A ban like that would do nothing useful anyway. Public transport might make more space on the road, but it does not save energy.
Numbers: "Public transportation use saves the U.S. the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually"[1] "In 2021, about 134.83 billion gallons (or about 3.21 billion barrels)1 of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United State"[2].
Public transit is single digit percentage of mode share, so the fact that it has that big of an impact actually implies that the energy savings are substantial.
I’d argue 3% savings is better than nothing, and you have to keep in mind that that 3% figure is in the US we have right now where very few people use transit. If ridership grew, that number would as well.
Regardless, a move like that is as much about demonstrating that alternatives are possible as it is about direct savings. The Netherlands started building excellent bike infrastructure around that time, and they’re now in a better position than we are to get by with less oil use.
> I’d argue 3% savings is better than nothing, and you have to keep in mind that that 3% figure is in the US we have right now where very few people use transit.
I agree. In general, I'm finding that people underestimate the importance of small improvements here. I remember people saying that Russia provides 10% of the world's oil as if that were a small amount.
No, its actually a pretty critical amount in terms of price volatility. But the good news it that all it takes is a few 2-3% improvements across the board to effectively negate it. It "only" requires our willingness to take those steps.
Numbers: "Public transportation use saves the U.S. the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually"[1] "In 2021, about 134.83 billion gallons (or about 3.21 billion barrels)1 of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United State"[2].
4.2/134.83 = 3%.
[1]https://www.kcata.org/about_kcata/entries/environmental_bene...
[2]https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10