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.