New York City tried that and we ended up with a subway full of crack addicts, homelessness, public nudity, etc. Trains should either be for a long trip but only once in a while or a last resort in a large city.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

last resort

what do you suggest we do in large cities then?

[–] EvokerKing@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Cars. I mean it works well enough right now and there isn't any good solution other than them.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Cars in big cities are horrible. Terribly inefficient, requiring orders of magnitude more infrastructure, killing air quality and pedestrians alike, and leading to even more suburban sprawl. Cars are not compatible with high population density.

[–] EvokerKing@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

How are they inefficient or at least less inefficient than other solutions? That infrastructure is already there, unlike others. And air quality is more affected by other things than cars.

[–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

I visited NYC a while back. The subway impressed me. People call it dirty and say it is full of crackheads. Despite this, it was clean and orderly during my visit.

[–] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago

How often do you ride the subway? Thousands of people take the subway in NYC everyday of all income levels, it's a pretty big success.

[–] Cupcake1972@mander.xyz 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is that a public transport problem or a US culture problem?

[–] EvokerKing@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Either way doesn't work