This argument is in itself probably not wrong.

That argument is almost certainly wrong. In areas with good public transit options, there are any number of examples of people choosing it over other options they very clearly have.

Over the limited options they clearly have.

Show me the person with the freedom to go where they want, do what they want, would choose to wait for the crowded bus rather than some eco-friendly quiet car with air-conditioning and your own driver.

I'm married to one, and I see crowds of others every day.

In a big city, public transport can be much more convenient than driving. You don't have to fight traffic, you don't have to find parking, you can read or watch videos while you travel....

Its really the density argument. Do you go for public transport and hope the density then follows to make it more worthwhile? The alternate of getting a dense place and then trying to add good transit options seems just as likely to fail. I'm sure theres some middle ground I'm missing. But busses using the same clogged roads, or trying to find space for more rail/bus/bike lanes in already overcrowded areas seems like an expensive problem to fix. I obviously don't know the answer either way. I gotta think that we can't just do sprawl forever though.

> You don't have to fight traffic

A public bus has to fight the same traffic a private car would (my example)

> you don't have to find parking

Neither would a car with driver (my example)

> you can read or watch videos while you travel....

Same applies to a car with driver (my example).

Look, I'm not defending the original argument -- I clearly stated in my original post how wrong it is. I'm just pointing out why this rhetorical bullshit works as intended.

Sorry, I guess I misread with the assumption that the hypothetical was in some way connected to reality.

I mean, if we're removing limits, show me someone who would ever take a car anywhere, as opposed to sitting on the beach of their own private island sipping cocktails made by their butler.

You mean like someone who has the freedom to go where they want, do what they want?

Indeed, they would probably be sitting on the beach of their own private island sipping cocktails made by their butler.

They would probably not be using public transport.

And thus, the rhetorical trick they used works.

   A public bus has to fight the same traffic a private car would (my example)

But LRT or subway doesn't, for example. Neither do buses using HOV lanes, for another.

Isn't freedom about letting people make their choices? Not going for public transit because people are "probably not going to choose it" sounds specious.

As is commonly the case, raising taxes would hurt those who can buy and maintain a good car properly, but benefit those who depend on quality public transport.

Car owners in any place which has bad traffic should be in favor of improved public transport. The more cars you take off the roads, the nicer the driving experience will be for people who want to keep driving!

The problem is that in many American cities it doesn’t work like that - e.g. a lane of traffic is removed for a dedicated bus lane, increasing general traffic congestion, but bus utilization does not fully replace that same number of drivers that would have used that bus lane

Bad implementations of things are always going to be problematic. That’s an argument for doing them well, not for avoiding it completely.

Agreed - I suppose the point I was getting at was that public transport's record in the US is very mixed, and as such, it is not unreasonable to be skeptical of proposed plans...

Yeah, that’s quite reasonable. We kind of suck at big public projects. I just wish more people wanted to fix it instead of just giving up.