7 ms·

US spends billions on roads rather than public transport in 'climate time bomb'

81 points by ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

susosudo 3y ago
They must be widening the highways because the hydrogen and electric vehicles will be so cheap, everyone is going to start driving. Even the folks who did not drive before. They clearly know something we don't.
- Sharlin 3y ago
  They’re widening highways because that’s what they have been doing for almost a century to try to alleviate congestion, and it has never worked except for very momentarily. But that’s the only thing they know, on an institutional level, so that’s what they keep doing. Problem, hammer, nail. Source of motive power has nothing to do with the main issue with cars, which is the fact that there are no extra dimensions in which to physically fit them all.
- havblue 3y ago
  A theory is that increased safety and environmental standards have an added benefit: they make cars so expensive to build and maintain that fewer people will be able to afford them, forcing more and more people to use public transportation. So widening roads will eventually not be a problem for politicians anymore, even if it is now.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
I know this is a topic that people in the U.S. tend to feel very strongly about, but there's ultimately a limit to how effective personal cars can be when population density exceeds a certain level. The issue is the space that's required by them and building more lanes doesn't really help due to induced demand (i.e. as more road space becomes available, more people choose to drive and the congestion ends up increasing). As Cory Doctorow puts it, "geometry hates cars". Unfortunately, the U.S. has gone all-in on car based infrastructure and that's a difficult thing to reverse. The best time to start improving public transport and active transport facilities is twenty years ago; the second best time to start is now.
- bpodgursky 3y ago
  > The issue is the space that's required by them and building more lanes doesn't really help due to induced demand No, you're measuring what you care about, not the actual goal. More lanes helps because now more people are able to get where they want to go! If you have 4 lanes, and 20,000 people can commute to work, and with 8 lanes, 40,000 people can commute to work, that's a huge win for the people who wanted to use the highway! Think about this honestly — if you doubled the capacity of a subway, and twice as many people took it so it was just as crowded, you'd be thrilled. You're going to be perpetually confused by infrastructure decisions if you measure a goal that nobody else is trying to solve for.
  - regularjack 3y ago
    You'll end up with 20k more cars needing parking too.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      This is too often forgotten.
    - indymike 3y ago
      You'll also end up with 20K happy voters.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    And they apparently hated you for you spoke the truth. Like sure there's the "adding more lanes to one highway doesn't reduce congestion" thing but that's not a good faith reading of your point. If you increase the capacity of the road system however that's accomplished and more people use it that's a win. It's literally providing more value to people and acting as an economic multiplier. If you improve the bus system and more people use it that's also a win because it's providing more value to people. If your plan doesn't start with here's all the ways the roads provide value and why individuals and businesses overwhelmingly prefer them to current alternatives and how we're taking that as table stakes for our new system, then of course people are gonna push back. Just because you think a trade-off is worth it or some perceived downside is fine for you doesn't mean it will be true for everyone.
davidmurphy 3y ago
Important point. Europe is so far ahead of U.S.
- theultdev 3y ago
  Density matters.
  - makeitshine 3y ago
    If the US built public transport and changed zoning laws it'd get density.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      In the US density is a choice. I choose not to live in a city. In Europe, density is not a choice, they have to live on top of each other. And if you don't have good public transportation or zoning laws that's due to your local government.
      - makeitshine 3y ago
        > In Europe, density is not a choice, they have to live on top of each other. That is not true at all.
  - zrn900 3y ago
    Nothing to do with density. Europe has vast tracts of mountainous areas in which there are only a handful of villages with a few hundred people each and fast trains pass through all these zones.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      Yeah, now overlay that on Texas to see the scale.
      - zrn900 3y ago
foolfoolz 3y ago
the u. s. doesn’t have enough housing density to support passenger rail that people actually want to use you could build the rail first and hope the dense housing comes later, but that would saddle cities with an expensive rail network no one uses even in the bay area we have decent rail solutions given the size of the area, and most people prefer to drive. because they live far enough from the station that driving to the station and then training, and the destination stations are far from the destinations without all this investing in roads and highways will have the biggest direct impact to most americans
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Oh heavens, not a speculative railroad giveaway. That would be totally unprecedented[1] in American history! 1: Except for the time we gave the railroads literally 10% of the land area of the country for a "rail network no one uses".
- exactlysoso 3y ago
  This is exactly what is happening in Seattle, another genius idea from the people who banned police.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Passenger rail was economically successful in the US through the 19th and early 20th centuries when population was much lower. The very successful Japanese model is that railway companies buy land and develop it, and the railway adds value to that land. But it's hard to compete when the government subsidizes and legally mandates roads and not railroads.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  Trains only work if people live close enough to walk to the station and if the destination station is walking distance to where they want to go. Driving to a train station, then later taking a bus or cab when I get off the train is ridiculous. I would rather just drive.
shmageggy 3y ago
The article focuses on the adverse consequences for climate, with a mention of safety and livability of communities, but it neglects the effects roads have on biodiversity. There is a recent book that exposes how devastating roads are for nature (https://www.bengoldfarb.com/crossings https://www.bengoldfarb.com/crossings). Expanding highways will only worsen it.
sandworm101 3y ago
Are not roads part of public transport? In the US, would I be correct in saying that the bulk of public passenger transport is by bus? This article is from the UK where busses constitute are a little over half of all trips. Busses need roads too. And roads have other uses than moving people. Get rid of all passenger transport and we would still need roads to move all the goods and services on which we rely.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  If we moved people from cars to buses we would not need wider highways, we could actually shrink them. Trains are still a thing in the US. Trucks could be used just for the "last mile" of a product.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Nobody likes busses, let's be real. Public transportation is sold as light rail, trains, monorails, because those look cool and people like them. It's damn hard to sell busses, even if you end up building out much of the map as busses. To be fair, busses are subject to a lot of the problems cars are (they get stuck in traffic, etc) whilst trains can zip past traffic jams on their own rails. And not everywhere does "bus rapid transit" right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh1IaVmu3Y8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh1IaVmu3Y8
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  Well, US spends on roads but not on buses or rail. Unless you are creating a reliable bus transport system, spending on roads isn't much of a part of public transport spending. Also, the way the US creates bus systems - each locality spending more or less depending on the location's shifting fortunes - means that no one can rely on buses in any long term and this indeed makes people not want to ride them.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/acs/acs-48.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio... has the statistical data you're looking for. Public transportation accounts for about 5.0% of commutes, with buses being the plurality (but not majority) mode at 2.3%, followed by subway at 1.9%, commuter rail at 0.6%, light rail at 0.2%, and ferry at 0.0% (yay rounding).
ihsw 3y ago
People will use public transport instead of cars when it costs less, it is more convenient, and it is safer. Most people don't want cars, they need cars. When your bus is 30 minutes late for weeks, months, and years on end, you will look into getting a car. When there are homeless people sleeping on buses, you will look into getting a car. When there are mentally ill people threatening other passengers on buses, you will look into getting a car. When there are drug addicts smoking weed or meth on buses, you will look into getting a car. When there are sociopaths listening to music on their speakerphone or otherwise being very loud on buses every day, you will look into getting a car. When you are assaulted or robbed at bus or metro stations, you will look into getting a car. etc etc etc It's not complicated.
Solvency 3y ago
Our entire approach to town and city building is fucked. People/professionals all vacation to places like Tulum (etc) where you can just walk through little slices of paradise on foot (or scooter) and reach everything you need without a car, then rave about how great it is, and then go back home and continue designing and building the worst imaginable human experience infrastructure. Blows my mind. We could have cool little interconnected towns with diverse landscapes all connected by rail, bicycles, scooters, and walking... but nah. All hail Walmart parking lots bigger than a football field.
- farnsworth 3y ago
  Tulum is a weird example, you can't really even walk from town to the beach. PDC, on the other hand. I agree with your general point.
- wil421 3y ago
  Do any of the locals live and work in Tulum?
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  > All hail Walmart parking lots bigger than a football field. Ha ha, and for what amounts to just one month where usage peaks.
- mcdonje 3y ago
  See also: Universities and theme parks
robertlagrant 3y ago
Roads are needed for lots of things, not just cars. Buses and bikes need roads. Any emergency services vehicles coming to your house need roads.
ronnier 3y ago
It's rarely mentioned but in some areas it's just not worth taking public transportation because of the risk you'll get harassed, beat, or killed -- that's a factor as to why some will not use public transportation.
- consumer451 3y ago
  This appears to be due to fear mongering, not facts. Being a driver or passenger in a car or light truck leads to a >10x higher rate of death over public transport. This includes non-crash related deaths. https://www.modeshift.com/is-public-transportation-safer-than-individual-transport/ https://www.modeshift.com/is-public-transportation-safer-tha... https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JPT17.4_Litman.pdf https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JPT17.4_...
  - chrjxnandns 3y ago
    [dead]
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  Very true. When I was younger (early 2000s) I remember taking the subway in NYC literally everywhere and at all hours. I remember being in one of the boroughs and having missed the last train I had to wait 3 or 4 hours for the next one, even in a sketchy train station somewhere in the Bronx it was no issue. 100s if not 1000s of trips on the subway (and path and light rail and NJ transit) with no real issues. Last year while taking the subway (in central manhattan no less) I was harassed by a panhandler who wanted money. He was extremely aggressive about it and did not accept that I had no cash on me to give (I only had my small wallet with a some emergency $100 bills) eventually following me onto the train, fortunately I was able to exit the train before the doors closed with him staying on it. I thought about what I have done in that situation if I was (literally or figuratively) backed into a corner, obviously I wouldn't be happy about it but I would have defended myself or my family if they were with me (I was fortunately alone that day). Personally, the final straw for me with regards to NYC transit was when Daniel Penny was arrested. To not only be unsafe on the subway but to be arrested for defending yourself? Too much of a risk for me, I will drive or take uber exclusively from now on.
chung8123 3y ago
The goals of public transport are not aligned with getting more people to use it. Public transport currently is for people that do not or cannot drive. We use it to try to serve everyone vs trying to serve the commuting audience. If you were to try to serve the commuting audience there would be a lot more speed in public transport and some people would be left behind vs a stop every two blocks. Trains would be heavy-rail below or above grade vs at grade light rail contesting with cars. Public transport would cost a lot but be worth the price because of the speed, security, and convenience.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Agreed. And I think it's worse than that. In the US, public transit's objective is not to transport large numbers of people quickly. Public transit advocates in the US have a few objectives (in the POSIWID sense): 1. Job creation for construction workers 2. Job protection for train operators 3. Shelter for those who have no warm place to shelter You can tell this is the case by the following actions by transit advocates: 1. i. Efforts to increase funding for the same outcomes as before i. Success metrics described are usually in terms of jobs created and small businesses contracted 2. Active opposition to Skytrain-style automated trains 3. Efforts to make public transit free I think these objectives are transparent to most observers, most of whom do not share those objectives. Therefore, transit will face headwinds for the moment.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    I've seen literally none of those arguments advanced by any of the transit advocates I follow, and I've only seen the argument for free public transit secondhand (i.e., the advocates I follow are discussing the argument and decide against it). Most of the transit advocacy I see is based on the fact that US public transit systems need to, in general, be more rationale, and focus on supporting things like high-frequency all-day travel (and rush-hour-peak-direction-only transit is effectively a farce of transit), or more coherent bus routes or better integration between different systems to alleviate capacity bottlenecks (hi NYC Penn Station). And an awful lot of the-system-is-rotten-and-people-need-to-be-canned (I mean, when you have a front-row seat to the WMATA meltdown, it's hard not to have that sentiment).
renewiltord 3y ago
$36.4b on highway resurfacing $33.5b on highway expansion $25.6b on transit and passenger rail To get comparisons of what this gets you: > Elevated Major Freeway / Interstate, 4 lanes 12’ wide each lane & 3’ shoulder, urban location in S.E. USA. $71.33 million per mile. Comparable in SoCal is $200m/mi, I believe 2 miles of underground rail in SF is $4000m/mi Therefore, you can get 20 miles of highway in urban California for about what you can get for a mile of rail. Given those numbers, the choice is out of our hands. We cannot pay for public transit. In fact, it's not clear that this is a net economic positive at these costs. https://compassinternational.net/order-magnitude-road-highway-costs/ https://compassinternational.net/order-magnitude-road-highwa... https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/27/san-francisco-downtown-rail-extension-portal-cost/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/27/san-francisco-downtown-rai...
resuresu 3y ago
[dead]

81 points by ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

They must be widening the highways because the hydrogen and electric vehicles will be so cheap, everyone is going to start driving. Even the folks who did not drive before. They clearly know something we don't.

Sharlin 3y ago
They’re widening highways because that’s what they have been doing for almost a century to try to alleviate congestion, and it has never worked except for very momentarily. But that’s the only thing they know, on an institutional level, so that’s what they keep doing. Problem, hammer, nail. Source of motive power has nothing to do with the main issue with cars, which is the fact that there are no extra dimensions in which to physically fit them all.
havblue 3y ago
A theory is that increased safety and environmental standards have an added benefit: they make cars so expensive to build and maintain that fewer people will be able to afford them, forcing more and more people to use public transportation. So widening roads will eventually not be a problem for politicians anymore, even if it is now.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

I know this is a topic that people in the U.S. tend to feel very strongly about, but there's ultimately a limit to how effective personal cars can be when population density exceeds a certain level. The issue is the space that's required by them and building more lanes doesn't really help due to induced demand (i.e. as more road space becomes available, more people choose to drive and the congestion ends up increasing). As Cory Doctorow puts it, "geometry hates cars". Unfortunately, the U.S. has gone all-in on car based infrastructure and that's a difficult thing to reverse. The best time to start improving public transport and active transport facilities is twenty years ago; the second best time to start is now.

bpodgursky 3y ago
> The issue is the space that's required by them and building more lanes doesn't really help due to induced demand No, you're measuring what you care about, not the actual goal. More lanes helps because now more people are able to get where they want to go! If you have 4 lanes, and 20,000 people can commute to work, and with 8 lanes, 40,000 people can commute to work, that's a huge win for the people who wanted to use the highway! Think about this honestly — if you doubled the capacity of a subway, and twice as many people took it so it was just as crowded, you'd be thrilled. You're going to be perpetually confused by infrastructure decisions if you measure a goal that nobody else is trying to solve for.
- regularjack 3y ago
  You'll end up with 20k more cars needing parking too.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    This is too often forgotten.
  - indymike 3y ago
    You'll also end up with 20K happy voters.
- Spivak 3y ago
  And they apparently hated you for you spoke the truth. Like sure there's the "adding more lanes to one highway doesn't reduce congestion" thing but that's not a good faith reading of your point. If you increase the capacity of the road system however that's accomplished and more people use it that's a win. It's literally providing more value to people and acting as an economic multiplier. If you improve the bus system and more people use it that's also a win because it's providing more value to people. If your plan doesn't start with here's all the ways the roads provide value and why individuals and businesses overwhelmingly prefer them to current alternatives and how we're taking that as table stakes for our new system, then of course people are gonna push back. Just because you think a trade-off is worth it or some perceived downside is fine for you doesn't mean it will be true for everyone.

davidmurphy 3y ago

Important point. Europe is so far ahead of U.S.

theultdev 3y ago
Density matters.
- makeitshine 3y ago
  If the US built public transport and changed zoning laws it'd get density.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    In the US density is a choice. I choose not to live in a city. In Europe, density is not a choice, they have to live on top of each other. And if you don't have good public transportation or zoning laws that's due to your local government.
    - makeitshine 3y ago
      > In Europe, density is not a choice, they have to live on top of each other. That is not true at all.
- zrn900 3y ago
  Nothing to do with density. Europe has vast tracts of mountainous areas in which there are only a handful of villages with a few hundred people each and fast trains pass through all these zones.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    Yeah, now overlay that on Texas to see the scale.
    - zrn900 3y ago

foolfoolz 3y ago

the u. s. doesn’t have enough housing density to support passenger rail that people actually want to use you could build the rail first and hope the dense housing comes later, but that would saddle cities with an expensive rail network no one uses even in the bay area we have decent rail solutions given the size of the area, and most people prefer to drive. because they live far enough from the station that driving to the station and then training, and the destination stations are far from the destinations without all this investing in roads and highways will have the biggest direct impact to most americans

jeffbee 3y ago
Oh heavens, not a speculative railroad giveaway. That would be totally unprecedented[1] in American history! 1: Except for the time we gave the railroads literally 10% of the land area of the country for a "rail network no one uses".
exactlysoso 3y ago
This is exactly what is happening in Seattle, another genius idea from the people who banned police.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Passenger rail was economically successful in the US through the 19th and early 20th centuries when population was much lower. The very successful Japanese model is that railway companies buy land and develop it, and the railway adds value to that land. But it's hard to compete when the government subsidizes and legally mandates roads and not railroads.
jjjjj55555 3y ago
Trains only work if people live close enough to walk to the station and if the destination station is walking distance to where they want to go. Driving to a train station, then later taking a bus or cab when I get off the train is ridiculous. I would rather just drive.

shmageggy 3y ago

The article focuses on the adverse consequences for climate, with a mention of safety and livability of communities, but it neglects the effects roads have on biodiversity. There is a recent book that exposes how devastating roads are for nature (https://www.bengoldfarb.com/crossings https://www.bengoldfarb.com/crossings). Expanding highways will only worsen it.

sandworm101 3y ago

Are not roads part of public transport? In the US, would I be correct in saying that the bulk of public passenger transport is by bus? This article is from the UK where busses constitute are a little over half of all trips. Busses need roads too. And roads have other uses than moving people. Get rid of all passenger transport and we would still need roads to move all the goods and services on which we rely.

JKCalhoun 3y ago
If we moved people from cars to buses we would not need wider highways, we could actually shrink them. Trains are still a thing in the US. Trucks could be used just for the "last mile" of a product.
bombcar 3y ago
Nobody likes busses, let's be real. Public transportation is sold as light rail, trains, monorails, because those look cool and people like them. It's damn hard to sell busses, even if you end up building out much of the map as busses. To be fair, busses are subject to a lot of the problems cars are (they get stuck in traffic, etc) whilst trains can zip past traffic jams on their own rails. And not everywhere does "bus rapid transit" right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh1IaVmu3Y8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh1IaVmu3Y8
joe_the_user 3y ago
Well, US spends on roads but not on buses or rail. Unless you are creating a reliable bus transport system, spending on roads isn't much of a part of public transport spending. Also, the way the US creates bus systems - each locality spending more or less depending on the location's shifting fortunes - means that no one can rely on buses in any long term and this indeed makes people not want to ride them.
jcranmer 3y ago
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/acs/acs-48.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio... has the statistical data you're looking for. Public transportation accounts for about 5.0% of commutes, with buses being the plurality (but not majority) mode at 2.3%, followed by subway at 1.9%, commuter rail at 0.6%, light rail at 0.2%, and ferry at 0.0% (yay rounding).

ihsw 3y ago

People will use public transport instead of cars when it costs less, it is more convenient, and it is safer. Most people don't want cars, they need cars. When your bus is 30 minutes late for weeks, months, and years on end, you will look into getting a car. When there are homeless people sleeping on buses, you will look into getting a car. When there are mentally ill people threatening other passengers on buses, you will look into getting a car. When there are drug addicts smoking weed or meth on buses, you will look into getting a car. When there are sociopaths listening to music on their speakerphone or otherwise being very loud on buses every day, you will look into getting a car. When you are assaulted or robbed at bus or metro stations, you will look into getting a car. etc etc etc It's not complicated.

Solvency 3y ago

Our entire approach to town and city building is fucked. People/professionals all vacation to places like Tulum (etc) where you can just walk through little slices of paradise on foot (or scooter) and reach everything you need without a car, then rave about how great it is, and then go back home and continue designing and building the worst imaginable human experience infrastructure. Blows my mind. We could have cool little interconnected towns with diverse landscapes all connected by rail, bicycles, scooters, and walking... but nah. All hail Walmart parking lots bigger than a football field.

farnsworth 3y ago
Tulum is a weird example, you can't really even walk from town to the beach. PDC, on the other hand. I agree with your general point.
wil421 3y ago
Do any of the locals live and work in Tulum?
JKCalhoun 3y ago
> All hail Walmart parking lots bigger than a football field. Ha ha, and for what amounts to just one month where usage peaks.
mcdonje 3y ago
See also: Universities and theme parks

robertlagrant 3y ago

Roads are needed for lots of things, not just cars. Buses and bikes need roads. Any emergency services vehicles coming to your house need roads.

ronnier 3y ago

It's rarely mentioned but in some areas it's just not worth taking public transportation because of the risk you'll get harassed, beat, or killed -- that's a factor as to why some will not use public transportation.

consumer451 3y ago
This appears to be due to fear mongering, not facts. Being a driver or passenger in a car or light truck leads to a >10x higher rate of death over public transport. This includes non-crash related deaths. https://www.modeshift.com/is-public-transportation-safer-than-individual-transport/ https://www.modeshift.com/is-public-transportation-safer-tha... https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JPT17.4_Litman.pdf https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JPT17.4_...
- chrjxnandns 3y ago
  [dead]
AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
Very true. When I was younger (early 2000s) I remember taking the subway in NYC literally everywhere and at all hours. I remember being in one of the boroughs and having missed the last train I had to wait 3 or 4 hours for the next one, even in a sketchy train station somewhere in the Bronx it was no issue. 100s if not 1000s of trips on the subway (and path and light rail and NJ transit) with no real issues. Last year while taking the subway (in central manhattan no less) I was harassed by a panhandler who wanted money. He was extremely aggressive about it and did not accept that I had no cash on me to give (I only had my small wallet with a some emergency $100 bills) eventually following me onto the train, fortunately I was able to exit the train before the doors closed with him staying on it. I thought about what I have done in that situation if I was (literally or figuratively) backed into a corner, obviously I wouldn't be happy about it but I would have defended myself or my family if they were with me (I was fortunately alone that day). Personally, the final straw for me with regards to NYC transit was when Daniel Penny was arrested. To not only be unsafe on the subway but to be arrested for defending yourself? Too much of a risk for me, I will drive or take uber exclusively from now on.

chung8123 3y ago

The goals of public transport are not aligned with getting more people to use it. Public transport currently is for people that do not or cannot drive. We use it to try to serve everyone vs trying to serve the commuting audience. If you were to try to serve the commuting audience there would be a lot more speed in public transport and some people would be left behind vs a stop every two blocks. Trains would be heavy-rail below or above grade vs at grade light rail contesting with cars. Public transport would cost a lot but be worth the price because of the speed, security, and convenience.

renewiltord 3y ago
Agreed. And I think it's worse than that. In the US, public transit's objective is not to transport large numbers of people quickly. Public transit advocates in the US have a few objectives (in the POSIWID sense): 1. Job creation for construction workers 2. Job protection for train operators 3. Shelter for those who have no warm place to shelter You can tell this is the case by the following actions by transit advocates: 1. i. Efforts to increase funding for the same outcomes as before i. Success metrics described are usually in terms of jobs created and small businesses contracted 2. Active opposition to Skytrain-style automated trains 3. Efforts to make public transit free I think these objectives are transparent to most observers, most of whom do not share those objectives. Therefore, transit will face headwinds for the moment.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  I've seen literally none of those arguments advanced by any of the transit advocates I follow, and I've only seen the argument for free public transit secondhand (i.e., the advocates I follow are discussing the argument and decide against it). Most of the transit advocacy I see is based on the fact that US public transit systems need to, in general, be more rationale, and focus on supporting things like high-frequency all-day travel (and rush-hour-peak-direction-only transit is effectively a farce of transit), or more coherent bus routes or better integration between different systems to alleviate capacity bottlenecks (hi NYC Penn Station). And an awful lot of the-system-is-rotten-and-people-need-to-be-canned (I mean, when you have a front-row seat to the WMATA meltdown, it's hard not to have that sentiment).

renewiltord 3y ago

$36.4b on highway resurfacing $33.5b on highway expansion $25.6b on transit and passenger rail To get comparisons of what this gets you: > Elevated Major Freeway / Interstate, 4 lanes 12’ wide each lane & 3’ shoulder, urban location in S.E. USA. $71.33 million per mile. Comparable in SoCal is $200m/mi, I believe 2 miles of underground rail in SF is $4000m/mi Therefore, you can get 20 miles of highway in urban California for about what you can get for a mile of rail. Given those numbers, the choice is out of our hands. We cannot pay for public transit. In fact, it's not clear that this is a net economic positive at these costs. https://compassinternational.net/order-magnitude-road-highway-costs/ https://compassinternational.net/order-magnitude-road-highwa... https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/27/san-francisco-downtown-rail-extension-portal-cost/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/27/san-francisco-downtown-rai...

resuresu 3y ago

[dead]