>How do people who are not served by public transit feel any of these effects? What? You realize air tends to circulate right? And people tend to know other pe

>How do people who are not served by public transit feel any of these effects? What? You realize air tends to circulate right? And people tend to know other people in their lives who get hurt by accidents? And less traffic on roads is an externality that benefits people who drive. As does giving drunks a safe way to get home. >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. Road infrastructure and sprawling development are the reasons they're cash strapped. If they had adopted more transit-centric development patterns they would have raised their tax base to pay for it rather than exporting the people who use their infrastructure to unincorporated 'bedroom communities' where they don't pay into anything. If we subsidized transit to the extent that we subsidize sprawl this wouldn't be a problem. >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. Please review what I wrote. I didn't say not to have highways. I said we hit the point of diminishing returns long ago and additional spending in this direction is no longer beneficial.