ECtransplant wrote: the kid wrote:
^Spoken like a young kid who likes spending other peoples money to make his urban wet dreams come true
Or who doesn't like the spending of other peoples' money to build sprawl, freeways, bridges, etc. out to the sticks.
^^ The amount of subsidy for rail or any other transit by far pales in comparison to the amount we prop up oil, roads, bridges, SF homes, and on and on. Not even close.
nasa35 wrote:answered by someone who clearly doesn't know. People have to drive their cars to rail stops, or does that just become some non factor?
Bus can go anywhere. Rail interupts the flow of traffic and is locked down. Not sensible solution in a sprawl.
Does grade-separated rail interrupt precious car traffic? Where is it written in the rule of man that an at-grade train carrying hundreds of passengers shouldn't have right of way vs. a car? I was unaware that the only way to get to train stations or platforms was by car. I'll be sure to notify everyone in London, NYC, Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong, Boston,, (need I go on) who arrive at rail transit by foot or bike that they're living in a dreamworld.