4 ms·

Trains are only useful within and between densely populated areas. The 200 km weekly trip might well be to a cabin in the mountains, definitely no train.

• galaxyLogic 4y ago
  Going to a cabin in the mountains is a luxury few of us can afford. Even fewer of us can afford to buy such a cabin more likely you would rent it for a weekend or week. So if you're going to the mountains say twice a year we could assume that you also rent a car to get there, and back.
  • estebank 4y ago
    Even if they own a car, the aim is to reduce car ownership and drastically reduce car usage/need, not eliminate them entirely. There are 289MM cars in the US (.87 cars per person), in The Netherlands there are 8.7MM cars (0.5 cars per person).
    • ldh0011 4y ago
      People miss this so often when they respond to arguments to reduce car usage with "I need a car because of xyz reason" where that reason probably doesn't apply to most people, certainly doesn't apply to all people, or only applies to most people because whatever society they exist in (probably the US) is incredibly car-centric already. The Netherlands is clearly not car-centric but with 0.5 cars per person clearly people that need (or strongly want) cars still have them. Reducing car usage in the US can only have positive benefits for society imo.