4 ms·
> Unfortunately, the U.S. has gone all-in on car based infrastructure and that's a difficult thing to reverse. The USA has a fantastic organizational structure
by koolba 3y ago
> Unfortunately, the U.S. has gone all-in on car based infrastructure and that's a difficult thing to reverse.
The USA has a fantastic organizational structure that allows changes like this to be experimented with in pockets of the country without a top down approach. If an approach can't be done at the city or State level, then it's not likely to get approved for spending at the Federal level as you add in more people who will never directly benefit from said system.
In the USA, the city of New York is seen as having the most extensive mass transit system, in particular the subway system. Problem is that it has massive budgetary shortfalls and doubles as a de facto homeless shelter. People don't take the NYC subway because they want to, they take it because they have no other choice.
If people want public transport to be a success in the USA, pick a city (any city!) and show that it can be done in a fiscally sustainable way with an end product that people actually want to use. Not just forced to use.
- matchbok 3y agoWell, it's an issue of double standards. Nobody expects highways to make money or break even. Suggesting that a road have tolls is the quickest way to lose. However, transit is put in another group, for some reason.
- koolba 3y ago> Nobody expects highways to make money or break even. Suggesting that a road have tolls is the quickest way to lose. However, transit is put in another group, for some reason. The NY State Thruway, the tolled highway that crosses the entire state, is entirely self-funded by tolls: https://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/2022/03/28/tolls-not-tax-dollars-pay-new-york-state-thruway-system/7166986001/ https://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/2022/03/28/tolls-not-tax...
- WheatMillington 3y ago>Nobody expects highways to make money or break even. Where I'm from, in New Zealand, roads are paid for from a budget that is funded primarily by fuel taxes and road user charges. So what you've said is not a universal truth.
- matchbok 3y agoSorry, was speaking from a USA context. Yes, you are correct.
- jrpt 3y agoI’m not an anti-car person but I think you have a few misconceptions: - A lot of well off people who could flag a taxi or Uber still take the NYC subway because it is very convenient and has incredible coverage. All sorts of New Yorkers use it. Also, you can get from the airport to Manhattan just as fast if not faster on the LIRR, and at a fraction of the cost. (In the SF Bay Area on the other hand, the trains are pretty bad for getting to the airport!) - Public transit is almost never intended to operate at a profit. They intentionally subsidize it, both for people with low income, and to make routes to suburbs where the route might not have the ridership to really justify it, but the planners think it is still important for political reasons (like if a district is paying for some transit service, everyone in the district should get some stations).
- koolba 3y ago> Public transit is almost never intended to operate at a profit. Fiscally sustainable does not have to mean turning a profit or refusing to take any external tax dollars for funding. But it also can't be $3 billion over budget (on a $20 billion budget) every year with a fiscal timebomb about to go off when their COVID bailout expires: https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics [1] [1]: Same link from wayback machine from Dec 2023 in case the MTA changes it: https://web.archive.org/web/20231203043132/https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics https://web.archive.org/web/20231203043132/https://new.mta.i...