5 ms·
I disagree. It's not just about the commute, it's about the fact that there is almost zero public transpo infrastructure in the US. For example, I had a near 40
by arminiusreturns 8y ago
I disagree. It's not just about the commute, it's about the fact that there is almost zero public transpo infrastructure in the US. For example, I had a near 40 mile drive just to get to my highschool, and a 75 mile drive to the closest Walmart.
Also, given the numbers I just posted, even if your 80 percent number is right, that's still a portion of the population doing long commutes, and that number of people is more than the entire population of Denmark!
Look, I've traveled in places with great public infrastructure and I really want the US to work very hard towards it, but I get tired of all the Europeans who always in any thread of this subject start ridiculing us without even fully comprehending how large the US is. Do we need to put major money and work into it? Yes. Does that mean it's actually feasible for people to get rid of their vehicles? Not yet for anyone except those in the best public transpo cities.
"Your argument is stupid" ... great one...
- adrianN 7y agoThe lack of public transport is not due to the distance between New York and San Francisco. It's decades of car-centric city planning that is responsible. Russia is a big country too and public transport in Moscow was pretty good when I visited. There are people with very long commutes in Europe too. I personally know people who commute 100km+ one way. If you had to drive 75 miles to get to the next Walmart you probably didn't live in an urban area so any arguments against cars in urban areas don't apply to your lifestyle. You won't find public transport in the countryside in Europe either.