Save the auto companies, put people to work upgrading roads, boost the auto insurance companies - ditch money losing albatross mass transit and buy everbody an el-cheapo American sub-compact and turn them loose. Automobiles are basically what built the American economy - we need to get more people into cars. It would probably be cheaper to buy everbody that rides the bus a car than trying to run a bunch of half-empty busses around and the green -house effect - come on - busses belch untreated CO into the air at a rate tremendously higher than cars which fall under EPA pollution rules. Traffic probably wouldn't be that much worse anyway - creeping busses stopping every block, making wide turns, etc. clog up traffic constantly.

wow, anyone writing something this short sighted obviously isn’t one of the 85% of the American population that lives in a metropolitan area. the last thing out cities need are more cars on the street. I live in the middle of a city with more than 7 million people, and I do not know more than a dozen that actually use their car to get to work. Just because no one takes the bus in the middle of nowhere, doesn’t mean they are a bad idea in places where people actually live. More busses and better trains get people to work, save tons of energy over cars and guess what, create jobs for the people that build busses and trains.

You're ignoring that mass transit is an economic multiplier - it spurs economic development along the corridors it serves in ways that simply pumping more cars into the system does not. If you look at economically vibrant metropolitan areas, you'll find that one thing they tend to have in common is convenient mass transit, usually involving some form of light rail. I am convinced this is a major reason that Detroit lies in ruins while Chicago remains healthy - the latter's city core is well-served by light rail, while the former is almost totally depending on the automobile.

True, Detroit has also been saddled by the decline of the auto industry, but Chicago is also a Rust Belt city and it prospers - largely because the city core is readily accessible to new businesses and workers. Getting into Detroit is a pain in the a**, so most companies prefer to simply locate in the suburbs where they can take advantage of cheap land to build the huge parking lots required by their automobile-dependant workers.

As cities have chased their tax base into the suburbs, the term "metropolitan area" has come to mean "any jurisdiction which can be out-maneuvered politically and absorbed". Or "any area in which the fleeing population is dense enough to produce more crowding than farmland".

If "suburb" retained its significance, you'd find that most commuting is suburb-to-suburb or exurb-to-exurb. Mass transit is reserved for those in central cities and there it's largely the domain of the poor.

That's why efforts to improve job prospects for the poor often include providing transportation to where the jobs are. Away from cities and mass transit.

The corridor misimpression.

Let's say that a new road adds 1,000 businesses with 10,000 jobs, but spread over many miles.

Let's say that the 2-mile wide corridor around mass transit produces 30 new businesses with jobs for 300 employees.

Because the corridor is defined by a small area, it can look effective even when roads are far more productive of jobs.

And though a few cities have gathered all those people requiring proximity, most jobs have followed employers and employees away from the cities.

Could you possibly be a bigger moron? Seriously, your post is so moronic it doesn't even deserve a thoughtful response.

Let's say that a new road adds 30 businesses with 300 jobs, but spread over many miles.

Let's say that the 2-mile wide corridor around mass transit produces 1000 new businesses with jobs for 10,000 employees.

When I was small, there was a weekend radio show for the kiddies called "Let's pretend". We little ones all sort of understood that it was all makeup and that anything could happen. That was the fun of it. However, we eventually outgrew it, fortunately (for most of us), before we had a chance to make plans based on what we got from the show.

We had a President some years ago - let's call him Ronnie Reagan - who said "wouldn't it be great if we had a defense that could intercept all the weapons that could be launched at us". There were some people, unfortunately not all little kids, who understood what the President said as a statement of fact. If we hadn't lucked out, we could have gotten ourselves killed by following his lead.

There are places where mass transit isn't going to work. However, there are also many places where it does: I will suggest an experiment that you won't be able to perform, except as a mind experiment. Shut down all the subways and buses in New York or Chicago or Boston and observe the result. Particularly look at the effect on public health and productivity.

I live in a suburb of Los Angeles. It is, in itself, considered a city, with a population around 60,000. There are several bus routes which circulate through this suburb and a few of the bordering suburbs. These are full-sized city buses and they are nearly empty at all times of day. But, there are also school bus systems in my city and all the surrounding cities. These buses, during the hours in which the operate, are almost full. Many parents still drop off and pick up their kids but I assume that an upgrade of the school bus system (perhaps more frequent stops and more routes) would reduce the number of cars transporting those school kids. We also have small jitneys which run on a demand basis, often to take the elderly or disabled to doctor's visits. They appear to have a reasonably high occupancy, so I have to conclude that they work.

This area, although not my city yet, has a number of light rail lines. These also enjoy a high occupancy although not at all times of day. Sensitive scheduling can be used to optimize this service so it doesn't matter if there would be few passengers in the dead of night: those few could drive their cars as an integrated part of the system.

Do you remember the joke about the guy who needs some surgery and asks his doctor what it will cost? He is rather aghast at the amount and asks the doctor to break it down. The doctor replies: "$20 for cutting; $2000 for knowing where to cut." The point of that story is also the point of successful use of mass transit. It all lies in knowing "where to cut".

I notice you too have used a "mind experiment" to make your argument. In the absence of unbiased information, such appeals to personal observations and pre-existing conclusions are all that's available.

You're right that mass transit has a place. The daily commuters to the proximity jobs in a large city prove that point.

But isn't it reasonable to believe that the current ratio between commuters in cars and commuters using mass transit approximately represents the choice of the public? Have you also noticed that those who campaign for mass transit are more often motivated by hostility to automobiles and to the suburbs in general rather than increasing the ease and comfort of suburbanites?

If mass transit were available only where it was profitable and wanted by potential customers, how much more mass transit would we have?

I suggested a mind experiment because I doubted you would ever be able to acquire sufficient control of the New York City Transit System to be able to shut it down for a few days. However, There is probably enough history of it being wholly or partially shut down by accidents, power outages, strikes, etc. that one could piece together data which could be used to synthesize the effect of shutdowns of various lengths. I think if it was permanently shut down, the New York area would be rapidly depopulated. I haven't lived there for more than a half century, but maybe Sovereign9, who does and tracks events in the city might be able to shed some light on that issue.

I have issues with parts of the overall mass transit system. For instance, I don't think that there is either an economic or an environmental issue which favors heavy rail passenger trains. On the other hand, hauling trucks by rail seems to pay off well in both areas. I don't know if it particularly revealing, but I have stock in Toyota, Honda, Burlington Northern, Boeing, and Eagle Bulk Shipping. I think that at least shows that I do not ignore transportation.

If mass transit were available only where it was profitable and wanted by potential customers, how much more mass transit would we have?

If mass transit is underdeveloped and our cities are built around a car culture, then people will opt to use cars rather than the mass transit system. If we spend money on the infrastructure to improve mass transit, more people will use mass transit. If we spend money to subsidize the use of automobiles and to build more and bigger roads, more people will drive.

The discussion of mass transit profitability is fairly absurd, especially when all the externalities of cars are taken into account. What about the cost of road building and maintenance? What about the effects of car exhaust on health? What about the militiary costs incurred by our need to keep the oil flowing?

Perhaps the freedom of travel in an automobile appeals to people. And perhaps roads followed the intent of people to escape cities rather than causing that escape. If those assertions are true, and they appear likely, then building more mass transit will not meet an unmet need or change many people's minds.

I suggest that when you wrote: "If we spend money on the infrastructure to improve mass transit, more people will use mass transit." you were overestimating the ability of government actions to control preferences. And that the "we" who determine to spend money are far fewer in number than the "more people" who will decide whether to use it.

Then, the profitability or rather unprofitability of mass transit leads to a specific government expenditure. If the government wishes to afford the product - mass transit - then the government will purchase it. If the product seems a failure for its intended purposes - the buses run empty - then there would be reasons to drop the expenditure.

Even if I agreed with you about the distant costs of running an automobile, why would I support an unused alternative? Better to find an alternative people would choose without government intercession, no?!

Once again, you are not following logic. The simple fact that improved mass transit is helping the cities who have invested in it thrive speaks to its benefit. Many people would choose mass transit as long as its convenient and cheap rather than dealing with road rage and the cost of a car. (Just look at Europe) As for the "comfort" of suburbanites; I would have no problem with the constant race to expand and maintain roadways for the continuation of sprawl if it wasn't shown to be UNSUSTAINABLE and bad for the environment. Sometimes that is the goverment's job; make choices to put resources towards what's best for everyone instead of bowing to short-sighted and uninformed opinions.

Less time in transit, more time to do something else.

I liked the bus ride to work, it became a small community. Its was cheaper than parking and other cost of ownership. But it did take a little longer to get to& from work, But then I planned my work better (less overtime)

First, my main point is that people who complain about the cost of mass transit usually do not take into account the external costs of automobiles. Until you take these into account, any comparisons are meaningless.

Next, public transportation is a textbook example of a public good. Its benefit to society greatly outweighs its cost, even if the city metro spends more money than it takes in in the form of fares. Talking about profitability of a public good. How many lighthouses are profitable? How many public libraries?

People make decisions on which transportation to use based on cost and ease of use. If it takes significantly longer to get from one of town to another via public transportation, it makes sense to drive. But if improvements in service undo this advantage while the external costs of driving are paid by the driver and so it becomes more expensive , then its basic economics to assume that more people will use public transportation. If urban do their urban planning around public transportation instead of around automobiles, they become more convenient to use and more people will use them. Government policy in part created this problem, there's no reason to think that government policy can't be used to counter it.

I live in Seattle. It takes me 20 minutes to get downtown by bus and its actually more convenient because I don't have to deal with parking. During peak hours, the buses are filled beyond capacity with not only all of the seats filled, but people packed into the aisles. This is a disincentive for others to use the metro system. Improved service via more buses and new routes would decrease this and encourage new riders.

If a bus route or system doesn't have the riders, then you're right- it would be a waste of money. But this would really only apply in rural areas. 80% of the country lives within a metropolitan region. If there is no one using public transportation in such places, the question is why not and what do we do to change this?