1) It's funny that you refuse to directly answer the questions I had asked. It does seem you are in favor of car-free zones, and are in favor of wiping out whole cities little by little in ways that aren't economically justified...but don't quite want to admit it.
2) Nope, I sure said exactly that. In the US -- and given all the nitpicking on here, yeah, I should have qualified the statement, and included all sorts of disclaimers, to note the US context -- most public transit isn't economically justifiable. When people talk about it, the main question is, How much money are they talking about wasting? You have a few large cities where it works, and the Boston/NYC/DC corridor and a couple similar. And, you have people all sorts of other places looking to waste huge sums of money, such as high-speed rail in CA. In some cases they don't even pretend that the numbers work, such as in CA where pretty much everyone admits that high speed rail is a huge boondoggle, but some people want to do it anyway.
IF you require that a project not be a boondoggle good at providing union jobs, and actually make economic sense, you're basically killing most proposals, right there. In CA terms, no high speed rail; MAYBE light rail to replace some of LA's dedicated bus lanes, which is a much less grandiose thing and one that would make economic sense. ASSUMING that LA can do it without wasting so much money that the efficiency gains from the light rail aren't overshadowed by the waste and corruption that tends to go with these things.
1. I support gradual urban redevelopment run by city councils. Notice that I've never, ever proposed programs run by the federal government or forced implementation in areas where it's not viable. Also, I've never mentioned high-speed rail (until now). That's you, again, arguing about something I've never mentioned.
2. Thanks for the clarification. For a moment there, it looked like you were saying two completely opposite things.
Edit: punctuation error.
Edited by CerebralVortex - 6/7/13 at 8:01am