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 9 months ago (1 children)

last resort

what do you suggest we do in large cities then?

[–] EvokerKing@lemmy.world 1 points 9 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 9 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 9 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 9 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 9 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 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] EvokerKing@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Either way doesn't work