20% of a city not having a car sounds pretty typical, and from that data looks average. The wealthiest cities seem to correlate to not having cars, with San Francisco leading. The smaller towns on that list, and especially the ones in the Midwest and South are anywhere from single digit to 20%, with Cleveland having the highest number. So what's your point?
Edit: the whole point of my reply was to say that mass transit is effective in dense, wealthy cities. In the Midwest and South those same sentiments will not work because our highest density is in the middle of the city. The farther you go out is quickly drops off. Given that, it makes sense to make cars cheaper and easier to maintain for people there, while focusing on mass transit in areas where it will work. Unfortunately, in areas like SF (where I currently live) it's NIMBYs who get in the way and waste everyone's time while acting like they support mass transit expansion.
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.
Also, 20% is unusually high. Nationwide it’s about 8.7% and that’s heavily influenced by NYC. Excluding just NYC and that number falls closer to 7%.
PS: It’s really region specific but in general the wealthy are more likely to own a car in their area but different areas don’t have anything close to the same breakdown. https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income.... Just look at El Paso vs San Jose on the bottom graph.
>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.
Edit: the whole point of my reply was to say that mass transit is effective in dense, wealthy cities. In the Midwest and South those same sentiments will not work because our highest density is in the middle of the city. The farther you go out is quickly drops off. Given that, it makes sense to make cars cheaper and easier to maintain for people there, while focusing on mass transit in areas where it will work. Unfortunately, in areas like SF (where I currently live) it's NIMBYs who get in the way and waste everyone's time while acting like they support mass transit expansion.