Definitely not a typo -- I understood "equivocating" to mean "switching between two meanings of a word." Do I have that wrong? Either way, I hear you on the historical argumentation here: a lot of the complaints people have today may have some validity, but are often wholly ahistorical: they are blind to just how much progress we have made in many areas, and how hard fought that progress is.
"Equivocate" does mean that a single speaker/writer/entity uses multiple meanings of a term, but the point is that use is to deceive or make a false argument.
Two people can't equivocate (unless they are working together). In this case sudosysgen and I are using the terms the same way and arguing a point.
And yes, I am arguing that even though I myself live the public/personal transport life being advocated in this thread, I am well aware of the institutional (car companies, traffic departments, etc), social (personal desires and habits) and structural (physical layout) barriers to transforming the transit system in that regard, even if we exclude the constraint "in the lifetime of anyone today". It's hard to make concrete, actionable decisions on the basis of utopianism.
I’m not defending the automobile as some paragon. I’m pointing out the lack of historical perspective, without which it’s hard to evaluate both the impact/value of the automobile and the impact/value of alternatives. A post hoc ergo propter hoc argument rarely leads to insight, much less useful decision.
The animal waste was a huge public health and economic issue, one almost inconceivable today. The automobile unlocked huge human rights and economic values. So you can’t shift modes of transport (people have tried!) without addressing those as well.
And I recognize this even though I prefer a non-automobile lifestyle and have lived in cities with functioning public transport (Melbourne, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, NYC).