• BassTurd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    This might be true in some European countries, but it’s not in the US. You don’t have to be rural to not have public transportation options.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      You don’t have to be rural to not have public transportation options.

      But it does mean the lack of public transportation is illegitimate.

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        How so? It doesn’t exist. I can’t just will it into existence. It legitimately is not an option.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          3 days ago

          That’s a consequence of your and your neighbors’ failure to elect people who would govern properly, not a result of transit or density somehow being inherently non-viable.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Even in suburbia public transport is perfectly viable. You can set up networks of high-frequency stops places decently far apart, so the average person is maybe half a mile from the nearest stop. Then people can use micro-mobility options like scooters to cover that last mile.

      And if there aren’t bike lanes or places for people to safely ride scooters? A city can create those overnight with a few traffic cones. There’s just no political will to do so. When gas is $7 a gallon, that might change.