Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It is funny how it is the "conservative" supposedly "old ways are the best ways" people who would absolutely riot if you restored the order that we had before 1920 with pedestrians taking precedence over cars.

It’s not funny at all how condescending almost hateful people this comment is to “conservative” viewpoints. Quite an assumption you make.

Rural (>80% conservative) populations cannot function without cars. So yes, they get concerned when government makes it more difficult / expensive to have cars. That said, I don’t think most have an opinion on city transportation. They take trains and buses like everyone else from what I’ve seen.

That said, this article is a fluff piece. For context, these cities had a massive amount of pollution from the horse poop. The argument to allow vehicles was literally to solve the horse issues. More than that, it was also argued in a free society everyone should be free to move as they wish. Horses weren’t even mentioned in this article…

> Rural (>80% conservative) populations cannot function without cars.

Why do you believe that? Nothing prevents small towns to have good public transport, especially between closely related towns. In my country, which still has a good proportion of the population living in villages, it is very common for the villages to have small "buses" (10-20-seat or so) driving around between common destinations between different parts of the village or neighboring villages. These often have somewhat informal routes, since people who use them typically know each other and the driver. Of course, getting kids to school and back can be achieved by similar means.

Then, even relatively small villages often have a train station, which even if offering infrequent service, is typically enough to transport people to a nearby town or city and back - especially for work.

Also, people in these communities are often working in agriculture, so they do have access to larger vehicles that they control or own for the more infrequent situations where they need to transport larger payloads that would be impossible or too hard to transport in buses/trains.

I can tell you don’t live in the US.

Few things:

1. Most European countries are paying 100% more taxes.

2. Europeans have their defense budget (30-40% of US spending) at like 5-10% of spending. The US protects Europe, so…

3. At the end of the day that means countries in Europe have something like 200-300% of the budget for the public over what the US has.

4. The US is very spread out and very wealthy by European standards. There are massive super markets around town which a bus could get to. However, we have 0.5-3 acre yards here. The bus isn’t going to stop at every house, so you’re looking at a 2-3 mile walk to a stop.

5. Why walk and waste time at a bus stop when I can get a car ($5k-100k in price) and drive myself. Saves me hours of waiting a week, totally worth the investment and quality of life boost.

6. The density of homes means the cost of a bus would be astronomical in comparison. Buses around single family homes, when everyone has a car, on a regular basis simply don’t economically make sense. You’d have no one to pick up.

7. Regulations and what not make it a non-option. Many states regulate emissions and what not, which negatively impact the cost-benefit analysis in rural / suburban regions, already running with low number of passengers.

Rural areas account for 14% of the US population. Why should they have veto power over the urban planning and transportation policy in metro areas?

And I’m sorry you feel that the pro-coup, pro-Dobbs, pro-demonizing-gay-people party isn’t as well liked as you feel they’re entitled to be.

> And I’m sorry you feel that the pro-coup, pro-Dobbs, pro-demonizing-gay-people party isn’t as well liked as you feel they’re entitled to be.

Lol wtf?

I’m saying I think it’s wrong to assume rural folk care what people in the city want to do. Most rural people are pro public transit that I’ve met. They just need cars where they are at, so they don’t like the idea of regulating it heavily such that they MUST move to a city.

> Rural areas account for 14% of the US population

Well over 70% of people need cars to transport themselves and others. Public transit is not practical in the suburbs either. Electric cars might and busses work to a degree, but the overwhelming majority of people need vehicles. At least based on the current suburban layout.

>Rural areas account for 14% of the US population. Why should they have veto power over the urban planning and transportation policy in metro areas?

They shouldn't. And neither should the urban planners have veto power of the planning and transportation policy of rural areas. Yet in my experience, these conversations never stop at "I want my urban area to be less car focused". It always seems to extend to "I can't wait until we ban cars everywhere"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com