The future is dense, walkable cities.

[BrightShinyGirl]

Great, now apply that to Westlake. Or Arrowhead. Or Big Bear.

And of course your idea works to get fresh produce from LA to Castaic by train without needing any cars or trucks to do it, right?

Again, read my lips here, your idea is built on simplistic principles and only seems plausible because you're a simpleton without any real understanding of the larger picture/world.

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.

 

[Paul_Chance]

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/americans-are-less-likely-than-before-covid-19-to-want-to-live-in-cities-more-likely-to-prefer-suburbs/#:~:text=About one-in-five U.S.,rural areas is virtually unchanged.

Good article.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

dudly, I'm not the one trying to create something that cannot exist. I'm only pointing out, while using your own words to do so, that it cannot exist.

If you yourself (or ninnygirl as the case may be) say that it can't work because not everyone can live there, why the fuck are you continuing to insist that it can work? Your own words defeat you.

Not everyone can afford to own a car, therefore car suburbs cannot exist.

 

[AlexBailey]

Not everyone can afford to own a car, therefore car suburbs cannot exist.

Right. The costs of owning, maintaining, insuring, fueling, and parking a car can take a significant part of someone’s income. Letting go of that encumbrance can make the rest of life much more affordable.

Vehicle expenses can cost nearly as much as housing. Being able to walk to work and other activities and services can save a lot of time and money.

 

[icanhelp1]

dudly, I'm not the one trying to create something that cannot exist. I'm only pointing out, while using your own words to do so, that it cannot exist.

If you yourself (or ninnygirl as the case may be) say that it can't work because not everyone can live there, why the fuck are you continuing to insist that it can work? Your own words defeat you.

Is there any form of public transportation that isn’t losing a bucket load of money?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Right. The costs of owning, maintaining, insuring, fueling, and parking a car can take a significant part of someone’s income. Letting go of that encumbrance can make the rest of life much more affordable.

Vehicle expenses can cost nearly as much as housing. Being able to walk to work and other activities and services can save a lot of time and money.

And minimum parking requirements make it harder to build affordable urban housing.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Is there any form of public transportation that isn’t losing a bucket load of money?

We don’t expect the fire department to turn a profit. Why should expect transit to?

 

[HisArpy]

Is there any form of public transportation that isn’t losing a bucket load of money?

Transportation of any kind is, and always has been, a losing proposition financially.

 

[icanhelp1]

We don’t expect the fire department to turn a profit. Why should expect transit to?

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.

 

[HisArpy]

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.

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.

 

[HisArpy]

Not everyone can afford to own a car, therefore car suburbs cannot exist.

Not everyone can afford to buy food, therefore food cannot be allowed to exist.

See how dumb your ideas are?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Not everyone can afford to buy food, therefore food cannot be allowed to exist.

See how dumb your ideas are?

I'm just extending your logic about mass transit to cars.

 

[AlexBailey]

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.

You’re losing it.

You can’t grasp the concept, can’t follow the conversation, and you can’t explain yourself.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

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.

 

[HisArpy]

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?

15 minute cities is a talking point being promoted by unintelligent worms who think that the world mirrors their fantasies.

You cannot walk from Simi Valley to Los Angeles in 15 minutes. Yet without roads and highways you cannot get food from the warehouses to markets. You also cannot get the employees TO those warehouses and markets, not even with mass transit because the sheer number of people required to be moved cannot be accommodated by the system itself.

If the freeways are jammed because of the number of people on them, the transit system will be even more jammed when you add those people to the riders already using the system. And you cannot expand the system without making it "wider" with multiple tracks running parallel. Which in essence turns the light rail into a replica of the freeway except you won't have cars and traffic jams, you'll have trains standing still waiting to get to the station to discharge passengers.

The entire point is stupid because it's not well thought out. Instead it attempts to extrapolate a 5 block radius around an apartment complex situated in the center of a major metro area into an entire worldview. Then it tries to bootstrap that into an idea which encompasses the globe which isn't even close in design or functionality as the apartment complex being used as a model.

Reality just doesn't work like that and anyone who thinks it does is a ninny.

 

[HisArpy]

You’re losing it.

You can’t grasp the concept, can’t follow the conversation, and you can’t explain yourself.

I'm not the one trying to justify stupidity. That you have to go so far off topic to try and make yourself feel better only proves that I handed your ass to you once again.

 

[HisArpy]

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.

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.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

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.

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?

 

[AlexBailey]

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.

 

[HisArpy]

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.

It CANNOT work if it relies on outside resources. It CANNOT work if those resources must be obtained/processed/transported by workers who cannot live where that is done. (For instance, no one can live in an oilfield where the fuel is produced for use to power the buses and electrical plants needed to produce the electricity to run the blasted trains you think will save the world.)

Further, take all those people who are currently commuting to various jobs elsewhere across town and limit them to a 15 minute radius from where they live. How many people have you removed from the street when all you did was add MORE PEOPLE to the radius area because they aren't leaving to go to work? Instead they're all walking on the sidewalks at the same time to go to their "within 15 minutes" jobs.

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. It's not progress, it's stupidity because rats in a box do not produce the things they need to survive nor can they leave to go get those things. Instead they just turn into cannibals.

That's where your progress leads you no matter how much you try to deny it - self immolation.

 

[HisArpy]

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?

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.

 

[TrailerHitch]

That’s the way to win a debate?

Well when some can't debate me here they throw homophobic slurs at me. Fuck you seems less controversial.

 

[TrailerHitch]

We don’t expect the fire department to turn a profit. Why should expect transit to?

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.

 

[AlexBailey]

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.

More paranoid shit you’re making up from whole cloth:

“What you're proposing is FORCING everyone to live their lives your way.”

Why do you jump to this conclusion ? You’re voicing your own fears.


Go see someone. Honestly

 

[HisArpy]

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

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.