Exactly. Based on this, and based on OP’s other responses, OP is basically saying “I want poor people to suffer so rich people can make more money” (off of new car sales with more efficient engines, or electric).
So my question for them is: is the income divide not great enough? If not, when will it be?
There are many regions where alternative forms of transport aren’t very viable. Nearly non-existent public transit and bike infrastructure because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind. Zoning requirements that mean everything is spread out and impossible to walk between. Possibly even combined with terrible weather for much of the year.
Places where making changes to fix those issues, increase public options, etc. are met with stiff political backlash, not necessarily from the car people, but just simple conservatives or regressives that don’t think any money should be spent on that infrastructure, often simply because it’s not something they’d use.
but, and I realise this might be a bit utopian, the more people (have to) use alternative modes of transportation, the more the need for better infrastructure will grow. domino effect and all that
Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars. Places that can’t fit car traffic, etc. so alternatives are either a requirement or already a higher priority than destroying existing infrastructure to make it fit.
People in dense cities who only drive are car brained. People who live where there are zero other options are simply getting to the store or to work the only way they can.
People who live where there are [legitimately] zero other options – i.e., actually rural – are a negligible minority. 80% of the population has no excuse, and trying to “whatabout the other 20%” is a bad-faith argument.
I literally provided you data that shows that the majority of workers drive more than 10+ miles…most people are not in the middle of cities. Period. Stop trying to make it sound like the majority of the usa is in dense cities.
I mean…the census can define whatever it wants to define, but the rest of us still have to live in the real world.
Sure, you can call my satellite suburban neighborhood “urban”. But it’s 3 miles of twisting, turning roads just to reach the nearest convenience store. The nearest bus stop would be at least 7 miles away.
Maybe we shouldn’t rely solely on the Census Bureau in this regard? Perhaps a transportation authority of some sort would be able to provide better measuring stick for this particular discussion?
Exactly. Based on this, and based on OP’s other responses, OP is basically saying “I want poor people to suffer so rich people can make more money” (off of new car sales with more efficient engines, or electric).
So my question for them is: is the income divide not great enough? If not, when will it be?
That’s mainly a problem for car-brained people. There are other modes of transportation, you know.
There are many regions where alternative forms of transport aren’t very viable. Nearly non-existent public transit and bike infrastructure because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind. Zoning requirements that mean everything is spread out and impossible to walk between. Possibly even combined with terrible weather for much of the year.
Places where making changes to fix those issues, increase public options, etc. are met with stiff political backlash, not necessarily from the car people, but just simple conservatives or regressives that don’t think any money should be spent on that infrastructure, often simply because it’s not something they’d use.
but, and I realise this might be a bit utopian, the more people (have to) use alternative modes of transportation, the more the need for better infrastructure will grow. domino effect and all that
Oh definitely, but making those changes requires funding them. And that’s virtually impossible to get voters to approve in some places currently.
sometimes I’m really glad that I’m European
Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars. Places that can’t fit car traffic, etc. so alternatives are either a requirement or already a higher priority than destroying existing infrastructure to make it fit.
People in dense cities who only drive are car brained. People who live where there are zero other options are simply getting to the store or to work the only way they can.
People who live where there are [legitimately] zero other options – i.e., actually rural – are a negligible minority. 80% of the population has no excuse, and trying to “whatabout the other 20%” is a bad-faith argument.
The majority of the USA lives in what is considered rural suburbs. Aka the nearest place for work is more than 10 miles.
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/24/average-commute-distance-us-map
That’s a lie. Why are you lying?
Suburbs count as urban, not rural. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html
I literally provided you data that shows that the majority of workers drive more than 10+ miles…most people are not in the middle of cities. Period. Stop trying to make it sound like the majority of the usa is in dense cities.
I mean…the census can define whatever it wants to define, but the rest of us still have to live in the real world.
Sure, you can call my satellite suburban neighborhood “urban”. But it’s 3 miles of twisting, turning roads just to reach the nearest convenience store. The nearest bus stop would be at least 7 miles away.
Maybe we shouldn’t rely solely on the Census Bureau in this regard? Perhaps a transportation authority of some sort would be able to provide better measuring stick for this particular discussion?