It's a bit disingenuous to compare these modes of transport solely based on cost per commuter. Think about how much space along the route is reserved for the t

It's a bit disingenuous to compare these modes of transport solely based on cost per commuter. Think about how much space along the route is reserved for the typical train commuter versus the amount of space reserved for car commuters. The train commuter has the rail corridor, train stations, bus, bus lanes, etc. all reserved for their use. But the car commuter has the entirety of the roadway, all parking spaces, parking garages, etc. reserved for their use. Drivers are cheaper because they are way more spread out, and if you required the same density for both forms of transit driving would be far more expensive than train travel. Edit: Additionally, the road right-of-way was purchased and built at the time all of the structures were built. This lead to dramatically cheaper land values than when trains are being retrofitted into existing cities. The real question is whether you value density or whether you're willing to require that the people in your city sprawl all over the countryside. I don't have a pat answer for that because it's a matter of values, but I do believe that we've gone too far in the direction of sprawl and that a sizeable portion of my home city wants to live closer together with easier access to commercial districts, and we would like to do that without needing a car to get around. I think that letting us do that benefits everyone because we're basically asking you if we can take up less space in exchange for some taxes. And I don't think it's an unreasonable trade for most people.