[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I've always wondered about that, and have concluded that it's just not practicable because of the lack of population density. I've found the mass transit systems of the cities to be generally quite good, New York City particularly comes to mind, though other cities like San Francisco and Washington DC I've found to be quite navigable without a car as well. (If not recommended, due to lack of parking).

The problem occurs when you get out to the less central suburbs, where there is room for nice spacious shopping strips, houses not on top of each other, and so on, or worse, when you get to the countryside. Unlike somewhere like Ireland or Switzerland where a single bus stop is within a reasonable walking distance of a large number of people and/or destinations, the amount of routes and stops required in America would be prohibitive: They would presumably increase at a 'squared' function compared to a decrease in density. The story of the American passenger rail network is pretty much a case in point. These days the only profitable parts of the passenger network are those where there are high population densities: The NorthEast Corridor and the California Corridor. As it is, Amtrak is repeatedly on the verge of extinction because of the costs incurred in keeping even a vestigal nationwide route, let alone creating a network capable enough that it would provide a rational alternative to cars.

NTM

Well...gee willikers, NTM...If they stop providing rail service and force Amtrak under, then the U.S. should reclaim all that land that was granted them to build and maintain the rail systems.

And, you are right, it requires sufficient density and sufficient disincentives (negative incentives - gridlock, high parking costs, increased break-ins, etc.) to use a car to make mass transit "pay its own way". Even then, it's pretty marginal at bringing in sufficient revenues to update the system when needed. Almost every major mass transit system in the U.S. is subsidized by the taxpayer. Here in Oregon, we get a chance to vote on it before they ignore the electorate and do what they want anyway. In the past, increases in mass transit subsidies (through an employer tax) have been approved by healthy majorities of the regional electorate. Yet, the members of this healthy majority do no seem to be actually utilizing the mass transit system...the reason why? They voted to get more motorists off the streets; that means everybody else but them. They can't understand why there are still all those idiots driving their cars, getting in their way, driving like nincompoops, and not using the mass transit system.

I don't think you'll pull American drivers out of their cars until the disincentives outweigh the benefits of having total control over your immediate environment. No smelly drunks. No rude people. No wackos or other societal marginals. None of that crap to deal with, and nobody criticizes your selection of music to travel by.