Most NYE parties are so overrated.

Invite some friends over who want to do something similar. Everyone spends $40 or so on their own alcohol and some food to share. Perfect night and you can be in bed at whatever time you’d like.

Generally it’s fine to drive in any winter weather except for ice and freezing rain. Avoid that at all costs.

If it’s just snowy and slushy, then drive slow, don’t accelerate or brake hard on a turn.

Midwest rule of thumb… Drive like your grandma is in the passenger seat with a crock pot full of chili in her lap. You don’t want her to spill it so no sudden movements.

From the beginning, you have missed my point. I never said transit doesn’t lower emissions. My main point, is that transit is a very small part of people’s overall emissions. So no it is not “the presence of transit” that predicts low emissions. Moreso it’s “the lack of wealth that predicts low emissions.” Irregardless of how they transport themselves

You’re getting emotional, and not understanding anything I’m saying.

What about anything I said would make you assume I think suburban lifestyle doesn’t harm the environment?

But that doesn’t even get to my main point. Irregardless of metro access, someone single living in a studio apartment making $45k per year, will never match the total emissions or carbon offset or whatever you call it, to the family with combined income of $500k living in a 6 bedroom house and 3 cars. Groceries, vacations , clothes. All produce emissions. Even if the entire family uses the metro, it will do nothing for the rest of their output.

Exceptions to not refute the general consensus. Living in Capitol hill or Manhattan with a car can be extremely inconvenient between street parking, cost of private parking, and downtown traffic.

Plus everything that you will want to take your car to (whether it’s dinner or work) will also require a high cost to drive the vehicle.

But the wealthiest neighborhoods, like parts of PG county, Potomac, Great falls, etc., will never have those residents using the metro even if it’s somewhat close to their house.

It would be more of a hassle to drive to the metro, park, get on the metro, back on the metro, car, then drive home.

The presence of a metro/bus stops/ public transit of any sort indicates lack of wealth. Because overwhelmingly, the users of public transit are poorer or just more dense overall.

But what happens to the majority of people when they aren’t a broke 23 year old anymore? They buy a house in the burbs and get a nice car to go with it. No more metro, and their emissions go up

The liquor store comment was just showing that the map more closely correlates to the presence of wealth, not the presence of a metro. So I said you could also say “the presence of liquor stores drops carbon emissions”, “the presence of check cashing stores drops carbon emissions”, etc. None of those things are the real cause of lower emissions, it’s the lack of wealth which means they aren’t big players in consumerism.

You’re missing my point ding dong. My point is that more wealth equals more emissions. Less wealth equals less things like cars, big houses, boats, clothes, etc. I’m saying that the metro is a very small part of peoples overall carbon emissions. Yes if someone takes the train over their car, their personal emissions will go down. But people with lots of wealth (even if they take the metro) will totally negate that benefit with the other things they’re doing and buying.

I understand what you’re saying. But I do not think that public transit is a huge driver for lowering overall emissions and this graph does not prove it.

I guarantee that you could do an overlay of this map with a map based on concentration of liquor stores, and the color scheme would be the same.

Does that also mean that when you put more liquor stores in an area that carbon emissions will go down? Or is there another explanation?

You may have missed my point. Those two can exist at the same time. I was saying that wealth is the greater predictor for emissions because even if you put up a Potomac metro stop, wealthy people are not going to use it. Even if they did use it, that would probably only help with a very small portion of their total emissions.

Things like vacations, frequently updating their vehicles, clothes, etc., would be a greater emissions factor than whether or not someone rides the metro.

Most people don’t ride the metro because it’s environmentally friendly. They do it because it’s either convenient for them, or they don’t have money for a vehicle.

So wouldn’t it be safe to say that it has everything g to do with wealth and nothing with transit?

Wealthy people buy and use more stuff, but they also don’t need transit because they have a Porsche in the garage.