Doug wrote:
>> Tell us about the geography and topography of Singapore compared to
>> countries in Western Europe and about the willingness of government
>> in those countries to invest in public facilities.
>>
>> Here's a clue to get you started, London is 609 square miles in area.
>> Singapore is 272 sq miles and is a city-state. That means the whole
>> country is a city. There are no rural areas to speak of.
>
> The population density of Singapore isn't any higher than most
> European cities, several of which
> (Zurich,Vienna,Frankfurt,Amsterdam,Copenhagen) have similarly low
> levels of motorisation and have been rated as the most livable cities
> in the world both by Economist Intelligence Unit and Mercer Quality of
> Living Reports.
>
>
http://www.mercer.com/
>
> In fact, the population density of central Paris is higher than
> central Singapore.
Population denisty is immaterial when there's nowhere to go outside the
citty.
> Singapore proves that an urban economy can thrive even when most
> people don't drive a car, contrary to "accepted wisdom".
Singapore is virtually alone in being both a city-state and an island. It is
not a model for conducting life in the UK as the UK is not a wholly urban
economy and is on a very much bigger island. People and goods need to travel
between the urban areas and to other places.
> And you seem
> to forget that only a tiny part of our GDP is generated in the
> countryside.
What has that got to do with anything?
> Motorists can continue to screw up the countryside for
> all I care, but it's about time they stop tyrannising urban
> communities. They are a selfish minority who consumes a
> disproportianate percentage of public space and puts lives of innocent
> urbanites at risk.
How do you work out that motorists are a minority?
> The freeloading bastards should be banished to the
> rural backwaters where they belong.
WTF are you on about now?
