4 ms·
I'm not sure I follow your public transport argument. Both Tokyo and London have had many decades of significant government investment and support into their tr
by agd 3y ago
I'm not sure I follow your public transport argument. Both Tokyo and London have had many decades of significant government investment and support into their transport infrastructure. E.g. The billions from the taxpayer for the recent Elizabeth Line in London. Neither system would exist without very large gov support.
- rayiner 3y agoThe point is that “public investment” isn’t why transit systems in America suck. The government invested about 60% of Cross Rail capital costs, and the line will likely pay for itself in terms of operating costs. By contrast, the government paid for 100% of the costs for New York’s Second Avenue subway, and will pick up the check for more than half the operating costs too. The NYC MTA receives over $7 billion in public support annually, and routinely gets billions in federal infusions. It got a $15 billion covid bail out. Transport for a London meanwhile has gotten 3.6 billion pounds over the next two years as it comes out of covid. NYC’s public investment dwarf’s London’s.
- ddd00001 3y agoAmerican government spending has an extremely low multiplier because of onerous environmental regulations (primarily NEPA). A mural in San Francisco cost $600k (!) to cover up due to environmental impact reports and legal fees. Asking for more public spending is literally just asking to burn people's money.