4 ms·

I don't think most people are arguing that you as an individual should switch to walking or public transit without anything else changing. The situations you d

I don't think most people are arguing that you as an individual should switch to walking or public transit without anything else changing. The situations you describe are the way they are because we've spent decades heavily investing in making cars the most convenient or often only option. The suggestion is that we should consider making different choices going forward so people have other options. Everything doesn't have to be so far away and things like public transit don't have to suck. I also think there's a misinterpretation that alternatives to cars means nobody should drive anywhere. For something like going camping, it's hard to argue that a car doesn't make the most sense. But the point is to make it so you don't have to drive everywhere for everything and can save the driving for when it really is the best option.

ZekeSulastin 4y ago
"I also think there's a misinterpretation that alternatives to cars means nobody should drive anywhere" From reading the comments on this thread and the other regularly posted ones, I don't think that's a misinterpretation at all.
kipchak 4y ago
>Everything doesn't have to be so far away and things like public transit don't have to suck. I think this is hard to do while also allowing for people who want to live in a rural area to do so. Towns and cities are great candidates for centralization, but when you have a low population over a large area you can only justify for example one grocery store, and spreading public transport over a large (and likely low income) area is prohibitively expensive. having everyone live closer together effectively solves both problems, but most people in these areas either don't want to live in cities or can't afford them, so having a inexpensive car and driving is the cheaper option.
- rainsford 4y ago
  > I think this is hard to do while also allowing for people who want to live in a rural area to do so. There's no reason it has to be some one size fits all solution. Investing in transit options other than cars in cities and towns where it makes sense doesn't mean trying to force light rail to work in rural areas or whatever. The problem is actually the opposite, where we've set things up such that the transit option that makes sense for rural areas is the norm everywhere.

ZekeSulastin 4y ago

"I also think there's a misinterpretation that alternatives to cars means nobody should drive anywhere" From reading the comments on this thread and the other regularly posted ones, I don't think that's a misinterpretation at all.

kipchak 4y ago

>Everything doesn't have to be so far away and things like public transit don't have to suck. I think this is hard to do while also allowing for people who want to live in a rural area to do so. Towns and cities are great candidates for centralization, but when you have a low population over a large area you can only justify for example one grocery store, and spreading public transport over a large (and likely low income) area is prohibitively expensive. having everyone live closer together effectively solves both problems, but most people in these areas either don't want to live in cities or can't afford them, so having a inexpensive car and driving is the cheaper option.

rainsford 4y ago
> I think this is hard to do while also allowing for people who want to live in a rural area to do so. There's no reason it has to be some one size fits all solution. Investing in transit options other than cars in cities and towns where it makes sense doesn't mean trying to force light rail to work in rural areas or whatever. The problem is actually the opposite, where we've set things up such that the transit option that makes sense for rural areas is the norm everywhere.