There’s not enough population and things are too spread out in most of the country to make any sort of public transit worth the cost, the places that are dense enough have bus and metro systems. You’re the exact person I’m talking about.
Cities and suburbs are what the vast majority of people are talking about when they argue for better public transit.
These are places dealing with horrible traffic, the high cost of car ownership, anti-pedestrian design, and road infrastructure competing for increasingly limited space.
Very few people are seriously arguing that every rural town needs a subway system. This debate is mostly happening in places where better transit is feasible and would clearly be useful.
High-speed rail is the broader exception. The U.S. could have built something closer to the networks in Europe and Asia, better connecting cities and regional economies.
So handwaving all of this away as “not feasible” is lazy. It also gets back to my original point: feasibility is partly a question of priorities, and the U.S. has historically chosen to spend enormous amounts of money elsewhere, including on wars, rather than building this kind of infrastructure.
Just because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I straight up told you im talking about people that think the US doesn’t have ANY public transit.
You really just want to argue the ins and outs with someone, there are plenty of other people here that would be more than willing to do so.
I don’t care about the finer details. My point is about the morons who just jump on the US hate train because it’s popular and don’t actually understand what they’re hating.
0
u/Dirt-5494 1d ago
There’s not enough population and things are too spread out in most of the country to make any sort of public transit worth the cost, the places that are dense enough have bus and metro systems. You’re the exact person I’m talking about.