• HiddenLayer5@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    But rural places can be made less car dependent. And doing will only help those already limited because a car is a significant expense. After all rural places have existed for all of human history and cars have only existed for about 100 years.

    Same channel weighs in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_n0CkKZVBk

    What rural towns were like before the rise of cars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9KNax1QpD4

    And finally, if a rural person really has no other choice, having more transit in cities isn’t actually stopping them from owning a car. I don’t understand the notion that we shouldn’t build more transit in cities, where the majority of the population lives and cutting down car dependency for those people will go long way toward reducing our ecological footprint, simply because we can’t eliminate the need for cars for every single person. Even if the city is completely car-free, there can be park and rides at the edge of a city where people in rural areas can drive to and transfer onto transit. It will mean less driving for them saving gas, and mostly on not very congested peripheral roads as opposed to fighting in downtown traffic so it would even probably be faster overall.