by cube » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 16:00:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '.')..
--only in cities without robust mass transit options which, sadly, includes most of North America. Your blanket assertion of public transit "not" saving fuel (to which I am contending) is certainly not the fault of transit in general, but the dispersed and sprawling environment which it is charged (and unfairly, I might add) with serving.
Thank You emersonbiggins
So there's an agreement that public transit is NOT viable in 80% of where Americans live today This place that we call "suburbia".
Therefore, this is not simply a transportation issue but instead a:
(transportation + living arrangement) issue
So here comes my question:
1) Why does "mainstream" environmentalism keep on advocating using tax dollars to extend public transport out to suburbia when it is inherently NOT viable?
2) Why can't they just tell the truth and say:
"Sorry folks we're going back 100 years. A family of 5 will have to live in a 750 sq ft apartment and nobody will be commuting and further then 20 miles to work."
That's the cube version of the Inconvenient Truth.
//
I'm not against public transit.
What I am against is this delusional fantasy that we can all live in 2,000 sq ft single family homes (with a front and back yard) and all be within 10 minute walking distance to a train station. THAT is what I am against.