5 ms·
We shouldn't have to completely upend our lives to move to the small handful of major cities that provide the infrastructure to exist comfortably without a car.
by mynameisbilly 5mo ago
We shouldn't have to completely upend our lives to move to the small handful of major cities that provide the infrastructure to exist comfortably without a car. At least in the US, your options are limited to NYC, Chicago, Boston, and maybe a few others (Seattle/SF). And even then, the hard set default in these major cities is car ownership EXCEPT for NYC.
- iamnothere 5mo agoHow is Bumfuck MT, population 250, going to support the infrastructure to live comfortably without a car?
- omegabravo 5mo agoas someone who lives there, they're not. Nor is that what is being suggested, it's critiquing car-centric cities where not having a car is needlessly difficult. Population 250 isn't going to ban cars, but the city may discourage driving and provide ample facilities for those who don't have a car.
- iamnothere 5mo agoWell I do agree that city living should not require a car, although cars should be an option for those who need them. I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect rural areas to discourage car use. Not everyone in rural communities has a car, but for many they are essential.