> I'm not sure that in the future private vehicles will be affordable as they are today.
That’s a good thing, if you ask me.
That’s a good thing, if you ask me.
And who do you think is gonna work on that? Because politicians aren't gonna start building trains for you where you live, so you're left to fix your own situation by driving a car to work since your boss isn't gonna move his company where you live so you can walk/bike there.
>Even if you love driving eventually you will get old and be unable to drive safely.
Where do you see me saying anything about liking driving? I also don't like brushing my teeth but I still do it because it's a necessity just like driving is for a lot of people in smaller and highly spread out cities where frequent subways/trains are not a thing.
Sure, we can all try to move to big cities with top public transport where you don't need a car, but those cities already have a housing shortage and it's only gonna get worse.
None of the above is easy.
With what money? Because everyone wants things right now and my city is broke from mismanagement(corruption) and most companies here have had mass layoffs so money is going to welfare now.
And history proves the west has started to suck at building rail infrastructure on time and on budget. By the time any rail would be built here, we'll have flying cars. Plus then you have nimbyis who don't want rail next to their homes.
So then isn't it normal that people still prefer to keep their cars instead of waiting decades for fictional rail that might not happen? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
rails are expansive but they are timy compared to most of the budget and an investment that saves you (roads which I bet your government pays for)
Easier said than done and you know it. Meanwhile the government is making your car illegal in 10 years, but your job will still need you to be at work by them somehow, that's your problem.
> That can only happen when voters care about their side more than other things.
That's why corruption isn't going anywhere because society is more fragmented and partisan than evet due to the ever increasing number of fires that need putting out. You can't get your county to pull non existent money out of thin air for a 20 year rail project when there's a war next door and million of pensioners and refugees that need money right fucking NOW. So taxman and money printer go brrrrrr.
>rails are expansive but they are timy compared to most of the budget and an investment that saves you (roads which I bet your government pays for)
Yeah but the roads are already there and so are the cars, and people's homes and workplaces were built around that existing road infrastructure. You can't tell them to fuck off somewhere else because in 20 years a rail will be there. Once a you build a dense, car-first society over decades with no space for rail, ripping that off and replacing it with rail is impossible in the west. The nimbys alone will kill it even if you had money to build it.
We have new rail projects built but they're cross country in wilderness, not inside the city where its needed daily.
Yes, but it is still important to do this. So get out and do your part. Giving up ensures things get worse.
Landlords would really love that.
Today it's still a matter of a power struggle between beehive-minded CEOs and employees, but if things get more tense, I believe a state intervention would be an excellent option.
Examples like:
Giving preference to diesel vehicles because they produced less C02 than gasoline cars, while ignoring the much worse NOx and particulate for human respiratory heath that diesel engines produce(possible lobby from EU car brands involved).
Denuclearization, because nuclear is scary and dangerous, that pushed energy prices up and use of coal which killed more people via respiratory issues than Chernobyl and Fukushima (possible lobby from Russian oil and gas involved)