4 ms·
It’s not a new or controversial statement. Not only personal transports, but every transport of any type of goods are shorter and more efficient. As a corollary
by Ma8ee 3y ago
It’s not a new or controversial statement. Not only personal transports, but every transport of any type of goods are shorter and more efficient. As a corollary to that less land is used for roads (per capita). Less land is used for dwellings when apartments are stacked on top of each other. This also make heating and cooling more efficient.
- BirAdam 3y agoAll true, but cities are also far warmer, noisier, light polluting, cause more acute poising of their local environment, cost more to live in, and usually have higher crime rates. As for cost of support… that’s iffy. Many cities don’t allow 18 wheelers, so they have to use local distributors and put everything on box trucks. Each time this happens, more lumpers are involved, more vehicles are involved, costs get driven higher, and the distribution centers eat up land. Just saying.
- Ma8ee 3y agoAll of the things you mentioned are less per capita in the city than in the country side. Agrarian living gives the impression of less environmental impact because the impact is more spread out. Outside the cities those lumper trucks are each replaced with many dozens of SUVs or pickup trucks when every family does the distribution themselves from the supermarkets. Just saying. And the reason it is more expensive to live in a city is because more people find it more attractive to live there. That, and that fuel is subsidised and agrarian roads are disproportionally paid by taxpayers.