“Giving people more viable alternatives to driving means more people will choose not to drive, so there will be fewer cars on the road, reducing traffic for drivers.”

Concise, easy to understand, and accurate. I have used it at least a dozen times and it is remarkable how well it works.

Also—

“A bus is about twice as long as a car so it only needs to have four to six passengers on board to be more efficient than two cars.”

  • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Assuming that they’re thinking about it logically, not as an identity issue. If they’re not, the double-think is incredible. My city is about to launch an BR(ish)T transit system, and some of the NextDoor comments are wild. One woman is convinced:

    1. The BRT platforms in the median are dangerous because they’ll get too crowded for everybody to stand inside; and
    2. BRT will be a failure because nobody will ride it.

    In my experience, carbrains usually think that nobody will use the alternatives at all, so it’s just a waste of space and money that could be spent on cars, and that traffic congestion is the result of corrupt politicians pocketing all the tax money that could magically fix it in some unspecified way.