3 ms·

You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car. That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than renting a car

You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car. That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than renting a car to travel short to medium distances when there's a corresponding route. Support for Amtrak-style rail is very low. Hell support for subway-style rail is still pretty low, but it has its uses in the truly developed areas (a la NYC). I'm ambivalent about Amtrak. I'm strongly supportive of subway-style rail, when it's appropriate (it's not appropriate aside from a small handful of cities). There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)?

rayiner 8y ago
> You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car. That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than renting a car to travel short to medium distances when there's a corresponding route. We're talking about Amtrak in rural areas here, and for a statistical definition of 100%, 100% of folks in rural places have access a car. Life is impossible without one. As to urban poor--they take the bus. A saver fare for Austin to Houston is $48. Greyhound will get you there for $9. > There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)? Every metro area in the U.S. is suburbs dominated except NYC.