Reading past your sarcasm, you’re suggesting that it’s better to have reduced public transit options than investing into them. I’m curious to hear your reasoning to argue that.
Comment on Public transit in Chengdu, China versus Toronto, Canada
TheCleric@lemmy.org 1 day agoDONT BRING NUANCE AND LOGIC TO A SENSELESS FEELINGS-BAITING POST! It doesn’t MATTER the city layout over top of it, the context of rapid and rampant industrialization in China, or something as inconsequential as number of people!
poopkins@lemmy.world 1 day ago
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Having 7.5x the population means having more funds available for building expensive subway lines. Having more population also necessitates more of the transit to be via subway or rail, as opposed to buses which are slower and have other issues, but way cheaper than rail or subway.
Toronto, having less population, invests less in the most expensive solution that’s best for the densest cities, but still also invests in light rail and bus networks.
I was born in a town of <10k. We had buses and nothing else. Capital city of my country has a population of ~300k - has rail and trams in addition to buses. Capital city of the country just north of us a bigger population in the metro area than our entire country - 1.6 million vs 1.3 million. They have metro lines. Slightly over half the population of Toronto, slightly over half the total length of metro lines. Toronto is also building an extra 3 lines in addition to the current 3, nearly doubling total length of lines when it’s done.
Now Chengdu vs Toronto: 7.5x the population, 9x the rail lines (by length). Is Toronto really doing so badly? I would say that the bigger you get with cities, the need for high density transport lines actually rises faster than city growth. Maybe not quadratic, but definitely not linear. n log n maybe?
TheCleric@lemmy.org 1 day ago
No im not. You’re just seeing the issue-as-it-is as binary. I’m saying it’s bad to ignore all context to make a cheap point, even if your point is good. There are a billion ways to make a good point. Why choose a bad one.
poopkins@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s odd to me to take objection to a post making a bad point by making a sarcastic statement that was open to misinterpretation. The thread invites a discourse about building better cities and yet, in classic Lemmy fashion, it’s just about semantics.
TheCleric@lemmy.org 1 day ago
Ugh.
Demand better discourse then. Because bad discourse don’t lead to positive change
pyre@lemmy.world 1 day ago
i don’t understand your reasoning here. are you saying that Toronto hasn’t needed more subway lines than a couple extensions in 15 years? how does the number of people affect the lines? i would think it should affect the number of trains and trips. the lines would be more about where people live and want to go, no?
tomi000@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Its sarcasm
pyre@lemmy.world 1 day ago
i know. I was addressing the point you’re making not the literal text.
tomi000@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Not me