Raising the price of gas helps too.

Or, you know, charging for the true externalities of owning a car like Denmark does.

The thing to remember whenever “better than the alternative” comes up is that transit is good where cars are bad and cars are good everywhere else. Transit is never going to beat out cars in environments where traffic is light, density is low, and parking is cheap. But traffic isn’t light and parking isn’t cheap where density is high.

This is about deciding which kind of city you want and building the transportation options that fit that environment. Cities built for cars are very different from cities built for density and walkability. You can’t compare the two modes devoid of that context.

Converting single occupant lanes to dedicated bus lanes would help, too. Prioritize vehicles carrying the most people.

I agree except that often means to make car driving worse so transit seems better. Making transit actually better would be the key.

And the way to do that without discharging a loaded 12ga into the foot of the economy and everyone's quality of life is to make public transit better and more plentiful, not artificially raise the cost of private transit (which raises the cost of everything that depends on it). While the HN crowd had the economic stability to absorb an increased cost of private transit a huge chunk of the population would be negatively impacted in a way large enough to be worth avoiding. Carrots > sticks.

Not if we want to achieve aggressive climate goals.