Those who oppose sprawl have not yet offered an economical alternative

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by rabbit33

So, what? You think someone just waves a wand and behold! Cheap efficient fast public transport!

Show even one example of a mass transit system that does not require enormous subsidies to keep operating.

Hong Kong's Mass Transit Railway — but that's because it gets to collect rents from buildings built on land the corporation owns around its stations and atop its storage yards. I think Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit Railway does the same.

AFAIK, no transit agency in the US is allowed to do this. They should be IMO.

My suspicion is that Paris' RATP (Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiennes – Paris Autonomous Transport System) earns income from operating charter services elsewhere. I've seen charter buses here in Philadelphia that list their owner as "RATP Group."

[BarefootDiabetic]

Originally Posted by Avondalist

I do think sprawl has hidden costs, but these are mostly social not financial. So I'm on board with greater density. I just don't think density should be pursued in a way that makes housing unaffordable for swathes of the population.

What about children that don't get to play in the woods. I would have hated growing up in a high density area.


Jul 20, 2021 — City children who have daily exposure to woodland have better cognitive development and a lower risk of emotional and behavioral problems, ... Studies have shown that the risk for serious mental illness is generally higher in cities compared to rural areas.