[periphrasis]

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.

[lettergram]

> 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.

[tpmoney]

>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"