Easy to say that if you live in a densely populated city with good public transit. Not everyone has the luxury of living close to public transportation or within walking distance of all necessary services they need.
True, but what about people who live in small towns or rural areas. I'm not talking about suburbia--many of those people made conscious decisions to live far away from their work and amenities. Or do we just tell those people they really need to make a sacrifice and move to the city?
I appreciate this perspective, though. I've ridden my bike to work for the last eight years. My family lives in the city (I live not far from where I grew up) and we use public transportation. And I agree with the Economist--this program is really about getting people to buy new cars.
Cars? People still buy those things?
Yes. Why not? They're a tool, just like everything else. My family really enjoys traveling, so we (four of us) own one car. More often than not, it's parked in front of our house. We walk, bike, and bus ourselves around when we can. But it's also nice to be able to leave the city on the weekend and go camping and climbing. Or visit family. Acting as if you are on a higher moral plain because you can't comprehend why people still buy cars doesn't do much to advance the conversation and convince people to rethink some of their lifestyle choices.
That said, as I mentioned, I think this subsidy is a terrible idea.
A car doesn't sound like a very good investment if you never use it. Better to use a car sharing service... although I guess those don't exist in the suburbs.
