[estebank]

The thing that continues to happen is that people living in rural towns think that cities changing their mobility priorities to decenter cars is a personal affront.

People asking to properly account for the negative externalities of car ownership can be construed as a war on cars through taxation, or as a removal of a subsidy. The only difference is framing.

[slothtrop]

> The thing that continues to happen is that people living in rural towns think that cities changing their mobility priorities to decenter cars is a personal affront.

Look at the context, OP at the top of the comment tree. They are explicit in asking for a ban, not merely making alternatives more attractive.

[concordDance]

A big factor is that the urban population is much larger and tends to vote for things that make sense in their context, but any laws would also apply outside it.

So those in the countryside might be badly effected by a car ban imposed by urbanites.

It's a similar effect to the way policies tend to get made that are good for the middle class but bad for the poor.

[epistasis]

This is exactly reversed, people in cities bend over backwards to adapt laws to work for people in rural areas, fund massive infrastructure efforts for rural areas, etc.

Why do we have such good and extensive roads in rural areas with such tiny tax bases? Because cities pay for it. Telephone services, electricity, broadband... all these are hugely expensive and inefficient in rural areas and need to be funded by the productivity of cities, which we gladly do.

Meanwhile rural areas have outsize weight in legislative bodies, and often make explicit laws banning cities from running in that they want to.

[concordDance]

I take it you're American? (Pretty much no one else days "we" to include anyone they're talking to)

[estebank]

>> Why do we have such good and extensive roads in rural areas with such tiny tax bases? Because cities pay for it.

> I take it you're American? (Pretty much no one else days "we" to include anyone they're talking to)

I can't think of any country (that has a rural area) where the statement wouldn't be true (although I could picture a counter example where the road infrastructure on specific rural areas is paid through export taxes and not city surplus, just none come immediately to mind).

[epistasis]

Well this is generally a US focused site, though if we are getting more input internationally here these days that would make me very happy.

[estebank]

That problem goes both ways and it is wrong headed whenever a single solution is imposed on the whole.

I've seen for example NY politics around transportation, where people that live in the city predominantly use public transport, but any attempt at traffic calming or providing more space for people "at the expense of cars" is an uphill battle because people from surrounding areas predominantly drive into the city. The irony being that following a "park and ride" model would make the city more appealing, including for those that must drive.

Having a bus coming every 5 to 10 minutes in some random place in Nebraska is never gonna happen, but not having that in a city like Seattle, San Francisco or even Los Angeles is ridiculous.

[DoneWithAllThat]

The thing that continues to happen is urban residents with limited understanding of the world outside their bubble think a future without cars is anything but a laughably naive fantasy driven by an entirely imaginary utopian ideal.

[estebank]

A future with significantly reduced car traffic in cities? It's perfectly possible. Cars will never completely disappear, only someone that hasn't thought about the problem or that is building a straw man would say that.

Car ownership in the US is ~90% (more than one per adult). In The Netherlands it is ~50%. They still have a car per family for longer trips, but they don't need them for every trip, so they use them significantly less.

[TheGRS]

I would venture that if people actually tried living in a neighborhood that has ample foot traffic access they would love it. You don't need to be in the "city" proper, just a neighborhood with some corner store and a public park nearby. This is not a wild concept to implement at the city planning level at all.

[Avshalom]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_S...

That bubble is 80% of the country.

[TheGRS]

Hey that 20% is what they call "real America".

[seryoiupfurds]

Getting around without a car is perfectly enjoyable if you live in the right neighborhood in the city.

The war on cars is mostly about building more neighborhoods like that.

[epistasis]

Or even legalizing a neighborhood like that.

The reason we dont have walkable neighborhoods is that we outlaw them nearly everywhere. Trying to build one requires not only planning and getting the money but changing the law where you try to build it.