Anonymous #2 13h

We have an annual GDP over $30 TRILLION for a country of 350 million, and the majority of the population lives in fairly dense regions despite the nation being low density on the whole. We could do literally anything we chose to in the area of transit, it’s exclusively a policy problem

5

Anonymous #5 8h

Why would you assume that? Bus lanes are a low cost alternative to subway lines. Bus rapid transits they’re called are used around the world. Good BRTs even have platforms with turnstiles so people pay before waiting for the bus.

-2

Anonymous #4 8h

someone downvoted but the reality is that institutional support is where all of the funding comes from and it's why every other country has high speed rail that works. it's not fares

7

Anonymous OP 8h

You would need lots of bus-only lanes and infrastructure, plus U.S. cities tend to be a lot less dense than Singapore / Hong Kong

4

Anonymous #4 8h

I didn’t downvote, but I think you’re mixing up a city’s public transit with high speed rail. Ofc institutional support is needed but if you look at Hong Kong, MTR is entirely self sufficient and profitable. Fares support something like 40% of revenue. HSR is a different question. The fares still aren’t negligible, but yes, it required huge investment by governments.

-1

Anonymous #5 8h

BRT is precisely for less dense cities. Hong Kong doesn’t use BRT for that reason. Why are you being so antagonistic?

-1

Anonymous OP 7h

Bc you’ve been chatgpt posting all day

6

Anonymous #5 7h

I agree

1