> You're the one who dismissed gathering evidence about real usage of streets
One study from 2009 is not enough evidence to base a discussion on. We're both arguing entirely off our preconceived notions here.
> your preferred solution is NOT politically workable.
I'm not sure what solution you're referring to here. Increasing housing density? We both argued for that.
> electrification of cars is proceeding faster than electrification of bus fleets. So even though there are more of them, electrifying cars is actually proving to be politically easier.
That's fine, but it's actually not fine because this does nothing to solve any of the negative externalities of cars except for CO2 emissions. They are still dangerous, loud, extremely wasteful of resources, extremely wasteful of space, and expensive and difficult for individuals to maintain. Plus they still pollute the local environment with burned rubber tires (worn down faster due to greater weight).
> If buses can't be made to work for a particular metro area, then nothing else is likely to work either.
I disagree with this assertion and I don't see any evidence that it's true. Besides, you've switched from "politics matter more than logistics" to "logistics matter more than politics" with this argument. Buses are less popular than trains.
> And fourth, the big problem with buses in America is population density
I know! That's why I said we need to fix density!
> we're not inclined to congregate in a small area for convenience.
Again, no evidence for this. Mixed-used, walkable developments tend to be extremely popular and prohibitively expensive. If it wasn't illegal to build more, we would probably be building more.
One study from 2009 is not enough evidence to base a discussion on. We're both arguing entirely off our preconceived notions here.
> your preferred solution is NOT politically workable.
I'm not sure what solution you're referring to here. Increasing housing density? We both argued for that.
> electrification of cars is proceeding faster than electrification of bus fleets. So even though there are more of them, electrifying cars is actually proving to be politically easier.
That's fine, but it's actually not fine because this does nothing to solve any of the negative externalities of cars except for CO2 emissions. They are still dangerous, loud, extremely wasteful of resources, extremely wasteful of space, and expensive and difficult for individuals to maintain. Plus they still pollute the local environment with burned rubber tires (worn down faster due to greater weight).
> If buses can't be made to work for a particular metro area, then nothing else is likely to work either.
I disagree with this assertion and I don't see any evidence that it's true. Besides, you've switched from "politics matter more than logistics" to "logistics matter more than politics" with this argument. Buses are less popular than trains.
> And fourth, the big problem with buses in America is population density
I know! That's why I said we need to fix density!
> we're not inclined to congregate in a small area for convenience.
Again, no evidence for this. Mixed-used, walkable developments tend to be extremely popular and prohibitively expensive. If it wasn't illegal to build more, we would probably be building more.