3 ms·

Car ownership being deceptively cheap forces poor people in places like Texas to spend a large chunk of their meager income on a car so they can continue workin

Car ownership being deceptively cheap forces poor people in places like Texas to spend a large chunk of their meager income on a car so they can continue working, instead of having enough riders to resurrect the bus systems they had in the 1930s-60s, or better yet, motivate intercity trains and suburban rail. My mother was able to take the train from Lubbock to College Station in the early 60s to visit her boyfriend. There's not been a practical way to travel between those cities without a car in my lifetime - Greyhound outside of a few city pairs is very, very theoretical.

leereeves 3y ago
I grew up poor in the inner city. No one I knew felt _forced_ to buy a car or wanted to use public transportation rather than own a car. We wanted cars; no one wants a car more than someone who can't afford one. Later I spent a few months in Europe living without a car to try the lifestyle. Even with adequate buses and intercity trains, I missed having a car. Now I live in a rural area, the kind of place where it's close to impossible to live without a car. Owning a car means the freedom to go where you want, when you want, with who and what you want. Even the best public transportation is a poor alternative outside of the densest cities. (Of course, Singapore is a dense city so this policy makes more sense there.)
- MandieD 3y ago
  Where in Europe (approximately)? Life in rural Bavaria 30km outside of Nürnberg without a car is far more difficult than without one in Nürnberg, within 500m of an U-Bahn station, and Nürnberg isn't that dense. Non-ownership of a car in the mid-sized Texas city I grew up in basically meant you were unemployable for anything beyond minimum-wage jobs, and even then, employers were apprehensive, because there was a good chance you were going to have trouble getting to work reliably - there, bicycles are children's toys or for spandex-clad enthusiasts to ride on rural roads, not transportation, and the rather minimal bus system is fairly useless for people who don't need to get to the main hospital. It also takes time to wean from car dependence - it's a mental shift that took me a couple of years to complete, but now that I've made it, it contributes to the reverse culture shock I have when visiting home (central Texas). At this point, I strongly prefer the train for travel to locations in or near the rail network, even if it takes a bit longer, because I find that having to deal with a car limits what I can do. Recreational biking is easier if you can go by train. Not having to stay alert for 3-5 hours (depending on traffic) after a day of skiing means being able to afford to go more often. Back on topic: when I first found out about Singapore's CoE system and extremely high car sales taxes, I felt awful for them, because I couldn't fathom life without a car. Now, having spent several years as a transit user who shares a car that stays parked most weeks, and having visited Singapore, I completely understand. Maybe our difference in perspective is due to any restrictions on my car usage after age 16 being by choice (college, moving to a place where the car/transit usage boundary conditions were extremely different from where I grew up).

leereeves 3y ago

I grew up poor in the inner city. No one I knew felt _forced_ to buy a car or wanted to use public transportation rather than own a car. We wanted cars; no one wants a car more than someone who can't afford one. Later I spent a few months in Europe living without a car to try the lifestyle. Even with adequate buses and intercity trains, I missed having a car. Now I live in a rural area, the kind of place where it's close to impossible to live without a car. Owning a car means the freedom to go where you want, when you want, with who and what you want. Even the best public transportation is a poor alternative outside of the densest cities. (Of course, Singapore is a dense city so this policy makes more sense there.)

MandieD 3y ago
Where in Europe (approximately)? Life in rural Bavaria 30km outside of Nürnberg without a car is far more difficult than without one in Nürnberg, within 500m of an U-Bahn station, and Nürnberg isn't that dense. Non-ownership of a car in the mid-sized Texas city I grew up in basically meant you were unemployable for anything beyond minimum-wage jobs, and even then, employers were apprehensive, because there was a good chance you were going to have trouble getting to work reliably - there, bicycles are children's toys or for spandex-clad enthusiasts to ride on rural roads, not transportation, and the rather minimal bus system is fairly useless for people who don't need to get to the main hospital. It also takes time to wean from car dependence - it's a mental shift that took me a couple of years to complete, but now that I've made it, it contributes to the reverse culture shock I have when visiting home (central Texas). At this point, I strongly prefer the train for travel to locations in or near the rail network, even if it takes a bit longer, because I find that having to deal with a car limits what I can do. Recreational biking is easier if you can go by train. Not having to stay alert for 3-5 hours (depending on traffic) after a day of skiing means being able to afford to go more often. Back on topic: when I first found out about Singapore's CoE system and extremely high car sales taxes, I felt awful for them, because I couldn't fathom life without a car. Now, having spent several years as a transit user who shares a car that stays parked most weeks, and having visited Singapore, I completely understand. Maybe our difference in perspective is due to any restrictions on my car usage after age 16 being by choice (college, moving to a place where the car/transit usage boundary conditions were extremely different from where I grew up).