4 ms·

I didn't realize that trains and busses couldn't run through "rural" america?

spacebanana7 3y ago
In general, public transport has worse economics in rural areas because the fixed costs are larger and the passenger volumes are lower.
- ajuc 3y ago
  There's a feedback loop - if not for cars the population distribution would be different, and public transport would be more economical. BTW rural living uses a lot more energy per person and wastes a lot of time for commute. I don't think it's worth all the state subsidies it gets.
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    The impact of cars on rural living goes both ways. It definitely makes rural areas more comfortable and productive, perhaps making them more attractive to live in. But without cars we might need more people in the countryside too. Somebody needs to do the farming, and if the vets/doctors/teachers/mechanics that support them are less productive having to operate in a smaller area we might need more of them to support all the farmland. At a macro level, most countries with low car usage have high amounts of rural living but there’s an awful lot of confounding stuff going on.
    - alan-hn 3y ago
      What does you mean by "less productive having to operate in a smaller area"?
      - spacebanana7 3y ago
        A modern farm vet can credibly service farms within a 100 mile radius of their home because of motorised transportation. Without that form of transport, travelling 100 miles and back in a day becomes untenable, and vets may only be able to operate within a few miles of their home. So without motorised transport, we'd need more farm vets per square mile of agricultural land in the country.Thus more farms vets in total employment and more people living in rural areas overall.
    - ajuc 3y ago
      What would actually happen is less suburbs and more cities connected with trains. Distance to the closest city decreases preserving the agricultural productivity, and the proportion of people living in the cities inreases - wasting less energy and time on pointless commutes and increasing opportunities for good education and innovation. How do I know - because that's how European AND American countries developed when there were no cars. BTW in ideal world you of course have cars, but the petrol cost includes all externalities so only people who really HAVE TO - use them daily. Other than that they are used for public transport, medical services, firefighters, etc. The fact that the most popular car in USA (which has <5% farmers) is Ford F-series truck is absolutely insane.
      - spacebanana7 3y ago
        > How do I know - because that's how European AND American countries developed when there were no cars. Before cars, most Europeans and American lived in rural areas in agricultural occupations (64% of US employment in 1850) https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest-since-1850-s.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest...

In general, public transport has worse economics in rural areas because the fixed costs are larger and the passenger volumes are lower.

ajuc 3y ago
There's a feedback loop - if not for cars the population distribution would be different, and public transport would be more economical. BTW rural living uses a lot more energy per person and wastes a lot of time for commute. I don't think it's worth all the state subsidies it gets.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  The impact of cars on rural living goes both ways. It definitely makes rural areas more comfortable and productive, perhaps making them more attractive to live in. But without cars we might need more people in the countryside too. Somebody needs to do the farming, and if the vets/doctors/teachers/mechanics that support them are less productive having to operate in a smaller area we might need more of them to support all the farmland. At a macro level, most countries with low car usage have high amounts of rural living but there’s an awful lot of confounding stuff going on.
  - alan-hn 3y ago
    What does you mean by "less productive having to operate in a smaller area"?
    - spacebanana7 3y ago
      A modern farm vet can credibly service farms within a 100 mile radius of their home because of motorised transportation. Without that form of transport, travelling 100 miles and back in a day becomes untenable, and vets may only be able to operate within a few miles of their home. So without motorised transport, we'd need more farm vets per square mile of agricultural land in the country.Thus more farms vets in total employment and more people living in rural areas overall.
  - ajuc 3y ago
    What would actually happen is less suburbs and more cities connected with trains. Distance to the closest city decreases preserving the agricultural productivity, and the proportion of people living in the cities inreases - wasting less energy and time on pointless commutes and increasing opportunities for good education and innovation. How do I know - because that's how European AND American countries developed when there were no cars. BTW in ideal world you of course have cars, but the petrol cost includes all externalities so only people who really HAVE TO - use them daily. Other than that they are used for public transport, medical services, firefighters, etc. The fact that the most popular car in USA (which has <5% farmers) is Ford F-series truck is absolutely insane.
    - spacebanana7 3y ago
      > How do I know - because that's how European AND American countries developed when there were no cars. Before cars, most Europeans and American lived in rural areas in agricultural occupations (64% of US employment in 1850) https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest-since-1850-s.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest...