I highly doubt your cost comparison. You probably forgot to take in to account one or more of the following costs of driving:
-depreciation
-insurance
-registration
-tire wear
-oil life
-licensing costs
-fuel (actually most people include only this one when calcuating cost of driving)

Driving is extremely expensive. I've never seen a case where driving is routinely comparable in cost to transit.

Admit it, Cost wasn't a factor, if transit had been free, you still would have driven. It's about comfort and convenience. I get it, just don't pretend that it's about cost.

Driving is already more expensive than transit almost anywhere and for almost everyone. Full ownership costs for a car in a developed country tend to be in the range of 50+ c/km (80c+/mi) while bus fares tend to be flat rate of $2-6/trip, by the time you hit a 10km trip it's cheaper to take the bus/train.
People drive because of comfort and convenience, not cost (except those incredibly bad at math, which is a group probably large enough I shouldn't completely discount them)

For transit to win over car drivers they need to improve the convenience and comfort. improving cleanliness and comfort on transit vehicles helps, more express routes help, better schedules help.
Trouble is, those improvements are quite costly to implement. (arguably cleanliness is fairly simple, the rest less so)

People will take transit when it stops close to their origin and destination, has few stops on the way, is not crowded, is clean, and comfortable, and departs when they want to travel. It's a tall order.

Of course some cities have taken the opposite tack, they realize it's hard to make transit better, so they are attempting to make driving worse. This is done by intentionally avoiding needed road upgrades, removing driving lanes, blocking routes, adding transit only lanes or roads (make no mistake, they don't "add" them, they replace an existing road or lane). This does actually work. If driving to downtown takes longer than the train, and you can't find a place to park when you get there, you'll likely take the train instead.

"science is hard" is not a valid argument against it.

and this here is a perfect example of why this stuff persists. As long as people want to believe, no amount of evidence is relevant. Anyone looking for actual proof, or consulting actual studies is labelled as a shill, and the lack of evidence that points to the desired result is labelled a coverup or conspiracy.

I can't convince you. So there's literally no point in my trying.

There's really only one way out, but neither side is willing to do it.

Greece should stop paying what it can't afford, just stop repaying any loans.
Everyone else should see that Greece is not fiscally responsible and stop loaning the greeks any money.

This would lead inevitably to greece exiting the euro, printing their own money, and everyone would get exactly what they deserve.

Creditors would be left holding the bag because they leant to someone they knew wouldn't be able to repay
Greece would see runaway inflation, and prices on imported goods so high as to make their eyes water showing them that they can't take other people's money with no intention to repay it without serious consequences.

Unfortunately both sides still want to find the solution that probably doesn't exist where the creditors get repaid and the Greeks continue their current spending spree. That world simply doesn't exist, and really can't exist. But in the absence of that possibility, both sides are doing something that really can be done, they're kicking the can down the road so that their successors rather than themselves have to deal with the (increasingly bad) consequences.

You can't lend money to someone who doesn't take it.

Some are outright scams, in fact it's easy to spot them, they use the legal loophole of labeling their product as homeopathic so that they don't have to prove that it works. If it isn't homeopathic, it has to actually prove that it works.

If any active ingredients are found in a homeopathic medicine, it can not legally be called homeopathic, and will be in contravention of the law if sold as such. It will then actually have to go through safety and efficacy testing like normal medications, and as none have ever passed efficacy testing (as they aren't effective) can not legally be sold.

Saying vaccination = homeopathy just shows that you don't understand what homeopathy is.
Homeopathy is not showing the body something in smaller numbers, or a weakened state. Homeopathy, by actual definition, is showing the body NOTHING. the level of dilution used to make something meet the definition of homeopathy is so much that there should be no trace whatsoever of the original item in the dose being administered.
If in fact the active ingredient IS present in the dose being administered, the medication can not be considered homeopathic (by both definition, and actual law)

Unfortunately the professional and regulatory bodies that deal with chiropractors have shown no interest or willingness to deal with the former group, causing everyone to assume that latter group is no different.

I can't take a profession seriously when it has such a large percentage of quacks and no willingness to address the issue.

Of course all those "alternative" therapies also share something in common with homeopathy, no scientific evidence that they actually work.

Accupuncture has been proven to be junk, Herbs and cannabis are much better, however not nearly as good as actual medicine. You are right however that they are exactly as effective as they've ever been. The same can not be said for modern medicine, which gets more effective every single day.

How long we've been doing something ("thousands of years") has never been an accurate proxy for how well something works.

Actually, the placebo effect is something we DO understand, quite well in fact. Many studies have been done on it in quite some detail.

Flashpoint is fiction but it is based on the Toronto SWAT team. Canadian police are much different from the Americans however that doesn't mean that they always do things the way it's portrayed on flashpoint. As a general rule Canadian police are more likely to ask questions and observe a situation before rushing in guns blazing but that's never a guarantee

Canadian SWAT teams (and police in general)are quite different from their American counterparts. However this kid called SWAT teams in both the US and Canada so some portion of his victims were Americans dealing with American SWAT teams.

Do you think he would have called them if he expected them to knock politely and have a simple conversation with the home owners?
He knew what type of force would likely be used and called for that specific reason.