• Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Also because everything in the US is spread out except for urban areas, mass transit just won’t work well for a large part of the population. Didn’t help that what transit infrastructure existed came under assault by the oil/car companies of the time, so many places went full automobile.

    • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Half of the US is a stripmall 20km away from a suburb on one end and corn on the other with a parking lot in the middle

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      i don’t think that’s really true… australia is hugely spread out and we have pretty great mass transit

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Maybe you had a different history of development then, unlike what I mentioned in the second part. Lots of our 19th-20th century urban areas had trolleys and such, which “mysterious” disappeared when the car came along. Even now in the past decades the public has overwhelming wanted development of things like high speed rail, and yet somehow even mandates voted for on ballots are refused for “reasons”.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          i think it’s more straight forward than that tbh… rail and infrastructure is expensive and takes more than 3y to build so it costs you and won’t gain you anything at the next election… in fact, the opposition party will probably get in and fuck with it, make it a total failure and then use it as a “so expensive and really bad” excuse to then attack you at the election after as well!

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I can understand that, and it’s one of the many drawbacks of party systems. It’s also exactly what Republicans have done for decades for anything in government.

            Ina world where corporations only care about the next quarter, and politicians begin their term by starting the next campaign, how can we get long range plans completed? We’ve done many huge projects over many years in the past, but in today’s instant gratification that seems impossible. Anything worth doing is going to cost a lot up front, it’s called an investment in the future.