> Public transit leaves you totally dependent on the government.

Who do you think maintains the roads you're driving on?

Usually not one agency for all of them. Some are managed by federal agencies. Some are managed by state agencies. Others are managed by the rolling authorities. Others are managed by the city. And even others are then managed by the counties.

All those roads are practically open 24/7.

Meanwhile, for public transit there's just one real agency around me and it doesn't even go everywhere I might want to go. The lines operate at whatever schedule that agency wants to operate them at. Those lines stop at like 2AM so I better be home before that or it's potentially a long walk home.

Roads are less complicated and "break down" much less often than buses. They are inherently "better maintained."

The number and type of people who complain when roads are bad means the government pays more attention to that than buses.

The government who built the roads without any means of non-car transportation makes you just as reliant on them -- AND the car companies. I'd rather be reliant on collective benefit rather than a corporation who doesn't care if my car is broken down or I'm old and can't drive or I'm physically incapable of driving. All they want is my money. With public/non-car transportation people have the actual freedom. Reliance on corporations is the opposite.

The government can just suddenly shut off public transportation at any time. They can't just suddenly destroy every road. Since plenty of used cars exist, you aren't reliant on the car companies to have a car. And isn't the only thing Amtrak wants your money?

The government shuts down roads all the time. Amtrack is a federally-owned company. It belongs to you and me. Corporations don't -- and they only want your money. That's capitalism. I'd rather be using something I already pay for and belongs to me. In Europe, trains are affordable. And in many cases, the prices are offset by taxpayer (i.e. the collective/democracy)'s funding. So the trains belong to the people.

Doesn't everything you said about trains in the US apply equally to roads, though?

You can only be independent if you are physically and mentally capable of driving a car, have the financial resources to do so. If you're sick or don't want to shell out hundreds of dollars per month for transportation, then you're not independent. And if your car breaks down, you're not independent. Affordable public transport and trains etc provide true freedom. For example, there's much more freedom to travel in Europe.

With driving, most people can be independent but some can't. With public transit, nobody can be independent. And what does being sick have to do with it?

If you are handicapped you can't drive. If you have Alzheimers you shouldn't be driving. Any physical or mental reason -- i.e. sickness -- that makes it unsafe to drive removes your independence in the event you are solely dependent on cars to get from place to place.

Don't most people use the word "sick" to refer to things like the common cold, COVID, influenza, etc., not things like paralysis and Alzheimer's?

And if you can't drive, how do trains or buses make you any more independent than taxis and rideshares do?