John David Galt wrote:
I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it
takes taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it
doesn't make sense.

So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
the transportation-related tax money goes.

Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
of the transportation-related tax money goes.

Once users of those modes all have to pay their own way, I think mass
transit will be very competitive, and will no longer need subsidies.

Metro in the median of I-66, for instance, can carry more people
faster, more efficiently, while using less energy, in less space,
more safely, while producing less pollution, more quietly, than the
surrounding highway. And passengers can read or work, rather than
giving their full attention to driving. Nor do they have a massive
upfront capital cost, or the need to carry what amounts to an internal
passport, or the need to find and pay for a parking space at both ends
of every trip.

Also, Metro can carry everyone. Millions of people are unable to
drive cars for medical, financial, legal, age, or temperamental
reasons.

If you don't generate your own electricity, sew your own clothes,
build your own house, or grow your own food, why should you drive
your own vehicle? Specialization just makes sense.

(Yes, I know what Heinlein said. It's good to be *able* to drive a
car, swim, send morse code, survive in the wilderness, fly a plane,
repair a CD player, etc, but unless that's your profession or a hobby
you enjoy, why do it every day?)

The only reason why cars are so common is because of distortions in the
economy caused by various government policies, taxes, and subsidies.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.