• uis@lemm.ee
    0·
    2 months ago

    You mean using same road cars would use for buses, while optionally removing extra lanes, is less green and cheap than building and maintaining 18-lane monstrosities in the middle of nowhere?

    • Tak@lemmy.ml
      0·
      2 months ago

      18 lane monstrosities are connections between the dense cities/burbs. We’re talking two lane highways here, nobody builds an 18 lane freeway to a town with 50 people in the middle of nowhere. At best they will build a freeway THROUGH the middle of nowhere but the nowhere wasn’t the purpose of the freeway, the connection to another major city was.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        0·
        2 months ago

        18 lane monstrosities are connections between the dense cities/burbs.

        All those 18 lanes are built ONLY because of cars.

        • Tak@lemmy.ml
          0·
          2 months ago

          And there are fewer cars per km in rural areas. Do you think the dirt owns cars?

          • uis@lemm.ee
            0·
            2 months ago

            What? Cars per length? What is this unit of? Some wierd linear density? I’m saying that that 18-lane abominations are built only for no other reason than driving cars. You say that car infrastructure is cheap, especially in rural areas, but you seem to ignore(intentionally or not) most expensive and destructive part of it. Which happens to go through rural areas. Or you can name abomination that is purely within city limits?

            And public transit just doesn’t need this abomination. Public transit works fine even with one lane per direction. Or track if we are talking about trains.

            • Tak@lemmy.ml
              0·
              2 months ago

              That’s not even what I said. Why talk to people if you have no intent of actually listening? Talk about an unpleasant person to talk to.