>While it would be ideal to live in a state of progress such that most folks didn't own nor operate a vehicle
No it wouldn't. It is ideal to live in a state of progress where most "folks" can afford to own and operate a vehicle that allows them to go wherever they want whenever they want and take people with them.
The US has followed this as a guiding principle over the last hundred years and largely succeeded, however the end-state seems to be a built environment where car ownership is not simply a widely enjoyed privilege so much as a de facto requirement to go about the activities of daily living, which feels, at least to me, somehow less free.
I addressed that in my post. In this case I'm using progress to mean accomplishing the same thing with less resources. It's not a good thing on its own, it's a good thing because resources are limited and expending those resources tends to produce pollution.
You aren’t accomplishing the same thing, you are providing less tailored experience and calling it progress because you believe your opinions are progress and any others are regressive. Thanks for proving that
Only that you are not accomplishing the same thing. You are accomplishing something inferior. And please don't make me explain to you how you don't get, by far, the same level of service, the same amount of destinations, 24/7 availability, etc with public transportation than with your car.
When I lived in NYC, the experience of using public transportation was far superior to the experience of driving. I didn't have to purchase and maintain a car, I could read or use my phone during the trip, when I went out with friends I didn't have to worry about a designated driver, I could travel late at night when I would be too tired to drive safely, in the winter I didn't have to spend half the trip in a cold car, my risk of injury during my commute was much lower, etc.
1. Most people do not live in New York. I live in Seattle and driving is not a problem except for an hour at the end of the day.
2. Public transportation comes with its own set of risks. It is up to the individual to determine what they wish. Neither option is “progress” it is a trade off.
If you read back, this discussion was about a scenario where most people don't need to own or operate their own car. That implies that they would live in a place with good public transportation like New York has now.
Arguing over the semantics of the word "progress" is missing the point. There are very real problems with building society to cater to individual private car ownership. Instead building society to cater to public transportation would address those issues. If you see a different way to address those issues than why not present it?
No it wouldn't. It is ideal to live in a state of progress where most "folks" can afford to own and operate a vehicle that allows them to go wherever they want whenever they want and take people with them.