>>1989336>Quit moving goalpostsYou did by insinuating that building housing causes slums. My position hasn't changed, I'm just informing you that single-family housing does not prevent slums.
>Overbuilding housing DOES have consequences.Oh no, the consequences of affordable market-rate housing in desirable areas close to jobs and amenities! The horror! How could anyone want a variety of housing stock to accommodate people in each stage of their lives without forcing them to drive 10 miles just to get groceries! Oh the humanity!
>Pollution in enclosed environments is different than pollution in outside environmentsYes, it's much easier to filter and collect for disposal.
>Outside, weather and topography usually blows off pollution and particulatesInto the rivers and agricultural zones, where it then contaminates the food we eat and the water we drink.
>Why is the air quality in them still so bad thenProvide proof that the air quality in foreign metro stations is still poor even with platform barriers and updated ventilation. Because right now you're taking one example, NYC, and assuming that it applies across the board despite NYC being an incredibly old and underfunded system.
>Not enough has been accomplishedThat's a great argument for providing more and consistent funding for transit agencies so they can make the same improvements other countries have.
>You’re more likely to get lung cancer on a metro than almost anywhere else aside from smokingStrange, US asthma and heart and lung disease rates are climbing, but very few people are riding metro systems. So the exposure has to be coming from somewhere else. Countries that also use metro systems more than the US also aren't experiencing heart and lung disease epidemics. Hm, this air quality map seems to show that cars are driving up the PM2.5 concentration in the air, rather than metro rail. LA and the Inland Empire certainly don't have a metro system that big, but they all drive a lot.
