But, as opposed to real computer networks, packet transportation is much more energy efficient. Sending twenty people to the same destination in one `packet' uses much less fuel than having those people travel in twenty separated `circuits'.
As a society we seem to have mostly established the abstraction that energy is free and unlimited. From the recent explosion of amount of things humanity does we can see clearly how practically free energy is a desired state. However, we're not there yet. Until we really get there, forgetting that this is only a leaky abstraction is dangerous, as the leaks have deadly consequences.
I realise that on certain metrics public transport is better.
None of that matters. Who decides which transport to use? Humans. What measurement do they use? It's clearly not litres of diesel per passenger-kilometre.
"Humanity" is pretty good at economising scarce resources. But people are pretty clearly prepared to pay enormous costs (fuel, parking space, commute time) to have a private car. Arguing with revealed preferences doesn't change them.
Except that most of those costs (and lets include pollution) are externalities borne by other people, not by the actual car drivers. If people would have to pay the real cost for cars, things might look different.
As a society we seem to have mostly established the abstraction that energy is free and unlimited. From the recent explosion of amount of things humanity does we can see clearly how practically free energy is a desired state. However, we're not there yet. Until we really get there, forgetting that this is only a leaky abstraction is dangerous, as the leaks have deadly consequences.