3 ms·

Cars and trains serve complementary needs. They do not function as replacements for each other as is implicit in this comparison. Trains tend to go to places o

Cars and trains serve complementary needs. They do not function as replacements for each other as is implicit in this comparison. Trains tend to go to places of high population density. Their stops are at places where many other people want to go all the time. And their schedule to go to these places is not in the traveler's control. Cars go pretty much everywhere (or to a close enough point) and do it on your whim. But they are not fun to use in high population density areas (parking, traffic, etc).

panick21_ 3y ago
> Trains tend to go to places of high population density. Trains go to lots of places with low population density actually. Its only America brain that somehow believes that trains are only something for city with millions. I lived in a village with a few 1000 people and there were regular trains in multiple direction, and it wasn't on a major express line between major cities or anything. That train line then goes on to connect villages with even fewer people. > Cars go pretty much everywhere (or to a close enough point) and do it on your whim. Sure if somebody built a road there. And if there are gas stations/charging. And if there is no traffic. And if you both can drive and are allowed to drive. And so on and so on. True freedom is not having to pay basically anything for 8 month (at most a small part of your taxes), then spur of the moment being able to say 'you know what, I want to go to the other side of the country cross a river and go up a mountain' then getting up and within 5 minutes being on public transport efficiently traveling to that location. And this freedom is provided to you if you are 15 or 85. If you are blind. If you have were unable to perform your driving exams.