Could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately, and we're trying for a different sort of discussion here.

You can make your substantive points thoughtfully, without name-calling, swipes, and the like. If you'd please do that instead, we'd be grateful.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Some numbers for comparison according to a Google search:

Hong Kong Area: 427 mi²

Washington DC Metropolitan Area: 5,565 mi²

Hong Kong is actually just a few urban areas separated by a bunch of really really tall hills (and rural areas in between). That anyone can get around at all in that city is already amazing.

The DC metro area is just a pretty flat sprawl. It should be an easy case transportation wise, but...Americans.

Ok, just compare the Metropolitan areas. The actual city of DC is 68.34 mi², smaller than Hong Kong. Still worse to get around in.

Visit NYC but try to take a train from somewhere in brooklyn to somewhere in the bronx without having to spend almost an hour with a transfer in midtown manhattan. Even in NYC the rail network is primarily oriented toward you having a 9-5 job in midtown or lower manhattan, and everyone else gets served nearly an hour commute transferring on busses or trains.

Sure, I wish we had more outer borough connection lines. This country sucks at building anything but 12 lane freeways.

Nobody in northern Virginia wants to live in Hong Kong, and even if they did that ship sailed long ago. Also, the fertility rate in Hong Kong is less than half the replacement rate. They’re like the Asgard—an impressive civilization, full of marvels, but without a future.

Ok, go to like, every other city in China, Japan, South Korea, or most of the cities of Western Europe. Take your pick.

All civilizations in decline because they can’t accommodate the basic human function of conveniently raising 2.1 new humans per couple. What’s the point of technology that doesn’t serve human needs?

Go to Dallas and look at all the families with 3-4 kids. That’s what the future looks like. (Except the minivans and pickup trucks are probably electric.)

Texas is 1.8-1.9 child per family, the same as California. If you want to see four kid families, you need to go to SLC, not Dallas.

California is a big place. Just 13% of San Francisco’s population is under 18; and Hong Kong is about the same. Garland and Bakersfield are double that. Public transit apparently kills a civilization’s desire to perpetuate itself.

We're moving to a future where fewer humans are necessary to run economies. The trend of the future is smaller and more prosperous populations doing more meaningful activities, rather than a future of slum-ponzi-ism where an ever increasing amount of bodies are needed to fuel economic growth.

In this context we’re talking about merely being able to maintain population stability.

Sometimes the majority of people just disagree with you. It doesn't always have to be some conspiracy.

I thought you’re not supposed to downvote based solely on disagreement?

True, but it always seems to happen when people discuss politics.

Because the readership of HN is mostly Americans who can't imagine not driving. The knee-jerk against public transport is pathetic and predictable.