That is reality in a lot of the world including Europe, China, and South America.
I agree with the sentiment of not generally needing to have a car and fortunately that is the case in most of the world (except the USA)
Compact layouts that enable walking or biking are another alternative.
That’s one of the main reasons that elderly people from the suburbs often move to retirement communities which are designed at pedestrian scale.
Walkable, bikeable cities are human cities.
(And they’re also the kind of cities that mobility aids like scooters can thrive in.)
Plus, look at the Netherlands, geriatric people who've biked their whole lives and maintained good physical shape have no problem continuing to bike.
For elderly people who have trouble pedaling, the answer is an e-bike.
Even for people lucky enough to live in those rare areas where you can walk to a grocery store, it's extremely useful to have access to a car you can fill up with large items.
Well, no surprise there are so few passengers: the bus comes every half an hour! Make it once every two hours, and there will be no passengers at all.
"Every half an hour" is an option for the desperate. Also, that bus is probably stuck with cars when there's heavy traffic, while being slower than cars when there isn't. And it does not go exactly where you want to be. Would _you_ use such a bus service if you weren't forced to due to circumstances?
The answer for shitty public transport offering should not be eliminating public transport offering.
If you have the typical North American rules that make density illegal, even the best public transport won't safe you. In fact, it might be throwing good money after bad money.
I just don't think non-poor people need subsidised Uber-rides nor any other handouts from the local council.
For clarity: the context was for local councils to give money to Uber instead of running a bus service. Which is plausible idea. I just don't think you need to be so specific: give people money, so they can buy goods and services they deem most beneficial (including Uber rides).
Now going one step further: only give the money to poor people. Welfare for rich people is a bit silly.
I'm a regular user of public transport. I don't own a car, don't have a drivers license and call taxi/uber maybe once or twice per year. I am lucky enough to live in a place where that's not just possible, but easy, easier than driving a car. And I'm not poor. I can afford a car, just don't want to have one.
Public transport is not a handout to the poor, it is a service which makes life better for everyone. If yours is so bad only poor people would use it - maybe it's time to fix it.
(I currently live in Singapore, which has excellent public transport.)
My suggestion was conditional: if a city has already decided that Uber is better than public transport, then they should still not give Uber money. But instead, give the money to poor people.
However: public transport only really makes sense when you have enough density.
If you have the typical North American rules that make density illegal, even the best public transport won't safe you. In fact, it might be throwing good money after bad money.
I don't say that density needs to become before public transport. Just the opposite: you need to put transportation in place before people come. But you also need to make density legal before you think about public transport.
I agree, if you're going to provide financial assistance it should go to those in need, but I don't think non-poor people need or want to be saddled with an added expense to replace the public transpiration services they already have and use.
I think there does come a point where a community can decide their public transportation costs more to operate than it's worth, but unless it's consistently losing massive amounts of money it's probably not worth it to take a valuable resource from the public just to save a bit of money. Especially if that community has any desire to grow.
In places where public transport works and is used, I agree.