3 ms·

Instead of a train brim full of 1000 passengers, people would rather have 1000 cars speeding through town?

• feedmeseymour 8y ago
  Firstly, 1000 cars on the road doesn't sound like a minor planet crashing through the atmosphere very 30 minutes. Secondly, 1000 passengers on a train isn't replacing 1000 cars, firstly, because the average car has an occupancy greater than 1.0, and secondly, because what trains do is increase the maximum capacity of cities. Find me one city in the US that has trains in and out where that city does not also have extreme traffic problems and huge rush-hour commute times. If trains relieve traffic, that traffic is replaced by new traffic. Trains are just a necessary force for cramming more and more people into an increasingly disgusting place where homelessness will expand, etc. Every US city that caters to continual growth results in the same thing; a stench pit of garbage, crime, human waste and drugs. San Francisco has a hepatitis epidemic so bad that they're literally having to wash the sidewalks of feces. New York smells like a giant garbage dump. London has to coat its buildings with hydrophobic fluid to prevent people from urinating on them. Seattle has homeless encampments in the medians. LA... nothing even needs to be said about LA. Same goes for ATL. Traffic regulates a city's population to something that could be described as reasonably manageable. Due to its lack of fast and good public transport, South Florida has been manageable all these years. Now, it will be ruined by collectivism.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]