zlacker

>>amathe+(OP)
It’s odd to me that these anti-car polemics never talk about why Americans don’t want to ride public transit, while people in most other countries have zero issues adopting it wholesale. Instead they just make it into a simplistic, moralistic crusade about how the suburban car owners are evil people, told from the perspective of a righteous city-dweller.

Here’s a better theory: because American public transit is, when compared with the alternatives, not safe, not clean, and not convenient. Take LA, probably the most car-dependent big city in America. Riding the bus or subway in LA is not an enjoyable experience. Nor is it enjoyable to walk around the areas where the stops are. If I were trying to get more people to use public transit, I’d start by making the stations and buses/subways beautiful, clean, safe places that are just nice urban places to hang out in. There’s no need to make it a moral crusade; just offer a better product and more people will use it.

>>keifer+Vc
While true, the point of a moral crusade is that city planners generally cannot go against their constituents' wishes, so if they are all house and car people, nothing will be done to favor denser housing or a better light rail experience. Changing the minds of people and getting them involved will create a feedback loop of people complaining to their city, attending meetings, and pushing for projects that solve these things. It can't happen in the shadows because the money to do these projects won't get allocated without support.