3 ms·

I think this is an awful situation, but at what point do we call seniors’ desires unreasonable? Is their want to stay in their suburban homes which are designed

I think this is an awful situation, but at what point do we call seniors’ desires unreasonable? Is their want to stay in their suburban homes which are designed for cars really something the state should be concerned about when the working poor struggle to afford the subway?[1] I think we should make relocation easy for the elderly who aren’t able to get around. I think it is terrible if they can’t move from their houses to places easier to get transportation from. But I really don’t see how this problem is more urgent and important or even independent of the general problem of people not being able to afford housing/transportation. Are we supposed to prioritize the elderly who already have houses over those who don’t? 1: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/06/16/when-people-cant-afford-transit-new-york-city-pays-for-it-one-way-or-another/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/06/16/when-people-cant-affo...

mjn 9y ago
Imo some level of service even in areas not all that favorable to transit is reasonable. Or at least, I think it's possible to do at least slightly better. I now live in a fairly rural part of the UK, a remote region (Cornwall) that has no real urban areas. And yet just about every population concentration of over 1000 people or so, here, has a bus that does at least one round-trip a day. Towns of over 20,000 people have very good, regular service. Of course it's subsidized, and in the smaller villages it might literally only be once a day in each direction, but a service does run. In many American towns and suburbs it seems not even that level of service is available. And it's not due to the distances or population density either. I used to live in a suburb of Houston, TX that had 60,000 people, was about 20 miles from downtown, and it had no bus service! Now I live in a smaller and more remote town in the UK, and it has decent bus service.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  The demographic we're talking about is the exact same one that hates transit and will refuse to fund it. It's not unlike the rural areas in the US that are heavily dependent on government subsidies that they vote against.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jdietrich 9y ago
France have a peculiarly Gallic compromise - the light quadricycle. It's a class of vehicle weighing less than 425kg (~940lbs) with a top speed of no more than 28mph. Anyone aged over 14 can drive a light quadricycle without a license. They're a fixture of everyday life in rural France, providing independent transport for teenagers, the elderly and habitual drink-drivers. They're deathtraps for the driver, but their limited speed and distinct lack of structural integrity mean they pose minimal risk to other road users. It's far from an ideal solution, but it seems to work. I understand that golf carts are a popular mode of transport for elderly people living in some private retirement communities; perhaps it would make sense for US states to legalise their use on the public roads. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35210572 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35210572
- fulafel 9y ago
  That's an EU-wide type of quadricycle - the vehicle category is called L6e or L7e. It's a good regulatory slot for light EVs too and they're sold in many countries, though you need a driver's license usually.

mjn 9y ago

Imo some level of service even in areas not all that favorable to transit is reasonable. Or at least, I think it's possible to do at least slightly better. I now live in a fairly rural part of the UK, a remote region (Cornwall) that has no real urban areas. And yet just about every population concentration of over 1000 people or so, here, has a bus that does at least one round-trip a day. Towns of over 20,000 people have very good, regular service. Of course it's subsidized, and in the smaller villages it might literally only be once a day in each direction, but a service does run. In many American towns and suburbs it seems not even that level of service is available. And it's not due to the distances or population density either. I used to live in a suburb of Houston, TX that had 60,000 people, was about 20 miles from downtown, and it had no bus service! Now I live in a smaller and more remote town in the UK, and it has decent bus service.

TulliusCicero 9y ago
The demographic we're talking about is the exact same one that hates transit and will refuse to fund it. It's not unlike the rural areas in the US that are heavily dependent on government subsidies that they vote against.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jdietrich 9y ago

France have a peculiarly Gallic compromise - the light quadricycle. It's a class of vehicle weighing less than 425kg (~940lbs) with a top speed of no more than 28mph. Anyone aged over 14 can drive a light quadricycle without a license. They're a fixture of everyday life in rural France, providing independent transport for teenagers, the elderly and habitual drink-drivers. They're deathtraps for the driver, but their limited speed and distinct lack of structural integrity mean they pose minimal risk to other road users. It's far from an ideal solution, but it seems to work. I understand that golf carts are a popular mode of transport for elderly people living in some private retirement communities; perhaps it would make sense for US states to legalise their use on the public roads. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35210572 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35210572

fulafel 9y ago
That's an EU-wide type of quadricycle - the vehicle category is called L6e or L7e. It's a good regulatory slot for light EVs too and they're sold in many countries, though you need a driver's license usually.