 hour plane flight. Building a single highway trough dessert heat of the Midwest is already a toll, but building a countrywide train system would, even if subsidized with the full military budget still be a nearly impossible task. Furthermore you have 50% of the population screaming to stop this socialist nonsense. There are enough examples of unfinished train sections that show what happens if money runs out.
And one might ask them self, how did the US get from cowboys and farms to the beacon of technical advancement? The answer is oil and slaves. They played dirty for 200 years and got ahead. So how does the entirity of Europe have a extensive network of rails spanning millions of kilometers? Was it because they where built before unions and labor rights were a thing? Turns out multi continental projects were mostly achieved through human suffering and disregard for safety. None of which goes nowadays to the same extend as back then. If a project isn’t finished within one legislative period, why even start? Policaly you won’t reap the fruits of your labor.
I know I’m exagarting, but the principle is simple. The early bird gets the worm. Europe has their trains and the US has their cars. Better to let each one figure out their own thing and then share the knowledge.
The system does not need to just suddenly be country wide. There are many major population centers within the same state or neighboring states that could greatly benefit from high speed rail connection. In this meme’s argument trams serve a similar purpose and could be implemented much more locally. Many rail lines have a troubling past but we should not use that as an excuse to not build new ones with modern labor and safety standards.
I can only speak from the experience I have, which is New York and Flint, Michigan. Both are obvious contrasts between one of the richest and poorest cities in the US. New York has maybe one of the best Subway systems in the world. Having a car in NYC is insane. Everything that isn’t covered by bus or train, is bridged by rentable bikes on each corner of a block. Flint could desperately use a couple of busses and a tram, but they can barely afford to keep their river and parks clean of (hopefully) dog poop. I remember seeing tram rails on the road but they where in an inoperable state. The north and west coast has a decent railroad system already but its basically inaccesible without having a car taking you to and from the station. It really felt like each city in the north was fending for their own. A bus system is quite the investment for a city. You can’t just start with a couple of busses and then expand. Otherwise you are running the risk of it being the first thing people point fingers at, once city funds run dry.
A lot governments in the world push for increased public transport spending on the federal level. But it seems everybody is to busy trying to put out political fires to properly appropriate state funds. And if they are approved its often half assed and the cities have to make due with what the have anyway. It’s the same in my country, I bet its the same in the US. Just because the urgency increased, doesn’t mean the capability did es well.
As an examlme of intercity travel, the average annual milage for cars in Michigan is ~12,370 miles . Let’s say that’s mostly work commute (which from my experience, it is) so that’s roughly 50 miles a day during week days. A US class I railroad trains average speed is ~25 mph, a cars about 50 mph (source: readout from my car back during my stay). You’ll spend roughly twice the amount of time on your commute. Thats excluding the fact that a car goes door to door and not station to station.
In rural areas of the US a local bus and tram system would surely improve the life of some people. But its not enough of a reason for Americans to change their car culture or for cities to put some money on the table.
People do that all the time on transit, groceries are the biggest problem though.
You’re forgetting the cost of buying the vehicle, maintaining it, and perhaps parking it. You can’t leave those out and then say driving is cheaper.
Groceries are solved by having smaller but more frequent supermarkets, I can walk to 3 different ones from my house including one that’s literally 2/3min walk away (and I live in the countryside), we go daily so we can just carry it back because it’s smaller groceries. If bigger, personal carts exist and are gaining popularity around here.
I think grocery delivery is the more likely and better.
Yeah that would definitely be easier to implement in North America, due to the current layouts, I was talking about my own environment in Europe.
If that’s what already happens, then there’s no issue to be solved.
I personally consider the price of the car as the privilege of ownership. Its not like you can change the color of the train if you don’t like it or throw you trash in the corner. If the train is to slow, you can’t put a turbo in it. Plus, you can always sell you car, but you can’t sell your used train tickets.
I’ve owned my car current car for roughly 4 years now. I got it used and it lost about -1,000€ in value. Maintance is incredibly low, roughly -300€ in total. Insurance was the big money drainer with about -2000€ in total, but I got in a couple of minor fender benders that weren’t my fault and only resulted in scratched plastic so I got a payout of about +1300€. So in total, if I were to sell it right now, my car my car cost me 500€ annually over the course of 4 years (fuel exluded). Thats a fair price for the freedom a car gives you.
But there are certain situation that essentialy prohibit using a car. Getting to the airport is far easier by bus (my city has a direct line) and you don’t have to pay for weeks of parking. Late night bus lines make going out to parties and clubs actually enjoyable, because you don’t have to leave your car in a shady part of town over night. Parking is another problem. The US feels like 80% parking space but Europe doesn’t have that. The biggest parking area in my city is basically right at the central bus hub. So it wouldn’t make any difference time wise to go by car. But thanks to 20 traffic lights, riding a bicycle doesn’t either.
Bicyles are like the best extension to public transit. And its highly undervalued. I’d rather have them reduce prices for train tickets that include a bike, than build more train lines. Currently they are nearly twice as expensive as normal tickets (because a bike takes up more space I guess).
You can sell it and then it’s called depreciation from use anyway. It’s cost of ownership. You can’t ignore it and say it’s cost of gas only.
I didn’t say it cost gas only. Quite the opposite, I ignored the gas cost and shown only my rough cost of ownership. It’s just the fact that the huge entry price of buying a car is put in parallel to low ticket prices, when really, it shouldn’t. Otherwise you could also add the cost of shoes and clothes to the train ticket, because well you can’t exactly ride a train barefoot and in your undies. And all the food for the energy spend walking from station to station, can’t forget that.
Yes a decent car can cost between 5 - 10K used, but if you take care of it you will get most of that money back. And I’m not talking about SUVs or Pickup Trucks, but compact hatchbacks with 30mpg or 6-7L per 100km. The engines easily last 10+ years with regular but minor maintanace. 2000s Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas can easily outlast multiple generations of trains and busses.
My city has gone through 4 generations of bus fleets while my buddies dad still rocks a VW T4 camper probably on his 2nd milage gauge loop. We figured out how to make the perfect car in 1993 when McLaren build the F1. Nothing beats low weight and a reliable engine. The big mistake was letting heavy SUVs become the go to car for everybody. Historicaly speaking, it’s an overcorrection from the US being invaded by small cheap and reliable Japanese hatchbacks in the 90s. An that I itself was an overcorrection form gigantic 20 feet long cars from the 70s and 80s. SUVs and Pickup Trucks are like a fashion trend, they are not here to stay. Slick E-vehicles seem to be the newest trend, they just haven’t fully found the shape they want to be in yet.
From the point of physics, a train weighs hundreds of tons and is pulling another hundreds of tons of weight. A hatchback weight 1-2 tons. They work on the same principles. They need energy to accelerate their mass. Trains need to carry a lot of people to break even otherwise they are just pulling themselves for nothing. You should be uncomfortable having a whole cart to yourself. Sure a car might be 100 times lighter but the train can carry 200 times more people at max capacity. Max capacity being an important factor. Most trains travel way below that. Remove all the traffic lights and hills from a cars path and it will be just as efficient as a train. Trains are just really good mass haulers.
One of the major advantages that trains have over cars is their electric engine. Electric engines have an efficiency of roughly 80 - 90% for transferring energy into motion. Car engines only 20 - 40%. And combustion engine are at their economical limit. Putting electric engines in cars is putting them directly on par with trains.
Thats why we shift towards EVs, because we already have everything but the batteries and charging figured out anyway. Public transport is a political issue, EVs are an engineering and marketing issue.
Jeez I’m not reading all that. You have now twice tried to discount the cost of the vehicle. First you wanted to account only for gas. Second you wanted to call it “privilege”, yes you then broke it down for some reason but you want to call it a “privilege” and not account for its cost in the actual transportation.
Fair enough. I realize that I mixed up owning a car, and being able to afford one. I double checked, and, one can own a car in my country while having low or no income and live in subsidized housing. But the value of the car is limited to a certain amount. So I stand corrected, technically “No” owning a car is not a privilege but is considered a basic necessary by our government. But thats only the case if you start collecting financial aid and already have a car. You won’t be able to afford to buy one with the aid alone.
I was fortunate enough to have my parents pay upfront for my first car that I couldn’t afford while I was in college. I paid them back in full over 2 years and didn’t have to pay intrest to a bank. I call that privilege.
I see people doing all the things you list on the trains and busses in London all the time.
I can fully understand your position. People in big and densely packed cities profit a lot from proper public transport and vice versa. Plus the city itself is layed out to function with public commute in mind, I’ve experienced it personally in New York. I’m from a rural area. Our public transport system can’t fully replace cars. The main transit traffic is concentrated around rush hour in the morning and evening. To provide most people with public commute would require an immense increase in busses and train lines, only for 80% to be idle during low traffic hours.
There’s often a visual comparison between how many people a full car and bus can carry. Obviously the bus wins. But you rarely see the comparision between the space needed for a single empty car or bus to be parked. Cars can park on the side of the road or have a parking lot on location (even underground). Busses need ports and infrastructure. Trains are an even bigger problem to store. Their ports can easily take up a good chunk of the entire city. That’s why there’s always a financial incentive to have too little busses or trains than too many. People can tolerate waiting, but can’t tolerate higher prices to sustain a surplus on transport.
Also, public transport is often confined to local bubbles. Go outside your bubble and things start to get messy. When I was in High School, we had about ¼ of our class commute every day from one city over. They were either way to early or always late, because one cities train and bus plan wasn’t tuned to the others, resulting in people either having to get up about 2 hours before school starts at 7 am to catch a train or run the risk of missing their bus connection to the school. It’s even worse if you are crossing train districts and have to buy multiple tickets. When I was in college, some people came from another major city about 40km away. Their district covered half the state therefore their price was ~300€ per month and additionaly they had to pay 90€ per month for our smaller district. And both of those were the reduced prices for students. I could leave my car running idle for 20 days straight for that price.
EWs are important because cars are never going to be replaced by even the best public transport systems. But at least with could reduce the amount of cancer we get from sitting in traffic and breathing commute air. If I could choose, I’d rather have a power plant spit out steam and gas through state of the art filters somewhere in the outskirts, than to be surrounded by combusted gasoline resedue all day.
Doesn’t mean it’s not a nightmare, and that doing it with a car wouldn’t be easier. Try doing this with two toddlers one day, lol, I promise you it’s not as easy as watching someone else do it.
Depending on how rowdy kids are, it’s not even easy in the car. You’re strapped in, focused on roads, and any “incidents” they incur may require you to pull over.
The other thing about public transit heavy cities is, in order for people to use them, they have to be much more walkable - in other words, not wasting their wide open space with eight-land roads, or ocean-sized parking lots. That also means, if all you’re going out for is groceries, it would be a waste of time to get in a car, or a train; just walk to a grocery store and back. Plus, if the trip genuinely does work out conveniently, you would not need to buy huge quantities in bulk each trip - just take multiple short trips through the week.
I happen to have a somewhat lucky city living situation, and this is pretty much how it works out for me. Sometimes when someone visits me, they offer to drive me to the grocery store, and it’s basically just as much hassle as walking, thanks to the pedestrian underpass I normally take home.
First lets start with the obligatory mention that thanks to zoning laws in the US you are even in this predicament. My grocery store is like just a few hundred metres from my apartment and on my way from work. Instead of weekly shopping I just do it daily / every other day with just the few things I need for those few days. No for hauling grocery bags. And like you wouldn’t go shopping before appointments either…
Also you completely forget to factor in the cost of owning an maintaining a car. A yearly ticket for public transport for me is around 500€. I don’t own a car so my expense on public transport is just that 500€ with a bit more for holiday trips etc compared to the cost of buying a car every X years, paying for maintenance, and for fuel.
I’m in Europe, not in the US. You are very fortunate to be living in a way that doesn’t require a car. That’s not the case for most people. Here, we have a lot of smaller towns and ignoring backeries, they have zero places that sell food. I see a lot of elderly people commute by bus for daily grocery shopping. But in this heat, they are in serious danger spending that much time in barely climate controlled busses and trains. Mostly, somebody from their families swings by once a week to fill up their fridge. The most common scenario is a family, both adults working 9-5, 1-2 children school aged. With children and jobs most people don’t have the time to do daily grocery trips. That’s why shops are usually overfilled on Friday evenings and Satruday mornings (I worked those shifts in retail). From my experience growing up, a full week of groceries for a mid sized family is impossible to carry by hand. Also from my experience, public transport is a godsend if you live alone and are tight on money. It takes the burden of maintanig a vehicle of your back. But in a family or a close circle of friends, a car is usually a communal workhorse, used by everyone for everything to avoid the hassle of public transport.
i agree with everything you said, but i do have to say that the problem with Europe isn’t proving that public transport isn’t that good(i know that’s not what you’re saying but I can’t think of any other way of wording it rn), but rather than the city planning is… unfortunate
Yes, that’s what I’m trying to say. In r/fuckcars and also here the term “car centric” and “pedestrian centric” cities is thrown around a lot. Europe is often praised for being build before cars were invented and is therefore naturally friendlier towards pedestrians. But it’s not like busses are hovering above the buildings, they are as much car as an SUV, even bigger and bulkier. They have to squish themselves around tight corners. Whole roads get turned into one way streets because a new bus line was opened and now a bus and a car wouldn’t be able to pass each other in this medival inner city alley. Public transport requires infrastructure, which means property has to be acquired. One douche not wanting to sell his shed to the city, can grind a whole project into halt. Even if the government took extensive action to invest into public transport, there’s only so much they can do. And theres a long line of burrocracy between cause and effect.
In my city at least, I’ve never experienced the government trying to cull the public transport, there’s been a steady improvement over the past 15 years. New lines, Better busses (also electric ones) have been added. Busses have their own traffic lights to give them time to de- and accelerate. But the city is literary at its capacity. It has reached the point of diminishing returns for public transport.
I love good public transport. It’s great to not have to worry about parking or having to drive. Good cities, like many in Europe and New York in the US, a car isn’t really required.
But out in the countryside, a car is a must. Electric cars are massively better for the environment and way cheaper to run (like tenth the cost with a night rate).
Honestly, driverless cars are going to reduce the total number of vehicles purchased because: People will be able to subscribe to a car service. It will know your work schedule and have a car waiting to pick you up from home and job. If you want to go somewhere, you just let the app know when and a car will come. If you go to town to do some shopping, it will drop you off. You don’t own the car. You don’t pay maintenance. You have no car payment. You pay the monthly sub (and it can be different tiers, depending on how much travel time you need regularly.
Once most people start doing this, cities will only need enough cars to support the maximum transit demand at peak times. Some of the cheaper plans will offer rideshare, meaning the car will pick up multiple passengers that are going the same direction. The demand for owning a car will drop as it will be a bigger expense and feel cumbersome in time.
Parking lot space will be reclaimed and repurposed in cities (hopefully by making mini parks with trees and plants). Overall, cities will become healthier (since the vehicles will have cleaner emissions), with the air quality improving. Traffic accidents will be almost non-existent.
Batteries used gives you150 ebikes for every e-car
I’m 100% less likely to get stabbed by a tweaker in my car than on public transit in my city.
B-but think of the iNdIvIdUaL!
Why is it that trains are always proposed as the alternative to cars? I, for one, really want PRT to succeed. It seems to be the best middle ground between efficiency and convinience.
Because I value my autonomy and don’t want to have to wait for a train to show up when I want to go somewhere. Also, paved roads are significantly cheaper to maintain than rail lines, which makes a substantial difference when you take into account the size of the US.
A frequent transport networks gives you much more autonomy than a car, since you don’t have to worry about maintenance, parking, or traffic. It can be frequent enough to just turn up and go.
Cars come along with many external costs that are often not accounted for, such as the costs associated with pollution and the increased healthcare costs associated with that as well as injuries and deaths caused by cars. Plus there’s all the parking and extra space needed between all of the places people want to go to needed for that parking and road space.
Instead I have to worry about switching trains and schedules and the weird guy in the corner who might have a gun and the homeless person yelling at the voices in their head.
I honestly will never use public transit as long as a private option is available. Fuck being packed in like sardines with no personal space. It gives me panic attacks.
A train network isn’t going to run 24/7 in a town of 300 people no matter how many subsidies it gets from the government. It doesn’t make any sense to spend the resources and incur the pollution cost of running a train with nobody on it.
And before someone brings it up, I absolutely refuse to accept the idea of forcing people to live in cities, or anywhere else for that matter.
Most people live in cities. If those people don’t drive, the problems are pretty much solved.
Small towns can be very walkable, since you can easily get from one edge of town to the other. And they can have a connection to the outside. But again rural populations driving isn’t too much of an issue, as long as they aren’t driving into the city every day.
You ever try taking your new mattress and bed frame on a train?
Big Auto has been destroying any idea of high speed rails for decades. Our trains are complete trash because of car lobbyists.
And they expand the roads and freeways to have rails literally no place to go
Denver has decent rail, but I have to walk/bike across this insane hellscape of cars trying to kill me for 1 1/2 miles to get to the station
Muskrat is one of the biggest ones to blame.
Because public transport is for dirty poors, obviously /s
I’m all in favour of trains. I only take the train to work, and it’s so convenient I even take my kids to the city via train, to entertainment or shopping. However, even though I live inside the capital city in a Western European country, the train we take is powered by diesel. The government has been talking about electrifying the track for years, and the current estimate is that it will take another decade or more to get it done. There’s a single electrified rail line in the entire country, and based on the electrification progress it will take several decades to electrify the rest (if ever). Based on this experience, I’d venture to say that electric cars are far easier to deploy than electrify train lines.
It’s very hard to do something if you only talk about it and not actual doing it. But that has nothing to do with technology itself
And politicians are elected on what they say, not really on what they do.
Even on diesel trains they are far far far more energy efficient than cars. Current estimate is that it takes 3.7 liters of fuel to transport 1 tonne of cargo for 100km. That’s incredibly more efficient than any car can get. Not to mention cars carry around on average 1.3 persons inside.
Train infrastructure is also significantly more scalable. You can add another train car for passengers at the price of one passenger car and you have increased capacity of that train immediately. Same goes to downsizing. Rails can be easily adapted to have overhead wires. Train wheels are metal as are tracks which means significantly cheaper maintenance and slower wear than asphalt and rubber.
It’s nothing to do with ease of deployment. It’s all about selfishness of people and their inability to or lack of willpower to change. Even if people switched to motorcycles, which are still ICEs it would still be a lot cleaner for the environment since it would effectively eliminate traffic jams and reduce road maintenance significantly. Not to mention not needing to move 1 tonne of metal for no more than 1 passenger.
Trains only run on a specified track and there isn’t one near me. A car isn’t bound by a track and can go anywhere.
and there isn’t one near me.
That’s exactly the problem that this community wants to fix.
You can’t put railways everywhere.
deleted by creator
But that’s a certain level of naivete. I’ve lived in Europe and in the Western US, and for people who have lived in urban or suburban situations their whole lives, they simply can’t comprehend the vast tracts of land that exist in most of the US. Public transport isn’t viable when your nearest neighbor is at least five acres away.
Well yes, if you live in the middle of nowhere with literally no one else nearby, then public transport obviously doesn’t make sense. But that’s not where most people live.
A large part of the population in the US doesn’t have access to public transport not because it wouldn’t be viable, but because car-centric infrastructure was built instead. And often better designed cities were bulldozed to make room for it.
I was also going to recommend the Not Just Bikes video @[email protected] linked, definitely check it out!
True, but a lot of US real estate, even in big cities, started out agricultural. Those underpinnings are still affecting them today, given that they are less than 300 years old. They just don’t have the history of being piled on top of each other that Europe has. The original American inhabitants didn’t have the infrastructure Europe has had since the Romans, even if their population HAD been so concentrated.
The U.S population density is less than half that of Europe, even today.
Please. I have gone to Italy and seen far vaster landscapes in the mountainous areas than I’ve ever been cognizant of in the United States. And yes, I saw these locations from the window of a bus taking the highway system. The key thing is, people are not going to those far-out locations frequently. Actual transit problem-solving relates to the broad majority of the use cases people have, not about abstractly going to a pin thrown on a map.
Thats not really true and you know it. Cars are like trains, limited mostly to paved roads that need to by built.
Are you seriously trying to tell OP that he’s lying about not living near a train? Or are you trying to say that the part about them running on a fixed track isn’t true? Either way, this is a really dumb take.
Also, you clearly haven’t been to rural areas, where dirt and gravel roads are common. Cars handle those just fine.
It is, don’t be such a little bitch about it.
Nope.
But those roads are far more numerous and further reaching than train tracks. Trains go from a to b. Cars can go which ever route you want. And you don’t build train tracks around a house.
Thats not true also. Rails have junctions that alow switching tracks and work like a normal road. The reason theres more roads is irelevante as it depends on investment. Some places invested more into roads and others did in rail. Check out old rail maps on the US
Trains could have intercity connections. Walk/bus to the train, ride the train, walk/bus to your destination.
Sure buddy, spend a few hours hopping public transport each day is so much fun.
Cars are superior in every single way, it’s paupers that cry out of jealousy we’re seeing here.
They know cars aren’t the problem, there are industries out there that spew out the equivalent of millions of cars but they don’t bitch about that.
hmmm, do I want to sit in a train, flip my laptop open and do some work, then walk through a park to the office for today… Or do I want to sit in traffic and do nothing…
Tough choice there
You’re right. It’s been raining all day today with a forecast of thunderstorms, I absolutely want to sit in a warm, dry box and not walk through the park :p
I’m gonna be real, I’d 100% rather sit in traffic. It’s somewhat relaxing to me.
I hate this trend that we need to be working all the time, even during our commute.
To each their own. I prefer 2 hours of working in the train and 6 in the office to traveling for 2 hours and working 8 hours in the office
To each their own. I prefer 2 hours of working in the train and 6 in the office to traveling for 2 hours and working 8 hours in the office
no, I absolutely do not want to work on my way to work
Work time starts when I open the laptop. I’m not volunteering that time, since i’m not completely insane. It makes a huge difference whether my workday starts in the office, or in the train.
unfortunately, where I work, worktime starts when I scan my keycard at the front door
Yeah, that’s not really an option then.
Those industries don’t pump out their emissions in my city for me to breathe in, nor do they threaten to maim or kill me on a regular basis.
it’s paupers that cry out of jealousy we’re seeing here.
Found Andrew Tate’s account
Ugh, vegans.
Well trains can transport alot more people at once
I have metro+train and it already wears me out so much that alI arrive at the office tired. I can’t imagine how I would survive through 3 different transit options twice a day
I do the same and if anything, it just helps me wake up or wind down after a long day. Out of pure curiosity, how does it wear you out?
I don’t know, I could not even imagine the transit switch to be not overwhelming, it’s just way too many changes for me in a short span of time, like too many tasks. go down, wait for metro, try to not miss the stop, get up on escalator, go to platform, wait there, it’s just sucking out energy out of me, if I spent all that time just sitting on the train yes I unwind and I love it but dragging my laptop around and standing and waiting and having to concentrate instead of getting into the flow is disruptive for me. Plus I feel like underground is super dark and dirty and on the bus I get nauseous from so many braking and stopping and all the vibrating from the road
I’m sure you’re aware part of that anxiety can come from the unfamiliarity. I’m surprised it doesn’t end up being compared to the stress of merging from an on-ramp in a car, or watching crosswalks for pedestrians, or even just backing out of a driveway in some people’s cases.
100% anxiety from unfamiliarity. My last job had me flying over the US (terrible but it was for a renewable energy company and I was part of the Ops team). The first trip, I missed my flight, on which was my overnight bag.
But from that first flight, I knew exactly what to do, where to go, and when to do it.
If people take time to learn these systems over time, then these fears go away. Just takes courage to learn something new
can go anywhere
As long as there’s road, no serious traffic, and fuel stations along with rest stops.
which is practically everywhere
You must be new at this
You don’t need a road.
This is your brain or advertisements :)
In reality:
I would love to have trains and not need a car. Unfortunately that’s still a decade away here in California.
this is dumb on so many levels… i cant take my train to go to the supermarket
![[meme] Trains are 100000x easier to electrify and automate than cars, so why does everyone keep talking about electric and driverless cars?](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/11c37658-7c32-4cc2-b12c-6ced348bd09d.png){kind=link}