Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes
five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged
extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have
the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad.

Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies, 5
to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of
way figured out.
One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted
newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass
around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years
ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95 to
'05 to get it done.
About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either
conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or
the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit
friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around
here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. The
routes to the burbs and large apartment projects were money holes, even
with a buttload of federal subsidies. At work, I suggested they get with
the city bus folks, and try 4-trip a day (early and late to the office,
then the same thing the other way at quitting time) shuttle service from
where employee homes were concentrated to the office complex. The idea
went nowhere, even though several apartment complexes probably account
for a third of the junior-level employees.

--
aem sends...