4 ms·

This only works in what, 5 - 15% of the US? Public transport isn't viable for commuting in most of the country. If you factor in time and the raise in tax requi

This only works in what, 5 - 15% of the US? Public transport isn't viable for commuting in most of the country. If you factor in time and the raise in tax required to subsidize it there it is likely that it is more cost effective to own and maintain a used car.

whafro 10y ago
Perhaps not for most of the country by surface area, but far more than 5-15% of the population could be effectively served by better public transportation.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them. These people are marginalized already and can't take a hit like that so their more wealthy counterparts in the cities can have a higher standard of living. It can only really be implemented at the city level in a fair manner, thus it isn't really a national solution.
  - naravara 10y ago
    >I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them. Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things. And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not federal. Federal taxes paid for a bloated highway system that negatively impacts many people even though we have long since hit the point of diminishing returns on more highway infrastructure.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      > Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things. How do people who are not served by public transit feel any of these effects? > And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not federal. My point exactly, this is how it should be but municipalities are rather cash strapped at the moment so you likely won't see increased spending on anything. Thus "more public transit" isn't really possible without federal intervention. > Federal taxes paid for a bloated highway system that negatively impacts many people even though we have long since hit the point of diminishing returns on more highway infrastructure. This ignores the positive impacts. If only local roads existed very little trade would be able to take place vastly lowering GDP. Can the system be run in a more cost effective manner, certainly but that would require pushing out the public sector unions that demand unrealistic wages. Pick your poison.
      - Retric 10y ago
        If only local roads existed: Trains would have continued to serve most locations cheaply. The federal highway system did great damage to the far more efferent but far less subsidized train network. Trans take less land, less capital, fewer workers, less fuel, and cause fewer deaths.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I suggest you look into the history of that. Rail lines created massive monopolies that had a stranglehold on American businesses until the creation of highways. Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Are business owners simply dumb?
        Retric 10y ago
        > Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Multi billion dollar subsides subsidies. Markets are only rational when left alone, toss more than $425 billion dollars just to build something and then maintain it with government funds and efficiency takes a back seat.
palmer 10y ago
Well, lots more people live in those small areas you refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...

whafro 10y ago

Perhaps not for most of the country by surface area, but far more than 5-15% of the population could be effectively served by better public transportation.

cmdrfred 10y ago
I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them. These people are marginalized already and can't take a hit like that so their more wealthy counterparts in the cities can have a higher standard of living. It can only really be implemented at the city level in a fair manner, thus it isn't really a national solution.
- naravara 10y ago
  >I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them. Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things. And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not federal. Federal taxes paid for a bloated highway system that negatively impacts many people even though we have long since hit the point of diminishing returns on more highway infrastructure.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    > Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things. How do people who are not served by public transit feel any of these effects? > And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not federal. My point exactly, this is how it should be but municipalities are rather cash strapped at the moment so you likely won't see increased spending on anything. Thus "more public transit" isn't really possible without federal intervention. > Federal taxes paid for a bloated highway system that negatively impacts many people even though we have long since hit the point of diminishing returns on more highway infrastructure. This ignores the positive impacts. If only local roads existed very little trade would be able to take place vastly lowering GDP. Can the system be run in a more cost effective manner, certainly but that would require pushing out the public sector unions that demand unrealistic wages. Pick your poison.
    - Retric 10y ago
      If only local roads existed: Trains would have continued to serve most locations cheaply. The federal highway system did great damage to the far more efferent but far less subsidized train network. Trans take less land, less capital, fewer workers, less fuel, and cause fewer deaths.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        I suggest you look into the history of that. Rail lines created massive monopolies that had a stranglehold on American businesses until the creation of highways. Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Are business owners simply dumb?
        Retric 10y ago
        > Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Multi billion dollar subsides subsidies. Markets are only rational when left alone, toss more than $425 billion dollars just to build something and then maintain it with government funds and efficiency takes a back seat.

palmer 10y ago

Well, lots more people live in those small areas you refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...