3 ms·
Huge amounts are not (wholly-legal urban tunnel fraud aside) spent on public transit. Huge amounts are instead siphoned from public transit to shore up car mak
by ncmncm 4y ago
Huge amounts are not (wholly-legal urban tunnel fraud aside) spent on public transit.
Huge amounts are instead siphoned from public transit to shore up car makers' and suburb real estate profits.
- skybrian 4y agoExamples: In California, $10 billion so far has been spent on high speed rail. The new bus terminal in SF was $2 billion, though admittedly that includes a skyscraper and a park. The Bart extension to Milpitas cost another $2 billion. In Manhattan the first phase of the second avenue line cost $4.5 billion and the second phase will cost $6 billion.
- ncmncm 4y ago> "(wholly-legal urban tunnel fraud aside)" As I said. It is usually best to read what you reply to.
- skybrian 4y agoYes, I ignored that on purpose because it doesn't make sense. I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln's joke: "How many legs does a dog have, if you count the tail as a leg?" The money counts as spending, even if you say it doesn't.
- ncmncm 4y agoIt is not spent on transportation, it is spent on something else, and deducted from the transportation budget. If somebody steals your wallet and uses your card to buy an NFT, did you spend that? It came from your account.
- skybrian 4y agoGovernments spent huge amounts of money on what they at least thought were public transportation projects. In California, the public voted for propositions approving this spending. This shows that spending on public transit is popular. The will is there. It's fairly conventional wisdom that improving public transit is important. The execution of these plans is often pretty bad. This shows that something is going wrong other than having public support.