Totally justified

Waaah, waaah, waaah.

How are you going to pay for that? Gotta love anonymous whiners who suggest pie-in-the-sky "solutions" with no regard for the trade-offs, as if we can just pull money from trees and build subways in every major US city.

The only way public transport will succeed is if it’s cheaper or more convenient than driving. In some cities (NYC) this is the case. In others, not the case, and there’s no need to force it.

If you want to tax gas to pay for these upgrades, that’s fine by me. If gas is $5 a gallon maybe someone will change their lifestyle. $3 apparently isn’t enough. I would love to be independent of the "evil and inhuman" middle east, but all I can do for now is drive a Corolla. Not because I care about the ozone layer- because it’s the cheapest option.

There are tax breaks – at least in New York City the first hundred dollars of public commuter expenses are non-taxable each month. Granted, if you don’t live in a city with as massive a public transportation system as New York then you are stuck with what you have.

Besides, you need to think about the rest of the country. Take the south for instance. The area is simply too big to make a reasonable attempt at a go-everywhere mass-transit system. No matter what, the infrastructure is spread out so much that people will be forced to walk significantly further than they are willing to. And most counties do not even put sidewalks in anymore for that very factor. Public transportation really only works in densely populated, tight infrastructure environments.

Steven Dutch from the University of Wisconsin – Green Bay wrote an article on why people don’t use mass transit. Once you add in the time cost of mass transit, is in general is not worth it, unless you make very little money. All told, his conclusions are as follows:
bq. In sparsely-populated areas, there simply is no practical alternative to the automobile. People who live in those places need cars to get around and haul cargo. People who need to get to places not served by mass transit also have no alternative to the automobile. So what are the possible solutions?

Inexpensive Rental Cars. The cost of auto rental has come down to the point where it’s pretty affordable, but it needs to come down still further to make it a really viable alternative to using the private auto.
bq. Inexpensive Taxis. These need to be considered part of the overall public transit system. Fares need to be competitive with comparable distances on mass transit, and availability needs to be great enough to avoid significant time penalties.
bq. Both of these have to be convenient and flexible enough that the time required to call a taxi or rent a car doesn’t discourage use.

At off-peak times, there simply is no practical alternative to the automobile. The remedies are the same.

People who haul cargo have no practical alternative to the automobile. Remedies include inexpensive delivery services, but frequently bulk cargo purchases include small items or unanticipated on-the-spot purchases. Inexpensive shipping from the point of sale, or cheap truck rental, are additional possible remedies.

The only way to diminish reliance on the automobile is to create a mass transit system that is superior to the automobile by the standards of automobile users. In many circumstances the most effective system is the automobile and the only way to cut use of private automobiles is by supplying public automobiles, like rental cars and taxis. The sci-fi vision where you go up to a vending area, pop in a credit card, and drive off in a waiting car, needs serious consideration. Where density is high enough, the only way to cut reliance on private autos is with mass transit that is competitive with automobiles in out of pocket cost, speed, and convenience.

Attempts to promote mass transit through coercion will inevitably fail. Trying to make mass transit more competitive by raising auto registration fees, parking fees, bridge and tunnel tolls, gasoline taxes, and the like, will inevitably be seen for what it is: artificial manipulation of the marketplace to coerce drivers into using mass transit. Trying to encourage mass transit use by penalizing private auto use amounts to an open admission that mass transit cannot compete with the automobile.

Voodoo Economics won’t work. I have to pay taxes to build roads and defend our oil supplies whether I drive or not, and fire trucks, ambulances, and delivery vehicles need streets to drive on. Pretending that I somehow avoid those "hidden costs" by taking the bus is beneath stupid. Telling me that 45 minutes in a crowded, lurching bus is better or a more effective use of my time than 20 minutes in my car is a couple of levels below that.

Wishful thinking won’t cut it. It will do absolutely no good to say all these problems will go away if we can somehow persuade Americans to accept higher density and move back in from the suburbs. Suburbs began to sprawl back in the days of streetcars. Americans do not want to live in high density settings. Why not just accept it and plan accordingly?

_{Studies have repeatedly shown two things}: the more transportation is available, the more people spread out. Second, commuters start to get irritable when commute times exceed half an hour. Basically, commuters moved out to a distance where they felt the time cost was acceptable, and get angry when the rules change. Moral: Americans like to spread out until other individuals do not seriously impinge on their freedom of action. Deal with it.