- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I say this as somebody who cannot drive. And I say it with all the love in the world for public transit. Public transit absolutely cannot get you everywhere, at least not if you expect to be there in a timely manner. The vast majority of America is suburbanized, the worst possible environment for buses.
The entire video is based on the flawed idea that public transportation has the thorough coverage of rural and suburban regions that would allow it to replace cars. This video was made for city dwellers and ignores the plight of the few who grew up in remote areas and don’t have the finances to move. It essentially says “let’s make life tough for those who are already limited.”
But rural places can be made less car dependent. And doing will only help those already limited because a car is a significant expense. After all rural places have existed for all of human history and cars have only existed for about 100 years.
Same channel weighs in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_n0CkKZVBk
What rural towns were like before the rise of cars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9KNax1QpD4
And finally, if a rural person really has no other choice, having more transit in cities isn’t actually stopping them from owning a car. I don’t understand the notion that we shouldn’t build more transit in cities, where the majority of the population lives and cutting down car dependency for those people will go long way toward reducing our ecological footprint, simply because we can’t eliminate the need for cars for every single person. Even if the city is completely car-free, there can be park and rides at the edge of a city where people in rural areas can drive to and transfer onto transit. It will mean less driving for them saving gas, and mostly on not very congested peripheral roads as opposed to fighting in downtown traffic so it would even probably be faster overall.
@ChicoSuave @HiddenLayer5 you’ve got it the wrong way around. The anti-car/pro public transport/urbanism movement always has the goal of reducing the cost of transport and the cost of housing to make places that are livable for people on lower incomes.
Cars in rural areas aren’t a concern because they’re places where population density is so low that cars have fewer negative effects.
But rural public transport between townships and major cities can also make getting places quicker, easier and safer.
Building public transport in and to higher density areas doesn’t stop you from driving your car in a rural area.
made for city dwellers and ignores the plight of the few who grew up in remote areas and don’t have the finances to move.
Basically this whole community really, if you add in the trades and rural workers.
Specious nonsense does nothing to help our cause.
Acknowledge that cars have drawbacks, as do their alternatives, then pick what you care about. Don’t pretend your preference is better in ways that it clearly isn’t, or no one will take you seriously even in the moments you deserve it.
This happens with everything I swear, people find it acceptable to lie and exaggerate as long as it’s for the right side. In reality it sets everyone back from progress. Weed for example, people love to deny any possible negative qualities which leads to a standstill of both sides lying
Great points! Saying you can rent a car for the times you need one, although very practical advice (and should honestly be the approach more people take imo). This whole video essentially only applies to large cities though, as the smaller and more rural the area is the more often that need to rent a car comes up until you might as well own one.
