D. C. Bear said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Biden says Americans will have to stomach high gas prices “as long as it takes” to beat back Putin’s invasion of Ukraine https://t.co/npiUbJaZDl

— Bloomberg (@business) June 30, 2022

---

I assume he's lying on purpose, but he might actually believe it.

---

Hard to care about gas prices when its been probably 40 years or more since he filled up a tank...

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

By the way if you've gone to Europe much, your last mile argument is bad. It might be last 8 blocks, but Europeans are just not as adverse as Americans to walking. The rail systems get you pretty much everywhere. Only time I feel the need for a car is when I'll be moving around unpredictably, or doing nature things where the trains don't go.

Maybe those last 8 blocks would solve our obesity problem, win win.

Except US cities are laid out nothing like Euro cities.

nein51 said:

---

I agree. It's a ridiculous waste…but it's not a crazy amount of money. It won't even go far.

---

I have nothing against transit. I choose to use rideshare in certain cities. Transit just needs to remember that they are an urban activity and focus on that. At least in the south, trying to provide reliable transit for a whole County is a fool's errand and statute requires them to do it.

nein51 said:

---

Except US cities are laid out nothing like Euro cities.

---

Of course the US is different from Europe. Did you read the rest? How before Europe had successful mass transit, the US did?

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).

What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...

Cobretti said:

---

Biden says Americans will have to stomach high gas prices “as long as it takes” to beat back Putin’s invasion of Ukraine https://t.co/npiUbJaZDl

— Bloomberg (@business) June 30, 2022

---

US was already facing high gas prices before the invasion.

05/04/2020 average gas prices were $1.78 in the US which means Texas was probably $1.70.

Average US prices were about $3.60 before the invasion. The man needs to quit acting like prices wouldn't be high with out Putin, they always jump in the summer, even without the invasion they would be over $4 this summer.

This guy is a ****ing moron, time to roll out the 25th amendment on him.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Biden says Americans will have to stomach high gas prices “as long as it takes” to beat back Putin’s invasion of Ukraine https://t.co/npiUbJaZDl

— Bloomberg (@business) June 30, 2022

---

US was already facing high gas prices before the invasion.

05/04/2020 average gas prices were $1.78 in the US which means Texas was probably $1.70.

Average US prices were about $3.60 before the invasion. The man needs to quit acting like prices wouldn't be high with out Putin, they always jump in the summer, even without the invasion they would be over $4 this summer.

This guy is a ****ing moron, time to roll out the 25th amendment on him.

---

You don't want what's next in line. I understand your frustration, but $7/gallon gas for 24 months may be better than Kamala getting a promotion.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Biden says Americans will have to stomach high gas prices “as long as it takes” to beat back Putin’s invasion of Ukraine https://t.co/npiUbJaZDl

— Bloomberg (@business) June 30, 2022

---

US was already facing high gas prices before the invasion.

05/04/2020 average gas prices were $1.78 in the US which means Texas was probably $1.70.

Average US prices were about $3.60 before the invasion. The man needs to quit acting like prices wouldn't be high with out Putin, they always jump in the summer, even without the invasion they would be over $4 this summer.

This guy is a ****ing moron, time to roll out the 25th amendment on him.

---

I want Biden to finish his term .

Harris is 10x more dangerous.

This is definitely going to help.

Is there nothing Putin won’t do? https://t.co/tojTD5wMnn

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) July 2, 2022

ATL Bear said:

---

This is definitely going to help.

Is there nothing Putin won’t do? https://t.co/tojTD5wMnn

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) July 2, 2022

---

4th and Inches said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is definitely going to help.

Is there nothing Putin won’t do? https://t.co/tojTD5wMnn

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) July 2, 2022

---

---

It's hard to blame Biden because he's a senile racist and pervert who likely molested his own daughter. His idiotic fake "doctor" wife is allowing privileged, tranee 20-year-olds to run the country.

I called it on March 27, 2020. The popular bill to spend $2 trillion dollars and shut down our economy was “the biggest mistake in history.” That bill and subsequent bills that spent another $4 trillion are the reasons we now have shortages and inflation.pic.twitter.com/9jOuMPO6i9

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 2, 2022

In low-inflation regimes, price spillovers across different sectors are more muted and large individual price increases tend not to leave a lasting imprint on #Inflation. Check out our interactive graphs demonstrating this point #BISAnnualEconReport https://t.co/2zkYHb6Ijc pic.twitter.com/AUFTJdttV2

— Bank for International Settlements (@BIS_org) June 27, 2022

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).

What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...

---

The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.

But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.

We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.

Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).

What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...

---

The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.

But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.

We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.

Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.

---

Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.

Asian markets rose on Tuesday on growing speculation of US President about to roll back some Trump-era tariffs on Chinese goods as he looks for ways to rein in inflation.https://t.co/K4LnZ8bIr2

— Business Line (@businessline) July 5, 2022

Stunning Amount Of Oil Released By Biden Found Its Way To China, Other Countries https://t.co/iQ9D7n1pYR pic.twitter.com/NkMxDN1lzy

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) July 5, 2022

Gasoline futures fell off a cliff today, now down 70ish cents per gallon the last month.

Supply/demand has leveled off. Russia hasn't been cut off from selling oil, they're just selling it for a discount to India and China.

Ironically the Atlantic Coast is importing millions of gallons of premium gasoline and blendstock from India. This was probably refined from Russian crude lol.

The mess Biden created by his improper, nonsensical use of our emergency oil stockpile - the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - was entirely predictable. It was the action of a flailing administration trying to undo the damage of its own policies.

Here’s why it’s bad policy. THREAD

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) July 7, 2022

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).

What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...

---

The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.

But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.

We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.

Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.

---

Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.

---

Generally true. I agree with your post 99%

But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).

What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...

---

The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.

But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.

We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.

Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.

---

Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.

---

Generally true. I agree with your post 99%

But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.

---

Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?

Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.

On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?

This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).

What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...

---

The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.

But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.

We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.

Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.

---

Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.

---

Generally true. I agree with your post 99%

But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.

---

Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?

Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.

On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?

This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.

---

I said I agreed with 99% of the post. I meant it.

But it is worth noting that free market mechanisms that do not account for harms inflicted on third parties are scenarios in which (1) regulation or (2) subsidy can make sense.

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).

What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...

---

The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.

But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.

We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.

Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.

---

Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.

---

Generally true. I agree with your post 99%

But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.

---

Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?

Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.

On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?

This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.

---

I said I agreed with 99% of the post. I meant it.

But it is worth noting that free market mechanisms that do not account for harms inflicted on third parties are scenarios in which (1) regulation or (2) subsidy can make sense.

---

Not aimed at you, just a frustrated rant because I sit in meetings all day listening to people want to remove travel lanes because in 2100 we won't need cars and investing billions of dollars than not letting us build any way for people to get to them or commit economic suicide in the next 5 years over something there is no evidence we can stop or fix. Just gets to you when you see stuff we can solve right now.

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

So democracy happened? People do not want mass transit because people have used mass transit. Cheaper alternatives emerged.

God Bless America.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

So democracy happened? People do not want mass transit because people have used mass transit. Cheaper alternatives emerged.

God Bless America.

---

Even if not cheaper, the freedom to make individual choices as to where you live, work, study and even just visit. The automobile gave the common person individuality of lifestyle, not relying on a Government provided service.

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).

What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...

---

The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.

But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.

We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.

Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.

---

Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.

---

Generally true. I agree with your post 99%

But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.

---

Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?

Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.

On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?

This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.

---

I said I agreed with 99% of the post. I meant it.

But it is worth noting that free market mechanisms that do not account for harms inflicted on third parties are scenarios in which (1) regulation or (2) subsidy can make sense.

---

Not aimed at you, just a frustrated rant because I sit in meetings all day listening to people want to remove travel lanes because in 2100 we won't need cars and investing billions of dollars than not letting us build any way for people to get to them or commit economic suicide in the next 5 years over something there is no evidence we can stop or fix. Just gets to you when you see stuff we can solve right now.

---

Well, they keep adding lanes to I-35.

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).

What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...

---

The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.

But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.

We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.

Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.

---

Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.

---

Generally true. I agree with your post 99%

But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.

---

Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?

Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.

On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?

This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.

---

I said I agreed with 99% of the post. I meant it.

But it is worth noting that free market mechanisms that do not account for harms inflicted on third parties are scenarios in which (1) regulation or (2) subsidy can make sense.

---

Not aimed at you, just a frustrated rant because I sit in meetings all day listening to people want to remove travel lanes because in 2100 we won't need cars and investing billions of dollars than not letting us build any way for people to get to them or commit economic suicide in the next 5 years over something there is no evidence we can stop or fix. Just gets to you when you see stuff we can solve right now.

---

Well, they keep adding lanes to I-35.

---

We need more roads, not just widening existing. I love what Texas was doing with toll roads, then they were forced to stop. How many alternatives have come through since? When you HAVE to rely on Government funding everything stops...

Chipoople said:

---

Gasoline futures fell off a cliff today, now down 70ish cents per gallon the last month.

Supply/demand has leveled off. Russia hasn't been cut off from selling oil, they're just selling it for a discount to India and China.

Ironically the Atlantic Coast is importing millions of gallons of premium gasoline and blendstock from India. This was probably refined from Russian crude lol.

---

So what I hear you saying is Biden makes gas prices go up and Trump makes them go down.

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.

---

Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.

• The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
• The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
• The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
• The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
• Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
• It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
• US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.

---

The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.

At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.

It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.

---

The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).

What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...

---

The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.

But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.

We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.

Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.

---

Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.

---

Generally true. I agree with your post 99%

But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.

---

Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?

Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.

On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?

This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.

---

I said I agreed with 99% of the post. I meant it.

But it is worth noting that free market mechanisms that do not account for harms inflicted on third parties are scenarios in which (1) regulation or (2) subsidy can make sense.

---

Reasonable, but suffers from loss of context: Sovereign power has proven over and over again to be far more destructive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than free market dynamics.

Gas prices are falling. What did Biden do now??

quash said:

---

Gas prices are falling. What did Biden do now??

---

We are in a recession. Does he get credit for his deft handling of the economy?

He Hate Me said:

---

quash said:

---

Gas prices are falling. What did Biden do now??

---

We are in a recession. Does he get credit for his deft handling of the economy?

---

Was hoping the double question mark would indicate sarcasm. I have consistently said gas prices are a market function.

quash said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

quash said:

---

Gas prices are falling. What did Biden do now??

---

We are in a recession. Does he get credit for his deft handling of the economy?

---

Was hoping the double question mark would indicate sarcasm. I have consistently said gas prices are a market function.

---

Gas prices are a market function and the market is constrained by government regulatory action. If the feds would allow more oil production, then the cost of the refinery input (crude) goes down. If the feds and states would reduce regulations on refinery, then you would have more refinery capacity and more gasoline supply would hit the market. Of course, it is not mere coincidence that the price of crude is declining when the feds are opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to Biden's political emergency.