OhhhJa posted...
You can make this exact same argument for trains and busses man.
Precisely. In that regard, they are the same, so touting cars as a paragon of independence while painting transit as holding riders prisoner for doing exactly the same thing makes no sense.
If you want real freedom and independence, your own two feet are the only thing you can actually rely on. You have to depend on somebody else to get more mobility than that, regardless of how you go about it (and even then, you're probably still going to rely on others to help you walk at some point in your life, even if it's only to make shoes for you).
OhhhJa posted...
There is no question that cars give you more independence than trains or busses. You can plot your own route to any destination you want. You dont have to go and wait on a train or bus to arrive. You dont have to transfer
At the end of the day, yes, cars will always be more convenient on an individual scale than any transit. You're never going to have a train waiting for you outside your door, and it's rarely going to take you exactly where you need to go.
But does it really need to? How often do you drive somewhere on such short notice that leaving 5-10 minutes later to line up with a transit schedule would actually be an issue? Is it really such a problem to walk a block or two on either end? Is putting your book down for a few minutes to move from one bus to another really that much more effort than having to be actively engaged with driving for the entire trip?
Like most things in life, it's a trade-off: You spend more money and effort driving your own vehicle to avoid having to walk/bike to a station/stop and get greater control over your schedule. If there isn't a route that's conveniently close for you and/or it runs so infrequently that it doesn't work for your schedule, that trade-off is worthwhile. If a route is conveniently close and runs frequently enough that you're rarely waiting, though, that's good enough that the trade doesn't make sense. This becomes even more true when you look at the bigger picture than your personal commuting experience and realize just how much more it costs society for everybody to try and capture that individual convenience.
Make no mistake, I get it. I relied on the bus throughout high school and most of university (until I started biking because it was just straight up faster), and I can tell you that I've never run faster than when I see my bus coming and know that I'll be waiting half an hour if I miss it. I think I ran 3 blocks in the span of a single red light once, fast enough that the driver remarked on it. That really sucked. But that's because my transit system sucked, which in turn was in turn a consequence of lower-density development plans that made it difficult to get the ridership needed for more frequent service (which forms a vicious cycle because poor service also reduces ridership). Transit absolutely can be good enough to be a viable alternative to driving, but only if it's made a priority instead of being treated as an afterthought. Insisting that it should be an afterthought because it'll never be perfect is an incredibly myopic example of a Nirvana Fallacy.