4 ms·

Unlike many European countries we do not have bus routes to the rural towns. It forces us to rely on our own cars, or a family member's good will. Until we can

Unlike many European countries we do not have bus routes to the rural towns. It forces us to rely on our own cars, or a family member's good will. Until we can build the bus infrastructure, cars are here to stay.

rebelde 11y ago
A bus infrastructure? You must mean a self-driving taxi- or uber-like smart car infrastructure. Yes, I know it doesn't solve the "problem" completely, but it is a step in that direction. The next step would be sharing rides.
maxerickson 11y ago
This varies. There isn't much commuter service, but many counties have a subsidized on demand service to provide minimal transport and there are bus lines that have once per day service over wide geographic areas.
zzalpha 11y ago
But why are you in a rural town? That, itself, is a choice based on the assumption you'll be driving. Edit: not sure why the downvote. That's a genuine question. Living in a rural area is a lifestyle choice that typically necessitates a car. If not owning a car is a priority, you'd make a different lifestyle choice. Which is really my point. For most people, owning a car isn't seen as a lifestyle choice. It's seen as a default. Automatic. Not even part of the equation. And that's cultural.
- vollmond 11y ago
  Living in a rural area isn't a lifestyle choice when the cities are so far apart. If the cities were every 40-60 miles, it might be. I live 2 hours from the nearest city that has any significant public transport (central Pennsylvania). Getting rid of a car isn't worth introducing a 2 hour drive to visit family that lives here -- they're why we live here in the first place. We used to live in southwest Missouri. Losing the car would probably have put us anywhere from 3 to 8 (driving) hours away from anyone we knew, depending on how the public transit is in Kansas City or Tulsa or St. Louis. I wouldn't be surprised if Chicago was the closest city where you could really be fine without a car.
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    Living in a rural area isn't a lifestyle choice when the cities are so far apart. I live in Canada... I live three hours from my own mom. And we live in the two largest cities in my province, separated by vast swathes of cattle pasture and wheat fields. I live 2 hours from the nearest city that has any significant public transport (central Pennsylvania). Getting rid of a car isn't worth introducing a 2 hour drive to visit family that lives here -- they're why we live here in the first place. Right. That's a lifestyle choice. The choice you're making is choosing to optimize access to family at the expense of requiring a car. You could choose to live in or nearer to a city, making public transit an option, and renting for those times when you want to visit family. But that would, of course, introduce a barrier to visiting family, and you've decided that's not acceptable. That's fine! You're obviously free to make that choice! But don't claim you had no choice, and that it isn't because you've chosen to optimize for a certain lifestyle.

rebelde 11y ago

A bus infrastructure? You must mean a self-driving taxi- or uber-like smart car infrastructure. Yes, I know it doesn't solve the "problem" completely, but it is a step in that direction. The next step would be sharing rides.

maxerickson 11y ago

This varies. There isn't much commuter service, but many counties have a subsidized on demand service to provide minimal transport and there are bus lines that have once per day service over wide geographic areas.

zzalpha 11y ago

But why are you in a rural town? That, itself, is a choice based on the assumption you'll be driving. Edit: not sure why the downvote. That's a genuine question. Living in a rural area is a lifestyle choice that typically necessitates a car. If not owning a car is a priority, you'd make a different lifestyle choice. Which is really my point. For most people, owning a car isn't seen as a lifestyle choice. It's seen as a default. Automatic. Not even part of the equation. And that's cultural.

vollmond 11y ago
Living in a rural area isn't a lifestyle choice when the cities are so far apart. If the cities were every 40-60 miles, it might be. I live 2 hours from the nearest city that has any significant public transport (central Pennsylvania). Getting rid of a car isn't worth introducing a 2 hour drive to visit family that lives here -- they're why we live here in the first place. We used to live in southwest Missouri. Losing the car would probably have put us anywhere from 3 to 8 (driving) hours away from anyone we knew, depending on how the public transit is in Kansas City or Tulsa or St. Louis. I wouldn't be surprised if Chicago was the closest city where you could really be fine without a car.
- zzalpha 11y ago
  Living in a rural area isn't a lifestyle choice when the cities are so far apart. I live in Canada... I live three hours from my own mom. And we live in the two largest cities in my province, separated by vast swathes of cattle pasture and wheat fields. I live 2 hours from the nearest city that has any significant public transport (central Pennsylvania). Getting rid of a car isn't worth introducing a 2 hour drive to visit family that lives here -- they're why we live here in the first place. Right. That's a lifestyle choice. The choice you're making is choosing to optimize access to family at the expense of requiring a car. You could choose to live in or nearer to a city, making public transit an option, and renting for those times when you want to visit family. But that would, of course, introduce a barrier to visiting family, and you've decided that's not acceptable. That's fine! You're obviously free to make that choice! But don't claim you had no choice, and that it isn't because you've chosen to optimize for a certain lifestyle.