14 ms·

Or how about infrastructure? The fact someone needs a car is itself a failure.

settrans 5y ago
Got it. So how should people get to their jobs at the farms? Or the mines? Or the oil fields? Or the factories? Or the mills?
- jmknoll 5y ago
  For sure rural jobs aren’t a great fit for public transportation. But most people commuting to work by car are commuting to offices, retail stores, restaurants, and other places in semi-densely populated areas that could be better served by public transit.
  - settrans 5y ago
    OK, then how do people commute to their jobs (restaurants, shoe stores, or schools) in the small towns that support farms, mines, factories or mills?
    - nanomonkey 5y ago
      At human speeds: walk, bike, tractor, hitch a ride on a lorry (max speed 45mph), horse. Trains are useful for connecting longer distances at specific times of the day (commuting). Highways create an artificial monopoly on travel. You cannot easily travel along them, or cross them if you can't drive over 45mph. This speed is only getting higher. There are studies showing that travel has actually gone down in areas like Mexico with the addition of modern Highways. The poor just can't participate.
      - giardini 5y ago
        nanomonkey says>"There are studies showing that travel has actually gone down in areas like Mexico with the addition of modern Highways. The poor just can't participate."< More likely the poor used the highway once - to get out of the country and to the city. It isn't that they "can't participate", it's that they are gone.
    - jmknoll 5y ago
      I didn't mention small towns. My concern is primarily with the large cities in the United States that have functionally useless or second-class public transportation systems. Places like Phoenix, Houston, and Los Angeles that collectively house tens of millions of people in sufficient density for public transit, but lack effective systems due to poor planning, corruption, and lack of creative problem solving. Of course there are use-cases for cars, nobody suggested that there aren't. The problem is that the United States in particular has assumed that every transportation issue is best solved with cars.
- ajuc 5y ago
  I mean factories and mines usually have A LOT of public transport options. That's a no-brainer, really. Guaranteed thousands of customers at guaranteed schedules.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  >how should people get to their jobs at the farms? Or the mines? Or the oil fields? Or the factories? Or the mills Or how do astronauts get to the ISS? Checkmate. Transportation infrastructure bad.
- fknorangesite 5y ago
  Okay? So keep the car-centered infrastructure where you genuinely need it, and you can still have the huge net benefit of reliable public transit for the other 80% of people. A solution doesn't need to be 100% perfect for every situation in order for it to still be worthwhile.
mehphp 5y ago
I mean, in highly populated/dense areas sure, but public transportation doesn't really work in rural America.
- scarecrowbob 5y ago
  While I haven't seen it work very well, it's not the case that it's impossible. My mother has been the superintendent at a number of places in the rural southwest. They manage to get the kids to school via bus. So it isn't the case that rural public transportation simply can't work.
- wpm 5y ago
  Only 20% of America lives in a rural area, so odds are it’s irrelevant to most struggling people.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    The census definition of "urban" is kind of absurd. If I'm reading it right, living in a town of 2500 is "urban." If I'm reading it wrong, living in a town of 50,000 is "urban." Either way, you'd likely consider a lot of that 80% rural.
    - asveikau 5y ago
      I guess density is the real measure.
    - ac29 5y ago
      Where is that definition from? The 2020 census proposes using "385 housing units per square mile as the primary criterion for determining whether a census block qualifies for inclusion in an urban area". Previously it was 1000 people per square mile (or equivalent to the above with 2.6 persons per household). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/19/2021-03412/urban-areas-for-the-2020-census-proposed-criteria https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/19/2021-03...
rayiner 5y ago
That’s an attempt to inject an urbanist hobby horse into a discussion of poverty. The vast majority of poor Americans have a car. It gives people tremendous flexibility in taking advantage of different employment and housing opportunities. If anything I’d argue that transit puts poor people at a disadvantage. My wife’s family comes from rural poverty (like reliant on hunting for meat). Access to cars is never the problem. And cars mean that if someone loses their job or their housing, they can pick up and move to a different town where there might be opportunities. The transit-dependent urban poor are completely dependent on what opportunities might exist near the transit lines. That also makes them tremendously reliant on the city central planners, who are often incompetent.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  In some cases, it's the hobby horse of people with barriers to driving who have studied the space and wish the US was more like it used to be and more like some other countries still are.
  - geodel 5y ago
    Yeah, what are those countries which are geographically vast, diverse and rich and rely on transit system for daily commute needs?
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      I don't use public transit much -- I mostly walk everywhere -- and the OP only said The fact someone needs a car is itself a failure. There's no mention of public transit as a proposed solution.
      - geodel 5y ago
        Well anything could be called failure if alternatives and their pros/cons not discussed. Good that you could walk everywhere. I can't, my knees hurt walking more than a mile or so. If I have no car and can't afford cab for everything, not sure how I would be better off.
jandrewrogers 5y ago
Poor people often receive an enormous amount of value from owning a car in the form of optionality, which is why the vast majority own one. It is one of the only sources of economic optionality a poor person has. Even if they don't need a car, they often choose to own one (the cheapest one they can find that is vaguely reliable).
mam4 5y ago

Got it. So how should people get to their jobs at the farms? Or the mines? Or the oil fields? Or the factories? Or the mills?

jmknoll 5y ago
For sure rural jobs aren’t a great fit for public transportation. But most people commuting to work by car are commuting to offices, retail stores, restaurants, and other places in semi-densely populated areas that could be better served by public transit.
- settrans 5y ago
  OK, then how do people commute to their jobs (restaurants, shoe stores, or schools) in the small towns that support farms, mines, factories or mills?
  - nanomonkey 5y ago
    At human speeds: walk, bike, tractor, hitch a ride on a lorry (max speed 45mph), horse. Trains are useful for connecting longer distances at specific times of the day (commuting). Highways create an artificial monopoly on travel. You cannot easily travel along them, or cross them if you can't drive over 45mph. This speed is only getting higher. There are studies showing that travel has actually gone down in areas like Mexico with the addition of modern Highways. The poor just can't participate.
    - giardini 5y ago
      nanomonkey says>"There are studies showing that travel has actually gone down in areas like Mexico with the addition of modern Highways. The poor just can't participate."< More likely the poor used the highway once - to get out of the country and to the city. It isn't that they "can't participate", it's that they are gone.
  - jmknoll 5y ago
    I didn't mention small towns. My concern is primarily with the large cities in the United States that have functionally useless or second-class public transportation systems. Places like Phoenix, Houston, and Los Angeles that collectively house tens of millions of people in sufficient density for public transit, but lack effective systems due to poor planning, corruption, and lack of creative problem solving. Of course there are use-cases for cars, nobody suggested that there aren't. The problem is that the United States in particular has assumed that every transportation issue is best solved with cars.
ajuc 5y ago
I mean factories and mines usually have A LOT of public transport options. That's a no-brainer, really. Guaranteed thousands of customers at guaranteed schedules.
SantalBlush 5y ago
>how should people get to their jobs at the farms? Or the mines? Or the oil fields? Or the factories? Or the mills Or how do astronauts get to the ISS? Checkmate. Transportation infrastructure bad.
fknorangesite 5y ago
Okay? So keep the car-centered infrastructure where you genuinely need it, and you can still have the huge net benefit of reliable public transit for the other 80% of people. A solution doesn't need to be 100% perfect for every situation in order for it to still be worthwhile.

mehphp 5y ago

I mean, in highly populated/dense areas sure, but public transportation doesn't really work in rural America.

scarecrowbob 5y ago
While I haven't seen it work very well, it's not the case that it's impossible. My mother has been the superintendent at a number of places in the rural southwest. They manage to get the kids to school via bus. So it isn't the case that rural public transportation simply can't work.
wpm 5y ago
Only 20% of America lives in a rural area, so odds are it’s irrelevant to most struggling people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  The census definition of "urban" is kind of absurd. If I'm reading it right, living in a town of 2500 is "urban." If I'm reading it wrong, living in a town of 50,000 is "urban." Either way, you'd likely consider a lot of that 80% rural.
  - asveikau 5y ago
    I guess density is the real measure.
  - ac29 5y ago
    Where is that definition from? The 2020 census proposes using "385 housing units per square mile as the primary criterion for determining whether a census block qualifies for inclusion in an urban area". Previously it was 1000 people per square mile (or equivalent to the above with 2.6 persons per household). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/19/2021-03412/urban-areas-for-the-2020-census-proposed-criteria https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/19/2021-03...

rayiner 5y ago

That’s an attempt to inject an urbanist hobby horse into a discussion of poverty. The vast majority of poor Americans have a car. It gives people tremendous flexibility in taking advantage of different employment and housing opportunities. If anything I’d argue that transit puts poor people at a disadvantage. My wife’s family comes from rural poverty (like reliant on hunting for meat). Access to cars is never the problem. And cars mean that if someone loses their job or their housing, they can pick up and move to a different town where there might be opportunities. The transit-dependent urban poor are completely dependent on what opportunities might exist near the transit lines. That also makes them tremendously reliant on the city central planners, who are often incompetent.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
In some cases, it's the hobby horse of people with barriers to driving who have studied the space and wish the US was more like it used to be and more like some other countries still are.
- geodel 5y ago
  Yeah, what are those countries which are geographically vast, diverse and rich and rely on transit system for daily commute needs?
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    I don't use public transit much -- I mostly walk everywhere -- and the OP only said The fact someone needs a car is itself a failure. There's no mention of public transit as a proposed solution.
    - geodel 5y ago
      Well anything could be called failure if alternatives and their pros/cons not discussed. Good that you could walk everywhere. I can't, my knees hurt walking more than a mile or so. If I have no car and can't afford cab for everything, not sure how I would be better off.

jandrewrogers 5y ago

Poor people often receive an enormous amount of value from owning a car in the form of optionality, which is why the vast majority own one. It is one of the only sources of economic optionality a poor person has. Even if they don't need a car, they often choose to own one (the cheapest one they can find that is vaguely reliable).

mam4 5y ago