SIGH okay, I’m not even getting into this argument here because I’ve had it too often. Usually who have this opinion either A) Live in a city with great public transportation or B) Live in a country in a place like Europe who have no concept of how rural America is with how little transit there is.
Long story short. The “EVs are not a solution” is a very very basic take because no one is saying they are a solution - they are a stopgap that reduces emissions in the short term while we push over the next century to build our more public transit. Tiny tiny towns that have 300 people are not going to get a rail line, or even a bus line before their neighboring cities, and yes I mean cities of 200k that don’t even have a rail/bus line. Yes, the “We should build more rail” is obvious. It’s the obvious best solution. However, unless you have a few trillion dollars lying around, it aint going to happen in the next decade whereas EVs can jump in now.
In the Midwest town I referenced above like I said there is nothing, not even a gas station in the town, the nearest store is 20 miles away. There are no bus lines, there is no rail, there is nothing. I’ve posted this question to others and they all break down to “Well they should have transport”. Yes! They SHOULD. But they don’t, and government is completely unwilling to build anything. So that argument falls apart to just “Well I think EVs are bad” without seeing the nuance that maybe there are some good places for them.
That’s it, that’s all I’m going to reply to this, unless you can tell me you have lived in a town <500 people in the middle of nowhere America, then I don’t think your point of view is completely relevant. And this is coming from a massive train nerd who is pushing for more rail everywhere.
There, I had the entire argument for you, we can skip the next 2 hours where you try to tell me my points are all terrible and that we should have mass transit everywhere. I know.
God I feel your pain. The last person I try to say that not having a car in a rural area is impossible. Basically wanted to just force move everyone to the city. When I asked about farms he said the farmers could stay but all of their services had to move to the city. Yeah …
I’ll say I’m about halfway to “just live in cities”, but I’ll explain why. I come from the Midwest, the breadbasket, the most lucious soil on the planet and the perfect place for agriculture. My entire life I saw the best farmland paved over for walmarts, stripmalls, and endless suburban sprawl. For those who live in areas like that, even towns of 15k, they think they live rurally, but they’re really wanting to live an urban life claiming they’re rural. So for those people, yeah, I do say we should give up the notion of them being rural and move to an actual city with actual city life.
Let the actual rural folk do what they do best, and let them live rural lives, and give that land over to those who want to work it. We don’t need more big box retail taking up good farmland.
…the nearest store is 20 miles away. There are no bus lines, there is no rail, there is nothing. I’ve posted this question to others and they all break down to “Well they should have transport”. Yes! They SHOULD.
But should they? At that point what mass transit would be economically feasible? I would think even a bus at that rate of ridership would be a waste.
I’m a fan of always saying yes to that. Mass Transit (and most public works projects) are very much “If you build it, they will come”. If people have a convenient way to move around that’s an alternative, they’ll use it. Even a small town like that, a bus that stopped there and a few other towns every couple of hours could be used for people commuting to work, going out in the evening, or just frequent trips to nearby towns. The hard part is convincing leaders that there will be a demand for something that the area has never had before - but the demand always comes.
SIGH okay, I’m not even getting into this argument here because I’ve had it too often. Usually who have this opinion either A) Live in a city with great public transportation or B) Live in a country in a place like Europe who have no concept of how rural America is with how little transit there is.
Long story short. The “EVs are not a solution” is a very very basic take because no one is saying they are a solution - they are a stopgap that reduces emissions in the short term while we push over the next century to build our more public transit. Tiny tiny towns that have 300 people are not going to get a rail line, or even a bus line before their neighboring cities, and yes I mean cities of 200k that don’t even have a rail/bus line. Yes, the “We should build more rail” is obvious. It’s the obvious best solution. However, unless you have a few trillion dollars lying around, it aint going to happen in the next decade whereas EVs can jump in now.
In the Midwest town I referenced above like I said there is nothing, not even a gas station in the town, the nearest store is 20 miles away. There are no bus lines, there is no rail, there is nothing. I’ve posted this question to others and they all break down to “Well they should have transport”. Yes! They SHOULD. But they don’t, and government is completely unwilling to build anything. So that argument falls apart to just “Well I think EVs are bad” without seeing the nuance that maybe there are some good places for them.
That’s it, that’s all I’m going to reply to this, unless you can tell me you have lived in a town <500 people in the middle of nowhere America, then I don’t think your point of view is completely relevant. And this is coming from a massive train nerd who is pushing for more rail everywhere.
There, I had the entire argument for you, we can skip the next 2 hours where you try to tell me my points are all terrible and that we should have mass transit everywhere. I know.
God I feel your pain. The last person I try to say that not having a car in a rural area is impossible. Basically wanted to just force move everyone to the city. When I asked about farms he said the farmers could stay but all of their services had to move to the city. Yeah …
I’ll say I’m about halfway to “just live in cities”, but I’ll explain why. I come from the Midwest, the breadbasket, the most lucious soil on the planet and the perfect place for agriculture. My entire life I saw the best farmland paved over for walmarts, stripmalls, and endless suburban sprawl. For those who live in areas like that, even towns of 15k, they think they live rurally, but they’re really wanting to live an urban life claiming they’re rural. So for those people, yeah, I do say we should give up the notion of them being rural and move to an actual city with actual city life.
Let the actual rural folk do what they do best, and let them live rural lives, and give that land over to those who want to work it. We don’t need more big box retail taking up good farmland.
I agree
Honest question here.
But should they? At that point what mass transit would be economically feasible? I would think even a bus at that rate of ridership would be a waste.
I’m a fan of always saying yes to that. Mass Transit (and most public works projects) are very much “If you build it, they will come”. If people have a convenient way to move around that’s an alternative, they’ll use it. Even a small town like that, a bus that stopped there and a few other towns every couple of hours could be used for people commuting to work, going out in the evening, or just frequent trips to nearby towns. The hard part is convincing leaders that there will be a demand for something that the area has never had before - but the demand always comes.