>>1269708Let me just put this out there. It's not the fundamental idea of public transit that I oppose, just the (((communist))) version. If you privately fund your public transit and don't steal any money or use any threats of (((coercive force))), I have zero problems with it.
>Cars scale linearly, while rail and bus scale logarithmic.No. Unless you're being a faggot and doing your analysis based on capacity per mile traveled per unit area of footprint.
>You don't need to have mass transit to the door. It's sufficient to do that between central places and then do the last stretch individualized.but 99% of travel is door to door. The travel needs are too dispersed for centralized public transit to work. Let's look at the possibilities:
1. Absurdly low population density and large distances: Not enough demand to be efficient by any reasonable metric.
2. Absurdly high population density and large travel distances: Enough demand, and reasonably efficient by reasonable metrics.
3. Absurdly low population density and medium distances: Not enough demand to be efficient by any reasonable metric.
4. Absurdly high population density and medium travel distances: Enough demand, and maybe/maybe-not reasonable.
5. Absurdly low population density and small distances: Enough demand, but inefficient by any reasonable metric.
6. Absurdly high population density and small travel distances: Enough demand, but inefficient by any reasonable metric.
Cont.
