26 ms·

> the city is so damn big it would be cost prohibitive to build a rail system. But yet there is endless money for roads and parking lots as if they are free or

> the city is so damn big it would be cost prohibitive to build a rail system. But yet there is endless money for roads and parking lots as if they are free or cheap. I'm so sick of people acting like there is no money for public transit. In my hometown of San Diego they are spending close to a billion dollars adding a single lane to a freeway. Also, public transit is not the same thing as rail. Public bus systems work amazingly well in other parts of the world. But in America they are stigmatized (as being for poor people) to the point that they aren't even mentioned as public transit options.

kodablah 7y ago
Cost prohibitive doesn't mean there's no money, it means money used wouldn't be worth it. The Dallas area has the longest light rail system in the US, yet it barely covers the sprawl. Same with buses. There are too many people, living dozens of miles away from each other, going in all directions at all times which makes public transit often cost prohibitive. Of course they try anyways to service their citizens. But without a mind shift change _and_ a recentralization of people _and_ a significant increase in expenditure, it's a real waste to grow the barely used system. Especially since most of the people we're talking about with the sprawl don't live in the city anyways. As for road expenditures, in both Houston and Dallas, a large amount of new money towards them use private money on toll roads. This includes joint ventures for toll lanes on public highways which is of course regressive, but keeps at bay this kind of comment complaining about public funds.
- rjkennedy98 7y ago
  > Cost prohibitive doesn't mean there's no money, it means money used wouldn't be worth it. Yes, light rail sucks (you will get no argument from me on that). Its basically the least functional of all public transit, and often times I believe is put in to make people hate transit since it is less functional > As for road expenditures, in both Houston and Dallas, a large amount of new money towards them use private money on toll roads That's great that they have toll roads. I still think most people completely underestimate how unsustainable this type of development is. In 50 years these sunbelt cities will be falling apart with strip malls collapsing and pot holes in the roads.
  - tmm84 7y ago
    I remember when light rail was proposed. The thing that got me at the time was it was a single line and it went a very short distance (the goal was to have people not park in downtown if I remember because downtown Houston is a pain to park). After the first line was built the number of people who had traffic accidents with the light rail trains were staggering. The light rail even switches lanes from one side of the street to the other with cars having to stop for the train to cross. Downtown is where they aimed it but there wasn't much room to properly develop and design a line there. If they had developed/designed it to bring people into town from the suburbs it would have been better I think.
erik_seaberg 7y ago
Are there examples? The New York and Tokyo subways have earned a reputation for reliably showing up very frequently, but I can't name any busses like that.

kodablah 7y ago

Cost prohibitive doesn't mean there's no money, it means money used wouldn't be worth it. The Dallas area has the longest light rail system in the US, yet it barely covers the sprawl. Same with buses. There are too many people, living dozens of miles away from each other, going in all directions at all times which makes public transit often cost prohibitive. Of course they try anyways to service their citizens. But without a mind shift change _and_ a recentralization of people _and_ a significant increase in expenditure, it's a real waste to grow the barely used system. Especially since most of the people we're talking about with the sprawl don't live in the city anyways. As for road expenditures, in both Houston and Dallas, a large amount of new money towards them use private money on toll roads. This includes joint ventures for toll lanes on public highways which is of course regressive, but keeps at bay this kind of comment complaining about public funds.

rjkennedy98 7y ago
> Cost prohibitive doesn't mean there's no money, it means money used wouldn't be worth it. Yes, light rail sucks (you will get no argument from me on that). Its basically the least functional of all public transit, and often times I believe is put in to make people hate transit since it is less functional > As for road expenditures, in both Houston and Dallas, a large amount of new money towards them use private money on toll roads That's great that they have toll roads. I still think most people completely underestimate how unsustainable this type of development is. In 50 years these sunbelt cities will be falling apart with strip malls collapsing and pot holes in the roads.
- tmm84 7y ago
  I remember when light rail was proposed. The thing that got me at the time was it was a single line and it went a very short distance (the goal was to have people not park in downtown if I remember because downtown Houston is a pain to park). After the first line was built the number of people who had traffic accidents with the light rail trains were staggering. The light rail even switches lanes from one side of the street to the other with cars having to stop for the train to cross. Downtown is where they aimed it but there wasn't much room to properly develop and design a line there. If they had developed/designed it to bring people into town from the suburbs it would have been better I think.

erik_seaberg 7y ago

Are there examples? The New York and Tokyo subways have earned a reputation for reliably showing up very frequently, but I can't name any busses like that.