3 ms·

Living without a car is a privilege of those who live in cities or some suburbs. I've never actually seen real plans or ideas to extend this stuff to the countr

by kodah 5y ago

Living without a car is a privilege of those who live in cities or some suburbs. I've never actually seen real plans or ideas to extend this stuff to the country side. Mostly just folks shrugging their shoulders and hoping that end of the problem will go away.

bllguo 5y ago
does it need to extend to the countryside? what percentage of cars are in rural areas vs. urban?
- kodah 5y ago
  Yes. What folks that champion less cars often include as an incentive is a punishment for using cars. That punishment would likely be a tax that would disproportionately affect folks in the countryside, so any benefits made for cities would need to scale there as well. The total amount of cars is a red herring, it's the importance of vehicles. The story of what happened in France was very telling.
  - stephen_g 5y ago
    That doesn't necessarily follow, though. Congestion pricing, for example, can penalise car use where it's causing the problems like traffic and where alternatives exist (assuming good public transport, cycling infrastructure, etc., which you need to make any of this work), but not where it's less avoidable and not causing the same kind of issues and alternatives aren't there, like in the countryside.
    - kodah 5y ago
      That is my point. Having the right taxes and the right stop gaps that scale is the imperative. The problem is that you're among a crowd (as am I) who, some portion of, just want to see rural areas fail. As a result, I do my part in reminding them who this will impact. As another commenter so gleefully put it, they're "economically and culturally unproductive". It's not my first time reading disgusting rhetoric like that when people talking about these kinds of solutions get asked how they plan on dealing with the rest of America.
xmprt 5y ago
Do people within the country side travel to cities often? In any case, trains still exist and if that doesn't work, the interstate roads probably aren't going away because trucks still need to make trips.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dylan604 5y ago
>Living without a car is a privilege Whatthewhat? Such a privilege postion to be able to say that. Owning a car is a luxury that not all can afford. The fact that you think living without a car is a privilege shows how backwards we've gotten.
- presentation 5y ago
  Agreed, it's not like transit riders have to pay tens of thousands of dollars up front + hundreds more every month to ride the train or bus, for a minimum wage job in an expensive city that they felt compelled to move to because their hometown was economically (and culturally) unproductive. The only reason suburbs and towns require cars is because they're designed extraordinarily poorly, for the interests of car/oil corporations, with their residents constantly demanding the government to subsidize their incredibly wasteful lifestyles.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ketzo 5y ago
  Okay -- but tell that to the people living within the system today. I'm from a smaller American city with abysmal public transportation. Cars are how you get to work, end of sentence. They are required for life. Yes, the city should be doing more to make that better. Yes, the system is backwards. But the woman driving to work in a beat-up 2009 Civic that she bought for $1500 certainly doesn't feel luxurious or privileged. In many places in America, the ability to live without a car implies 1) the ability to work from home 2) a greater amount of time to devote to travel 3) the ability to have someone else take care of "car-required" things 4) the ability to get access to a car if you really need one. You can see where I'm going with this. Privilege is a factor of the system, and that system is a car-based one for most people.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    >In many places in America, the ability to live without a car implies These are not necessarily true. 1)There are plenty of people that have low paying jobs that barely allows for food/rent, so a car+insurance is just out of the question. 2)I don't know what not having a car has to do with devoting to travel. If you can't afford a car, how are they going to afford traveling? 3) again, just not true for a large number of people. 4)Not sure what you are implying here. Stealing a car? It really sounds like you're not appreciating the situation of very low income situations.

by kodah 5y ago

bllguo 5y ago

does it need to extend to the countryside? what percentage of cars are in rural areas vs. urban?

kodah 5y ago
Yes. What folks that champion less cars often include as an incentive is a punishment for using cars. That punishment would likely be a tax that would disproportionately affect folks in the countryside, so any benefits made for cities would need to scale there as well. The total amount of cars is a red herring, it's the importance of vehicles. The story of what happened in France was very telling.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  That doesn't necessarily follow, though. Congestion pricing, for example, can penalise car use where it's causing the problems like traffic and where alternatives exist (assuming good public transport, cycling infrastructure, etc., which you need to make any of this work), but not where it's less avoidable and not causing the same kind of issues and alternatives aren't there, like in the countryside.
  - kodah 5y ago
    That is my point. Having the right taxes and the right stop gaps that scale is the imperative. The problem is that you're among a crowd (as am I) who, some portion of, just want to see rural areas fail. As a result, I do my part in reminding them who this will impact. As another commenter so gleefully put it, they're "economically and culturally unproductive". It's not my first time reading disgusting rhetoric like that when people talking about these kinds of solutions get asked how they plan on dealing with the rest of America.

xmprt 5y ago

Do people within the country side travel to cities often? In any case, trains still exist and if that doesn't work, the interstate roads probably aren't going away because trucks still need to make trips.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dylan604 5y ago

>Living without a car is a privilege Whatthewhat? Such a privilege postion to be able to say that. Owning a car is a luxury that not all can afford. The fact that you think living without a car is a privilege shows how backwards we've gotten.

presentation 5y ago
Agreed, it's not like transit riders have to pay tens of thousands of dollars up front + hundreds more every month to ride the train or bus, for a minimum wage job in an expensive city that they felt compelled to move to because their hometown was economically (and culturally) unproductive. The only reason suburbs and towns require cars is because they're designed extraordinarily poorly, for the interests of car/oil corporations, with their residents constantly demanding the government to subsidize their incredibly wasteful lifestyles.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ketzo 5y ago
Okay -- but tell that to the people living within the system today. I'm from a smaller American city with abysmal public transportation. Cars are how you get to work, end of sentence. They are required for life. Yes, the city should be doing more to make that better. Yes, the system is backwards. But the woman driving to work in a beat-up 2009 Civic that she bought for $1500 certainly doesn't feel luxurious or privileged. In many places in America, the ability to live without a car implies 1) the ability to work from home 2) a greater amount of time to devote to travel 3) the ability to have someone else take care of "car-required" things 4) the ability to get access to a car if you really need one. You can see where I'm going with this. Privilege is a factor of the system, and that system is a car-based one for most people.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >In many places in America, the ability to live without a car implies These are not necessarily true. 1)There are plenty of people that have low paying jobs that barely allows for food/rent, so a car+insurance is just out of the question. 2)I don't know what not having a car has to do with devoting to travel. If you can't afford a car, how are they going to afford traveling? 3) again, just not true for a large number of people. 4)Not sure what you are implying here. Stealing a car? It really sounds like you're not appreciating the situation of very low income situations.