Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The term "best" is subjective. To me, a radical anarcho-capitalist, the best "public" transportation is none at all: I prefer free competition of private (non-governmental) roads, rental vehicles, taxis, buses, etc, etc, etc. Rail transport is an inflexible relic of the 20th century kept alive by government interventionism, especially in the fields of energy production. In a purely free market, we'd probably all be flying around in huge hover-trailers by now! So, to answer your question, I'd have praise for cities with good airports, roads, and taxi companies. I hear a company in Singapore is looking into helicopter buses / taxis, which I think is just awesome!
This is preposterous. Why do you completely ignore the massive government expenditures on highways and other roads? Oil industry subsidies and wars to keep the supply flowing are equally outside of any "free market". Give me a break. The automobile is so heavily subsidized by the government that people take it for granted.
This is preposterous. Why do you completely ignore the massive government expenditures on highways and other roads? Oil industry subsidies and wars to keep the supply flowing are equally outside of any "free market". Give me a break. The automobile is so heavily subsidized by the government that people take it for granted.
So True. For some reason a lot of conservatives attack government spending on public rail as being socialist or leftist liberal policy. But, they don't get upset about state, local and federal government every year spending billions and billions on public roads, highways, and bridges. Not that anythings neccesarily wrong with that spending, but if you find that in certain areas it's better to move people by rail, what's so wrong about the government spending money on that?
So True. For some reason a lot of conservatives attack government spending on public rail as being socialist or leftist liberal policy. But, they don't get upset about state, local and federal government every year spending billions and billions on public roads, highways, and bridges. Not that anythings neccesarily wrong with that spending, but if you find that in certain areas it's better to move people by rail, what's so wrong about the government spending money on that?
Agreed. Plus the fact that, prior to the 1970s, most transit systems were privately owned. They were basically hobbled by the GOVERNMENT's post-WWII interstate highway projects to the extent they could no longer compete. The government then had to step in and subsidize them, as they do to this day. It wasn't the market that decimated mass transit in the US, it was the government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
