Are Cars Really That Bad?

When presented arguments for public transport, oftentimes reasons are neglected for driving cars. The focus is almost entirely based on efficiency and cost. In the former case, it can vary. For example, driving is almost certainly more efficient than taking a bus (because buses use roads and cars do not stop). Depending on how much a train aligns with the destination, a train can be more, or less efficient than driving. It is certainly the case that you can never have a reasonable train network that prevents any such inefficiencies from occuring. The latter case can also change depending on the availability and demand for parking, which is a massive issue in terms of space.

However, there are some arguments that are heavily ignored. The first is personal safety. Statistically (I'm fairly sure), cars kill more people on average than trains or buses. However, that isn't the problem. The problem is how people feel. Despite the statistics, it is (again I haven't researched this) more likely that people feel more safe when they are in their cars. This is because of crime (again I live in London), especially against women. Being on a train is an uncomfortable experience due to the fact that you have to be wary of other people. As a result, this makes people want to drive more. It's possible to make an argument that this doesn't matter if you (indirectly) force people not to drive with efficiency and cost reasons.

Another reason people prefer to drive is the ability to transport items. Cars have spare seats and/or a boot in which you can store items for easy transport; this is great for heavy shopping and for personal use. Linked in with this is child safety; it's impossible for a child to get lost within a car than by taking a train or a bus; in most cases this shouldn't happen, but it does take a lot off a parent's mind; preventing stress. You're also more able to carry expensive items, such as handbags, without the fear of being an easy target.

This argument is not too common, and alas I cannot find evidence of it being made; but it can be implictly stated when justifying narrow streets as a better alternative to a broad road alternative. A fairly wide road should exist next to all buildings. The reason being that public services, such as ambulances, firetrucks, and police should be able to access any and all buildings and get there in good time. That being said, it is still justifiable to argue for fewer lanes in existing roads. However the restriction of roads would be detrimental to the efficiency of these public services.

Another argument against public transport is how much you make individuals depend on it. If the entirety of a city is dependent on public transport, then strike action, justified or not, will cause a larger disruption. Note that strike action relates necessisity to pay, as opposed to work done to pay. By increasing necessisity without increasing workload, this creates disproportionate pay among government-run sectors.

It's also worth noting that, although the demand for cars being proportional to the supply of viability (e.g motorways staying jammed no matter how many lanes are added), this can also be a good thing. For example, take taxi services; like them or not, no matter how many drivers join Uber, there will always be work. Public transport is bottlenecked by the amount of vehicles in operations and stops available. As a result, a case can be made that the demand for driving provides more work than public sectors (note that the Uber argument is shaky at best; can you think of other jobs related to the demand for driving?).