So basically destroy rural populations which are also the source of all our food? Unless I’m mistaken in that cities are actually the source of all life sustaining industries.

Enough with the hyperbole. Discouraging car use won’t destroy rural populations; it would improve the QoL of urban ones.

You can’t survive in a rural area without a car

The parent said:

> Maybe, similarly discouraging car y use and encouraging walking is a good thing.

That policy won’t take cars away from the rural populace.

Is discouraging synonymous with destroying in your lexicon?

Most people don’t live in rural areas and most deadly accidents don’t occur in rural areas either. Discouraging car use in cities has next to no effect on rural populations.

Approx 19.3% of Americans live in rural areas, and a higher proportion of rural residents are in poverty. Therefore, measures to discourage car use are likely to disproportionally adversely impact some of the poorest in society. Unless those measures somehow completely avoid affecting rural populations.

I’d support city only measures like a city income tax to fund public transportation and conversion of stroads to pedestrian friendly streets. But what is likely to happen are general taxations on car users such as fuel duty and onerous regulations which push up the cost of car ownership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_Stat...

You’re making a lot of assumptions as to what “discouraging car use” entails.

We both agreed that rural areas would not be a good place to target such policies, so why assume I was saying we should push policies that are overly broad?

How would you discourage car use? Taxes?

Realistically? Changing planning rules that require tons of extra parking, wide roads, and overbuilt freeways.

Current policies induce demand and make it difficult to promote transit and other modes.