>New Orleans, Louisiana where 18.8% of households live without cars has a 23.7% poverty rate and a median income of $41,604, that’s well below the national average. Dallas Texas where 10.2% of households live without cars has a 18.9% poverty rate, median income of $52,580, so it’s larger, wealthier, and denser yet has significantly more cars.

Are you suggesting that when poor people get cars, they are better able to drive to work, then make more money? Because that is my take-away from this

No, for one thing many of these people are retired. Anyway, a few poor people making marginally more money isn’t going to move median income, it’s going to show up at the 5th and 10th percentile but largely disappear past the 25th.

So, I am suggesting a car is considered a luxury or unaffordable by large segments of the poor population outside of the largest and richest cities.

Right, which circles back to my main point that the people who are making comments like "cars are a failure", who are usually arguing for mass transit, are not being helpful. What would help the poor in the Midwest and South is cheaper and easier to maintain cars.

That’s well outside of what we where talking about but I think two points are reasonable here.

Poor people who can’t currently afford a car are hardly going to buy a new one, so at best you might start to change things for them a decade from now. Improving transit doesn’t have that delay or all the knock on affects around new car regulations.

Mass transit meanwhile can actually solve the root problem even in rural areas. Hell, America already has mass transit driving past almost every home in America 2 or more commonly 4 times every weekday day for most of the year, their called school busses and they don’t charge their users or cost that much to operate. I am not suggesting we should have free public transit to every home, but it does suggest far more is possible than is currently being done.