[bluescrn]

Public transit only works in cities. And only in cities where crime is mostly under control.

Many people don't want to live in cities, especially during times of crisis (when they become increasingly dangerous places), and we're living in a seemingly permanent state of crisis.

[bluGill]

97% of the population lives in cites. A suburb is still a city, it just isn't very dense. However most suburbs are dense enough to support good public transit as the few cities that have tried it have proved. In Sweden there are farms that get a bus every hour (which isn't good transit, but since the rest of their network is so good people ride it anyway for their rare trips to farms, and farm kids ride it since they don't have a car - the parents of course will drive)

[zppln]

Ah yes, the brilliant rural public transport network must be why EPA tractors are so popular. :)

[cjblomqvist]

Yes, there are farms in a Sweden that get busses every hour. There are also much more densely places in cities where busses stop going after 6 pm, or you have to book the bus after 6 pm a day in advance.

In general it's not that good. I've lived in Gothenburg for 30 years, the second largest city of Sweden. It takes me 10-15 min to get to work by car (inner city/business district). It would take me 40-60 min by bus. I know a lot of places that are worse.

[slackfan]

The cities and supporting infrastructure are responsible for most of climate change. Abolish cities.

[CaptainZapp]

Try Switzerland, where literally every tiny hamlet is accessible by public transport.

[bluescrn]

There's a big difference between 'accessible by public transport' and 'practical to get to a workplace by public transport'

Most small villages in the UK have some sort of limited bus service, which can be useful for pensioners and other none-working people who need to get to the nearest town/city occasionally, but the services are far too infrequent to be useful if you've got to get somewhere for a specific time on a regular basis.