> That hammer swings both ways - infrastructure costs substantially less in denser, more urban areas.
And you see the savings. Since suburbs pay for their infrastructure....
> Hell, here in Seattle the per-mile operating cost for buses is three times higher in suburbs than it is in urban areas.
You're confusing your numbers. The operating costs-per mile (consumables, employee salaries, capital costs, maintenance) should be roughly the same to lower in suburbia (slightly higher mpg and lower maintenance because not as much stop and go). The ridership is probably lower, but that's not operating costs.
Then again, it's mostly dumb to run buses in suburbia. We do it because urbanites think that doing so benefits them and/or because they insist on "regional funding" and suburbia says "if we're paying, you're serving us too".
If the cost of buses in suburbia bothers you, don't do it, and don't ask them to pay for urban transit either. (Take all you want at the fare box.)
> the sheer amount of pollutants those 2 cars in your garage are pumping into the air
Cars in the garage don't pump anything into the air.
The pollution costs are in the noise. And suburbia pays for gas.
> This is well before we get to the gigantic amounts of money we have to pay to support the roads you insist on clogging up.
If we're talking about suburbia's roads, those roads are paid for by gas taxes and developer fees and "donations" in the suburbs. (I've been involved in some development. The land for roads is typically "donated" by the developer, which means that the home owners actually pay for it. The roads themselves are built by developers.)
If you're talking about urban roads, shut them down and do transit your way. Since you're paying, do as you will.
And no, you can't have gas tax money if you're not serving cars.
> Urbanism is not solely the idea of high-rises and towers of glass and steel, it is also a large part about walkable neighborhoods with a central focus on mass transit.
It's interesting that "new urbanists" seem to think that live-work and the like is new. It isn't; it's actually quite old. More to the point, one can find it in most major cities.
New urbanists come in saying "let me run things and we'll all have free ponys". They don't bother explaining why this time will be different.
I've seen the pitches. They're heavy on the asserted benefits and light on explaining why they'll actually happen, especially given the actual experience.
And you see the savings. Since suburbs pay for their infrastructure....
> Hell, here in Seattle the per-mile operating cost for buses is three times higher in suburbs than it is in urban areas.
You're confusing your numbers. The operating costs-per mile (consumables, employee salaries, capital costs, maintenance) should be roughly the same to lower in suburbia (slightly higher mpg and lower maintenance because not as much stop and go). The ridership is probably lower, but that's not operating costs.
Then again, it's mostly dumb to run buses in suburbia. We do it because urbanites think that doing so benefits them and/or because they insist on "regional funding" and suburbia says "if we're paying, you're serving us too".
If the cost of buses in suburbia bothers you, don't do it, and don't ask them to pay for urban transit either. (Take all you want at the fare box.)
> the sheer amount of pollutants those 2 cars in your garage are pumping into the air
Cars in the garage don't pump anything into the air.
The pollution costs are in the noise. And suburbia pays for gas.
> This is well before we get to the gigantic amounts of money we have to pay to support the roads you insist on clogging up.
If we're talking about suburbia's roads, those roads are paid for by gas taxes and developer fees and "donations" in the suburbs. (I've been involved in some development. The land for roads is typically "donated" by the developer, which means that the home owners actually pay for it. The roads themselves are built by developers.)
If you're talking about urban roads, shut them down and do transit your way. Since you're paying, do as you will.
And no, you can't have gas tax money if you're not serving cars.
> Urbanism is not solely the idea of high-rises and towers of glass and steel, it is also a large part about walkable neighborhoods with a central focus on mass transit.
It's interesting that "new urbanists" seem to think that live-work and the like is new. It isn't; it's actually quite old. More to the point, one can find it in most major cities.
New urbanists come in saying "let me run things and we'll all have free ponys". They don't bother explaining why this time will be different.
I've seen the pitches. They're heavy on the asserted benefits and light on explaining why they'll actually happen, especially given the actual experience.
Goals aren't arguments.