Quote:
Originally Posted by jack7y
Mass transit such as trains fit more people in the same amount of space, that's why it's called mass transit. A rail line is more expensive than a two lane road, but not necessarily more expensive than bigger highways at all. It's only more expensive initially too, in the long term roads cost more. The important thing to remember is that a rail line replaces many roads, not just one. Rail is a big savings compared to the highways, automobiles and fuels needed to get around a metro without public transit.
|
This isn't a hypothetical lesson in economics.
It's been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum.
In other countries as well. Notice the reference to other American cities not finding it cost effective.
This article discusses how federal funding was the initial impetus for a host of light rail systems nationwide, and that when local governments are forced to carry the financial load, the numbers look bad, and they often pass.
And last, but not least,
we have an article that discusses directly the Portland light rail system.
Look, I don't have a problem with Portland's light rail; some people use it and need it. Some of you, though, clearly need a lesson in reading comprehension. My issue is with the perspective that not funding freeway expansion and maintenance is a good way to force people out of their cars. And that said forcing, will be better for all of us. You can attempt to deliberately misinterpret what I'm saying in order to have grounds for dissent, but it won't change what I'm saying.