How do you propose doing that, though? Mass transit almost everywhere runs at a significant loss already and if we're talking buses then there's a significant driver shortage. In the US the distances and routes required outside of dense urban centers also pretty much necessitate a huge increase in transit time compared to driving, making the whole thing a bad value for people who can afford a car.
Personally I feel it's fine for them to operate at a loss, it's a public service, akin to the fire department or library. The amount of good it does society to get cars off the road is staggering.
The lack of bus drivers simply comes down to an unwillingness to pay more. It's the exact same problem with teachers, where the wage is extremely low but they would rather just have a shortage rather than paying more.
Once you realize the sheer amount of commerce and business that is enabled by a decent metro system you see that they pay for itself several times over.
That's even easier to measure because these gains are localized.
yes but I am about to go to bed so the link mihht come only tomorrow.
Also some studies have calculated the impact on health in the society and calculated a cost to the society per km of driving a car and the money saved when doing the same km walking or with a bicycle.
From what I'd read, the majority of road wear comes from tractor trailers, who don't nearly cover their costs.
It may help to either tax them directly, or indirectly via diesel. Yes, costs pass to consumers, but it would also encourage more done via ship and train, I feel. Even that would be a huge help to clearing up traffic and lowering infra spend.
The difference is that the gas tax or similar user fees could easily (if politically feasible) be scaled up to cover both capital and operating expenses for the entire road and highway network.
If you tried to do that for merely the operating costs of many transit systems, they’d enter a death spiral.
Thankfully, Massachusetts has shown how to do that.
The governor has to make a public statement that he will not allow any more eminent domain takings for highways on his watch (and issue executive orders to that effect.)
After that, the people complaining about traffic have to come up with their own ideas, and if road widening (with eminent domain confiscations) are off the table, even the most car-headed idiot out there has no choice but start talking about transit.
>After that, the people complaining about traffic have to come up with their own ideas, and if road widening (with eminent domain confiscations) are off the table, even the most car-headed idiot out there has no choice but start talking about transit.
They always have the option to leave the state due to a perceived reduction in QOL.
>Massachusetts is hemorrhaging people. In fact, it’s seeing the highest outmigration numbers in the last 30 years, according to a new report from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. A net 110,000 people moved out of the Bay State over roughly the first two years of the pandemic within the United States, most of them between the ages of 26 and 35.
>The question is: why? Rent is certainly a factor. Boston has the second-highest median rent in the country after New York City. Traffic congestion and the many woes of the MBTA have also dominated headlines.
Yes, people have the option of leaving. That option is so unattractive that even gainfully employed and employable people will sleep rough rather than leave.
Our biggest challenge in MA is building enough housing capacity so people can park their heads somewhere safe every night. Since geometry brooks no compromise, it's nice that none, absolutely none of our existing building stock can be torn down for highways.
It's also nice that our inner ring cities have abolished parking requirements, which makes it easier to build more housing.
You're making the assumption that roads pay for themselves, but that isn't true at all either. Across the US cities are going bankrupt because they can't maintain roads and other infrastructure. California has a gas tax that pays 80% of road maintenance, the rest of which is often paid from local city taxes that drivers and non-drivers alike pay. Many cities are falling behind in road maintenance though, the true impact of which won't be felt for ~20 years. A hidden cost of car infrastructure is also that the low density increases the costs of other infrastructure maintenance, such as sewage, gas, and power. Good mass transit is ultimately cheaper for everyone.
Ideally you would have to change how zoning and planning works to create denser more integrated neighborhoods that can be efficiently used with public transit.
If that's too difficult the next best compromise is a park-and-ride scheme. Put a couple stations with huge parking lots in strategic locations between suburbs, and offer good rail or subway connections to work places and shopping destinations. That doesn't enable anyone to get rid of their car, but it gives people a faster alternative to the most congested roads
> Mr. Tafoya was working for the City Council when he heard about the plan to expand the highway just blocks from where his mother still lived. “I-70 radicalized me,” he said. He quit his job and helped organize a statewide coalition of activists and community members who tried to stop the Interstate 70 expansion with lawsuits and protests. In the end, Interstate 70 was expanded. But the fight served as a warning to leaders like Ms. Lew that future highway construction would face spirited opposition.
