HisArpy
Loose canon extraordinair
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
- Posts
- 42,413
Transportation of any kind is, and always has been, a losing proposition financially.Is there any form of public transportation that isn’t losing a bucket load of money?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Transportation of any kind is, and always has been, a losing proposition financially.Is there any form of public transportation that isn’t losing a bucket load of money?
Property taxes pay for fire and police, they provide a safety umbrella for everyone. Public transportation is paid for in part by taxpayers whether you use it or not. If public transportation was paid for by the people who use it, have at it.We don’t expect the fire department to turn a profit. Why should expect transit to?
Cars are fine as rural transportation. The more private cars we get off city streets the easier it is for trucks to move necessary goods and for emergency vehicles to reach their destinations quickly.
Not everyone can afford to own a car, therefore car suburbs cannot exist.
I'm just extending your logic about mass transit to cars.Not everyone can afford to buy food, therefore food cannot be allowed to exist.
See how dumb your ideas are?
Which totally defeats your proposition the "the future" is "dense, walkable cities."
You can't even stay on your own message. That's how dumb it is.
Dense walkable cities still have streets for tradesmen, deliveries and emergency vehicles. They just have denser housing, protected bike lanes, and more buses and trains. The idea is to get private cars off the road by reducing average travel distance and giving people alternatives to driving. Fewer cars on the road makes driving easier for the essential vehicles that remain.Which totally defeats your proposition the "the future" is "dense, walkable cities."
You can't even stay on your own message. That's how dumb it is.
What an annoying idiot you are.
Do you misunderstand that 15 minute cities exists and that the model is being developed and improved upon outside of your myopic little world?
You’re losing it.
You can’t grasp the concept, can’t follow the conversation, and you can’t explain yourself.
![]()
Dense walkable cities still have streets for tradesmen, deliveries and emergency vehicles. They just have denser housing, protected bike lanes, and more buses and trains. The idea is to get private cars off the road by reducing average travel distance and giving people alternatives to driving. Fewer cars on the road makes driving easier for the essential vehicles that remain.
Making other modes to transit cheaper and easier will certainly reduce private car ownership. The whole point of making cities more walkable is to get cars off the road. Trucks can still drive in from the countryside and tradesmen can still haul their tools around in trucks, they just don't have contend with as much traffic.You cannot reduce travel distance and still have tradesmen and deliveries. They have to come from somewhere so trying to justify your idea on that basis is beyond stupid.
What you're really trying to do is limit ownership of something. Why you want to do that is the key to understanding the fervor you use to promote the idea.
You cannot reduce travel distance and still have tradesmen and deliveries. They have to come from somewhere so trying to justify your idea on that basis is beyond stupid.
What you're really trying to do is limit ownership of something. Why you want to do that is the key to understanding the fervor you use to promote the idea.
You’re an obdurate fool.
This works, it is in use and in development. You seem to be judging it on whether it could be entirely self-sufficient but that’s not the point.
The point is to improve on civic models, to make them better places to live and to reduce, not eliminate, the unnecessary reliance on travel.
You already pointed out how travel is always an expense. Can you not understand that reducing travel will lower the cost of living? That alone is a benefit to many people, but it’s also important for people who want to decrease the harmful effects of fossil fuel use.
The layout is beneficial for localizing the economy and providing jobs and services near those who need them.
There will still be reason to travel and to bring in and export goods. I’m not sure why you think this “defeats” the concept.
“Obdurate.” It’s you to a T. If you don’t know the word look it up, and if you don’t bother you only prove my point.
Making other modes to transit cheaper and easier will certainly reduce private car ownership. The whole point of making cities more walkable is to get cars off the road. Trucks can still drive in from the countryside and tradesmen can still haul their tools around in trucks, they just don't have contend with as much traffic.
Why are you so opposed to giving people the opportunity to walk or bike instead of forcing them to drive everywhere?
Well when some can't debate me here they throw homophobic slurs at me. Fuck you seems less controversial.That’s the way to win a debate?
Geezus, this is the stupidest comment I've seen on here for days. People die without a fire department's protection, no one dies without mass transit. Frankly, I don't care if mass transit makes a profit or not, but it should come close to being self sustaining with user fees.We don’t expect the fire department to turn a profit. Why should expect transit to?
People already HAVE the opportunity to walk or bike.
What you're proposing is FORCING everyone to live their lives your way. A way which only leads to destruction of society as well as the planet.
Pure and simply, you don’t understand the concept.
Where did you invent this from?
“The entire concept is insane because all it does it try to stuff the entire population into small areas and not let them out while calling it progress.”
This one paragraph displays several psychological issues that you are spontaneously voicing that one else has mentioned.
Go see someone. Honestly![]()
Trains and buses transport more people in less space than cars do. The number of people trapped in a typical traffic jam is tiny. It only seems like a lot because cars are so inefficient. One bus takes a dozen car off the road.I understand the concept. You don't understand that it cannot work any more than you cannot understand that if you put a chip on every square on a checker board you cannot move one to an empty square.
You cannot relieve overcrowding by crowding people together. You cannot relieve traffic jams by transferring those individuals into mass transit which must equal the volume of space of the traffic jam. You cannot reduce pollution by increasing the use of energy in areas which usually use less energy during the day while people are at work while still having the same energy requirements in those areas already using energy during the day.
The entire concept is stupid and only gets promoted by those who cannot understand how society functions or what it's needs are. It's an attempt ot explain something very complex and intertwined with simple words and phrases which have no meaning in the larger context. All I've done is point that out. It's you and the ninnygirl who have refused to accept the fallacy inherent in the idea.
The cheaper mass transit is, the more people will use it instead of driving. Fewer people would drive if we eliminated subsidized parking and raised the gas tax to actually cover the cost of road maintenance.Geezus, this is the stupidest comment I've seen on here for days. People die without a fire department's protection, no one dies without mass transit. Frankly, I don't care if mass transit makes a profit or not, but it should come close to being self sustaining with user fees.
If it is subsidized to a greater extent then it isn't cheap at all. It just becomes another tax burden. Come on your seriously aren't this ignorant are you?The cheaper mass transit is, the more people will use it instead of driving. Fewer people would drive if we eliminated subsidized parking and raised the gas tax to actually cover the cost of road maintenance.
So keep transit fees where they are now, but raise the gas tax and registration fees to cover the actual cost of road building and maintenance. I'd be fine with that.If it is subsidized to a greater extent then it isn't cheap at all. It just becomes another tax burden. Come on your seriously aren't this ignorant are you?
Charge EV owners a surcharge on their license equal to the gas tax paid for 15k miles a year of gas use.
If it is subsidized to a greater extent then it isn't cheap at all. It just becomes another tax burden. Come on your seriously aren't this ignorant are you?
Charge EV owners a surcharge on their license equal to the gas tax paid for 15k miles a year of gas use.
Pew Research is pretty sound.Good article.
You don't lower emissions by going EV because the current grid is powered by fossil fuels. That may change but that is the situation today.Do you know how much you and the rest of society pend on taxes for road infrastructure? Some is funded as broad infrastructure but much is paid by fuel tax.
Less traffic lowers the annual cost of road maintenance. Less emissions provide better air quality. Closer services require lower costs for consumer and employee access.
Spending less of your money on transportation means you need less to get bay and can support other parts of the economy.