My opinion is this author is from a big city - like NYC, or LA - and has never ventured outside his limits to see human be-ings of the heartland already drive only when it's necessary; we already know our neighbors - at least the ones who wish to be known, or we wish to know (think No-You-Aints). We don't need no stinking buses or trains to make us act more humanely.
I wonder if the opposite will become true - people start hating each other more because they're forced to interact with others who play as nicely as they do, which is probably not at all. Familiarity breeds contempt.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you: Get all the lemmings onto buses and trains, and then the terrorist will have an easier/compact target. (I figured I may as well give you a conspiracy theory every now and again to help the less fortunate. You're welcome. I'm just doing my part.)
I like living in a smaller community. I like having clean air and stress-free shopping. I don't like living, as my mom would say, "elbow to arsehole" - so city living isn't for me. No Sir-eee, Bob. Thanks anyway.
Did you know, while researching my current book project this weekend I discovered (or rediscovered?) the word 'ain't' is a contraction of 'I am not'? I did not know that. Did you? It's improper, and grammatically incorrect to say: "Aren't I?" because one doesn't say "I aren't" - the correct grammar is "Aren't you?" or "Aren't we/they?" and "Isn't s/he?" but about 100 years ago, if you wanted to express "I am not" in that fashion, you were to say: "A'n't I?" Or, "Am not I?" which, throughout the years became "ain't" and has since been shunned by English professors and mothers alike. I think the accepted form now is "Am I not?" but I amn't sure.
I still think we should use that word: amn't. It was good enough for my children as they were learning to speak.
"A'n't I correct?"
Enjoy & In Joy