4 ms·
"Options for people who don't want/need to have a car" is very different than "maybe no one should have a car". Cars are pretty necessary if you have kids in mo
by the_watcher 7y ago
"Options for people who don't want/need to have a car" is very different than "maybe no one should have a car". Cars are pretty necessary if you have kids in most of the US, for example. While there's an argument that much of the US was designed in a way that forces this necessity, the reality is that the road system in US exists, the US is gigantic, and mobility within the US is generally considered desirable.
It's good to encourage cities to find ways for residents to get around without cars, if only because it can increase social mobility by increasing options for people who can't afford one. But pretty much all of the evidence I've seen suggests that Americans very much choose to have a car once they can afford one, and that is very much rooted in the fact that they're phenomenally useful.
- smileysteve 7y ago> Cars are pretty necessary if you have kids in most of the US, for example. Yet, there is a significant portion of the US population that can not afford a car, and the next level to afford to maintain a car, or afford to adequately insure a car. And yes, it hurts economic mobility https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-ladder-location-matters.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-inco...
- the_watcher 7y agoIf you read to the second paragraph of my comment, I acknowledge exactly that and agree that increasing non-car transportation options can be a good thing at the same time as cars being a pretty necessary (or at least substantially life-improving) technology.