Making public transit clean, reliable, and safe are important goals, and very achievable goals too. There are many examples around the world.

But few transit advocates are saying that we have to 100% eliminate all personal vehicles. They will remain an important part of the overall transportation infrastructure for the foreseeable future.

It would also be folly to advocate for eliminating all rural living. There are many necessary activities that take place in rural communities, such as agricultural production, that will remain critical to society.

The thing that I see most transit advocates targeting is excessive suburban sprawl, communities that aren't really countryside, but also aren't dense enough to be urban. They sprawl on and on for miles, with nothing to distinguish them, often simply the same tract home design repeated with only minor differences over and over and over. I am sure there are some folks that prefer these communities, but I also think that many residents would prefer wither moving into a less dense rural setting or a more dense urban setting, and many of those left that like the density would still prefer that the way these communities are structured be changed.

Fair comment. I'm very much opposed to the "Croydonisation" of the countryside in the UK

With rising pressure to house hundreds of thousands of new arrivals every year, there are no easy answers. Do we make miserable dense cities even denser? Do we build new sprawling, characterless "garden cities"? Do we build around historic countryside towns and ruin their character?

Personally, I'd rather see net immigration returned to the manageable levels it was prior to New Labour (who doubled net immigration) and the Conservatives (who further tripled net immigration).

In recent years of high net immigration our economic productivity has fallen, our public services have worsened and the prospect of owning a house has slipped away from our children and grandchildren. We need a political re-think on this issue, as opposed to trying to patch over the inevitable environmental and congestion related issues.

I haven't yet been to the UK, so I can't comment directly on the state of things there. But I grew up in a rural town in USA, and I have traveled to communities large and small across the USA and other countries, including one of my favorites to visit- Japan. In my experience, dense cities don't have to be miserable to the majority of people. I still live in what would be considered a small city, though not nearly as small as the one I grew up in. The city I live in could definitely see significant growth and increased density while maintaining the qualities that make it unique and special. But it would take a lot more planning and vision than what I have seen from current political leaders.

I meant to add that of course there will always be those who prefer small rural communities, and that I think we we build more densely ( in an intelligent, thoughtful way) in the urban areas, we can easily meet the demand for housing while continuing to preserve plenty of small towns for those who prefer that. Of course, I can't say what the situation is for sure in the UK exactly, but here in the US, there are plenty of small towns that are slowly shrinking and disappearing. Many of these communities had much higher populations 50 or 100 years ago, and in another 50 or 100 years may not even exist as a community anymore.

You have to be joking. Having blown my nose on many subways, tissue turning black is absolutely baloney. Either you have a truly horrible disease or you're lying. I've raised two kids very successfully in a city with no car.

Can def echo that sentiment in London, how do you avoid the commute? Work from home? Found a job outside of London? Job opportunity/pay inequality is often the biggest constraint for most people.

I think it might boil down to the „anecdotes vs data“ problem and how “lived experience” is sometimes treated as if it were some universal truth.