NationStates Jolt Archive

As with many things US, it's a "for profit" setup.

People have argued make it convenient and people will use it while the powers to be argue people should use it and then it will be convenient.

A couple days ago my girl had a Brownie scout function in the downtown park. It was cheaper for me to take our jeep, drive down town, and park in a lot versus the three of us jumping on the Light-Rail system.

Can a mass-transit work on a profit oriented setup? Should it?

Mass transit would be awesome. Currently, the buses that take people around here ignore the village I live in completely, and it pisses me of..

And trains! Yeah.. we need trains..

Lots of people use mass transit in metropolitan areas.

And the suburbs are left to rot.

Lots of people use mass transit in metropolitan areas.

urban sprawl is made of fail. I don't see mass transit working in my area aside from the streetcars down town.

Otherwise there isn't a feasible way to get around town other than using a car.

urban sprawl is made of fail. I don't see mass transit working in my area aside from the streetcars down town.

Otherwise there isn't a feasible way to get around town other than using a car.

What about subways and vines?

Yes, it will work if people are willing to pay for it and use it.

Yessum. It really isn't feasible to connect every single street in every single suburb to mass transit.

But, for all those commuters out there in big cities, why not some sort of massive parking garage connected to an express train/monorail/subway to the city center, which in turn connects to the established mass transit network? I think that would work.

So ignore the little people and make life easier for those in metropolitan areas? :(

And the suburbs are left to rot.

Yessum. It really isn't feasible to connect every single street in every single suburb to mass transit.

But, for all those commuters out there in big cities, why not some sort of massive parking garage connected to an express train/monorail/subway to the city center, which in turn connects to the established mass transit network? I think that would work.

What about subways and vines?

Subways cost lots of money.

And vines...take some skill *looks at bruised elbow*

Yes, when more infrastructure is set up and cars become prohibitively expensive to be used long distance. It defies logic that there is no High Speed Rail from New York to California, New York to Florida, and such.

Yes, it will work if people are willing to pay for it and use it.

But are you willing to use and pay for it when it's not convenient?

Subways cost lots of money.

And vines...take some skill *looks at bruised elbow*

Fine. Hot air balloons and.. ski lifts!

The US is way too spread out for mass transit to work outside of cities.

No, it would service suburbs. Just park you car in the parking garage, hop on the express, and then connect to the inner city. I'm specifically thinking of all those people that spend hours in traffic in LA.

You only have a limited amount of money to spend on building and maintaining mass transit. It's simply not feasible to service everyone with front door to workplace transit.

Actually, I think they're "considering" that for my area..

Still, though, transit communism, FTW.

So ignore the little people and make life easier for those in metropolitan areas? :(

No, it would service suburbs. Just park you car in the parking garage, hop on the express, and then connect to the inner city. I'm specifically thinking of all those people that spend hours in traffic in LA.

You only have a limited amount of money to spend on building and maintaining mass transit. It's simply not feasible to service everyone with front door to workplace transit.

Yes, when more infrastructure is set up and cars become prohibitively expensive to be used long distance. It defies logic that there is no High Speed Rail from New York to California, New York to Florida, and such.

...because it's faster to take a plane?

Mass transit, city to city, works in limited areas. Look at the Boston-NY-Washington corridor. It's the only place where Amtrak makes a profit. Thats because lots of people travel between those areas, and the time spent on a train isn't too much different from the time spent at the airport.

I'm honestly surprised no one has even suggested a "hub and spoke" system for trying to alleviate mass congestion in major areas.

Although I wouldn't mind Gondolas...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/nyregion/16gondola.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

*nods*

Actually, I think they're "considering" that for my area..

Still, though, transit communism, FTW.

I'm honestly surprised no one has even suggested a "hub and spoke" system for trying to alleviate mass congestion in major areas.

Although I wouldn't mind Gondolas...

Yes, when more infrastructure is set up and cars become prohibitively expensive to be used long distance. It defies logic that there is no High Speed Rail from New York to California, New York to Florida, and such.

Wouldn't it be quite difficult to make it profitable when they are competing with fairly cheap low cost airlines?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/nyregion/16gondola.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

*nods*

*smacks head*

Worst...idea...ever. Really.

As with many things US, it's a "for profit" setup.

People have argued make it convenient and people will use it while the powers to be argue people should use it and then it will be convenient.

A couple days ago my girl had a Brownie scout function in the downtown park. It was cheaper for me to take our jeep, drive down town, and park in a lot versus the three of us jumping on the Light-Rail system.

Can a mass-transit work on a profit oriented setup? Should it?

No. I don't believe that any large scale mass-transit is cost effective. Don't get me wrong, I love riding in trains. But the US has too many small villages, farms, and in general wide spaces for either a decent train or bus network. And plus, us Americans, being the impacient people we are, would much rather jump in a car than to take mass-transit.

Or you could support the same legislature that I do, which is to change zoning laws to effectively outlaw the suburbs.

As with many things US, it's a "for profit" setup.

People have argued make it convenient and people will use it while the powers to be argue people should use it and then it will be convenient.

A couple days ago my girl had a Brownie scout function in the downtown park. It was cheaper for me to take our jeep, drive down town, and park in a lot versus the three of us jumping on the Light-Rail system.

Can a mass-transit work on a profit oriented setup? Should it?
Well with the onset of Global Warming and Peak Oil, high petrol prices will inevitably create an underclass of those who can't afford to travel in private cars. I think the answer is building mass transport close to low socio-economic areas.

No, it would service suburbs. Just park you car in the parking garage, hop on the express, and then connect to the inner city. I'm specifically thinking of all those people that spend hours in traffic in LA.

You only have a limited amount of money to spend on building and maintaining mass transit. It's simply not feasible to service everyone with front door to workplace transit.

I live in an inner suburb/metro region and mass transit is unbearably shitty, despite the huge amounts of cash the county throws at it. We have like the 1st or the 2nd largest bus fleet in the nation, and my neighborhood (which is about 1 mile by 1 mile) consisting of 10,000 people only gets visited twice a day: 6:30 am and 5:20 pm. If I miss the bus, I have to drive 2 or 3 miles just to catch it. And there are so many stops, it takes forever.

Our metro rail is just the same. It has huge funds behind it, but there are only a few stops interspersed around the county. It takes forever to drive to it (nullificating some of the benefits), it is gastly expensive, it takes FOREVER, and it's limited number of stops can leave you miles away from your intended destination.

Suburbs are designed to be accessed solely by private automobiles. Which sucks. Given that the traffic takes forever to work through anyway.

Well with the onset of Global Warming and Peak Oil, high petrol prices will inevitably create an underclass of those who can't afford to travel in private cars. I think the answer is building mass transport close to low socio-economic areas.

The lower class areas in US cities are typically well serviced by public transport, seeing as how they're normally smack in the middle of cities. That's a partial reason why many public transportation networks in the US are considered low quality.

I live in an inner suburb/metro region and mass transit is unbearably shitty, despite the huge amounts of cash the county throws at it. We have like the 1st or the 2nd largest bus fleet in the nation, and my neighborhood (which is about 1 mile by 1 mile) consisting of 10,000 people only gets visited twice a day: 6:30 am and 5:20 pm. If I miss the bus, I have to drive 2 or 3 miles just to catch it. And there are so many stops, it takes forever.

Our metro rail is just the same. It has huge funds behind it, but there are only a few stops interspersed around the county. It takes forever to drive to it (nullificating some of the benefits), it is gastly expensive, it takes FOREVER, and it's limited number of stops can leave you miles away from your intended destination.

Suburbs are designed to be accessed solely by private automobiles. Which sucks. Given that the traffic takes forever to work through anyway.

...which is why the suburbs as individuals should not be serviced. It simply isn't effective. Spreading money out to give good coverage everywhere is a recipie for shitty pie. They should concentrate their assets and money where it would do the most people the most amount of good.

Of course, this is what happens when the politicians plan mass transit networks.

More importantly, a trip from Boston through New York to Washington DC passes almost entirely along urban and suburban neighborhoods. If they tried to connect the area to Florida or California, they'd have to pass through rural areas (and in California's case, LOTS of rural areas), which don't have enough people to remain profitable. Behold!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/BosWash-Night-Labeled.png

Mass transit can work, as has been said, in Metropolitan areas, but America is far to large to have a nationwide system equivalent to say what France has, since America, unlike Europe and East Asia, is not equally spread out around the country in relatively large groupings, but rather most of the population lives in specific areas with massive amounts of people.

Now, of course in the next few decades I can see the major population centers becoming linked up with large scale mass transit, and several transnational MagLev train lines, since MagLev's travel at about the same speed as commercial jets, and can even travel faster, but I still don't see mass transit connecting every place in America to every other place.

Mass transit can work, as has been said, in Metropolitan areas, but America is far to large to have a nationwide system equivalent to say what France has, since America, unlike Europe and East Asia, is not equally spread out around the country in relatively large groupings, but rather most of the population lives in specific areas with massive amounts of people.

Now, of course in the next few decades I can see the major population centers becoming linked up with large scale mass transit, and several transnational MagLev train lines, since MagLev's travel at about the same speed as commercial jets, and can even travel faster, but I still don't see mass transit connecting every place in America to every other place.

There's a nice article in Popular Mechanics about a few proposed high speed train lines. Most of them revolving around heavily populated, well traveled areas.

seeing as how this is the US the thing will have to be privatized and private public transport is a silly name (and doesn't work)

then again I may be biased what with privatization breaking the potential to have a decent rail system and the long going experiment of bus companies (£1.60 to the town center during the summer!)

...which is why the suburbs as individuals should not be serviced. It simply isn't effective. Spreading money out to give good coverage everywhere is a recipie for shitty pie. They should concentrate their assets and money where it would do the most people the most amount of good.

Of course, this is what happens when the politicians plan mass transit networks.

Yeah, but more Americans live in the suburbs than either urban areas or rural areas. And people in urban areas tend not to use cars as much. If your trying to reduce our dependence on oil or promote some environmental cause, you would be missing the single largest group of car users. If you're just trying to provide an effective alternative method of transportation, it would be ineffective for rural people, meaning the only beneficiaries would be urban-dwellers.

Which leads me to my main point. PLEASE vote to outlaw suburbs! I hate living here (no, I can't move)...

Yeah, but more Americans live in the suburbs than either urban areas or rural areas. And people in urban areas tend not to use cars as much. If your trying to reduce our dependence on oil or promote some environmental cause, you would be missing the single largest group of car users. If you're just trying to provide an effective alternative method of transportation, it would be ineffective for rural people, meaning the only beneficiaries would be urban-dwellers.

Which leads me to my main point. PLEASE vote to outlaw suburbs! I hate living here (no, I can't move)...

What's wrong with the suburbs? Not everyone wants to live in high-rises in the big city. It's not like they're going to disappear if you "outlaw" them.

Trains would be nice. Commuting would still exist, but people may be less likely to drive or fly from Washington to LA if there were a decent train system.

Trains would be nice. Commuting would still exist, but people may be less likely to drive or fly from Washington to LA if there were a decent train system.

That is not what American trains would be used for. It would still take far longer to take a train coast to coast then a plane. American trains are not going to replace domestic long haul flights. They (hopefully) are going to replace short haul, interstate and interegional flights.

What's wrong with the suburbs? Not everyone wants to live in high-rises in the big city. It's not like they're going to disappear if you "outlaw" them.

I don't like them. And I can't get out of them.

And if you weren't able to tell, I wasn't entirely serious. There are worse things than being forced to live in the suburbs.

That is not what American trains would be used for. It would still take far longer to take a train coast to coast then a plane. American trains are not going to replace domestic long haul flights. They (hopefully) are going to replace short haul, interstate and interegional flights.

Okay, maybe not coast to coast, that was just an example. But a train from Boston to New York, or Richmond to Washington, would be fantastic. Anything between one-hundred and one-thousand miles, really.

Okay, maybe not coast to coast, that was just an example. But a train from Boston to New York, or Richmond to Washington, would be fantastic. Anything between one-hundred and one-thousand miles, really.

Eh, probably closer to 500 miles on the upper limit, but pretty much. As stated before, the only part of Amtrak that's profitable is the Boston-New York-Washington Acela Express, a semi-high speed train. The trick is not trying to develop a city to city national network, European style. We have to develop a regional network, centered on a few large cities.

I don't like them. And I can't get out of them.

And if you weren't able to tell, I wasn't entirely serious. There are worse things than being forced to live in the suburbs.

Like being tortured in the Gulag?

Like being tortured in the Gulag?

If said Gulag is in the Suburbs. Yes.

Suburbs blow. :(

Eh, probably closer to 500 miles on the upper limit, but pretty much. As stated before, the only part of Amtrak that's profitable is the Boston-New York-Washington Acela Express, a semi-high speed train. The trick is not trying to develop a city to city national network, European style. We have to develop a regional network, centered on a few large cities.
I think you could get the lines longer. Japan's system is very extensive (And yes, while it's crowded over here in the cities, most of the country is mountains and tiny villages and most of those have train service). The Shinkansen (Bullet train) runs almost from tip to tip which would be from Maine to Florida if you stretched it out on the map. Yeah, the trip will take you about 12 hours, but that's faster than by car and much cheaper than by air.

Dang sight more comfortable too.

Well with the onset of Global Warming and Peak Oil, high petrol prices will inevitably create an underclass of those who can't afford to travel in private cars. I think the answer is building mass transport close to low socio-economic areas.

Alternatively, some enterprising entrepeneur will build cars that don't use gasoline but use something else real cheap (like electricity). Or they'll ride motorbikes and smartcars (Efficiency > 100 mpg). All hail the tiny automobile. ;)

Yessum. It really isn't feasible to connect every single street in every single suburb to mass transit.

But, for all those commuters out there in big cities, why not some sort of massive parking garage connected to an express train/monorail/subway to the city center, which in turn connects to the established mass transit network? I think that would work.

That's what I do in SimCity 4.

However, I agree with everything you've said in this thread. Also, I find it appalling that the Detroit Metro doesn't have a light rail system.

But, for all those commuters out there in big cities, why not some sort of massive parking garage connected to an express train/monorail/subway to the city center, which in turn connects to the established mass transit network? I think that would work.

That's somewhat been done in Toronto by the TTC. Morning rush hour tends to flow into the city and many of the subway stations towards the north end have parking lots. They tend to fill up fairly early in the day Monday through Friday, and the ones owned by the TTC are free on weekends and after 15:00 (I think, look it up if you care) on weekdays.

Two words, "I dunno".

The only way mass transit will work or should work is if it is used in a highly populated area so that even if (it's not really a question of if, not many people ride trains of busses) a tiny fraction of the total population rode the mass transit system you'd still end up with standing room only. If you banned cars then you'd be doing two things that are really wrong: taking away people's choice and basically enslaving them in the process and putting a fair chunk of your economy and bacon in the hands of the transit union. All they'd have to do to cripple an economy where everyone is dependent on mass transit is strike making bus driving a highly lucrative and exclusive occupation. And I'd be weary of any action to force people to live in cities, I don't like being penned up by big government.

I don't think you could get an unsubsidised rail transport system to work. Road is heavily, heavily subsidised (the costs of road upkeep are rarely factored into daily commuting). Road upkeep would be much higher than the figure for the rail network (if only because of the massive difference in scale.

Roads are good at dispersed, contra-peak travel. Rail, however, is excellent at line-haul (which is why the rail system over there in the US hasn't been completely abandoned -- line-haul is useful for freight).

There's no reason that a subsidised public transport system shouldn't be built there, though -- rail has many fewer negative externalities than road and is also far, far more efficient if it's done right.

I could imagine a 450kph (about 280mph) service would take a lot of the "local" traffic out of the airspace around the Northeast Corridor.

As for city transportation -- Sydney's transport system, though not exactly the most reliable of networks, does haul a lot of passengers - I believe it's somewhere in the vicinity of 1 million passengers daily - which isn't bad for a city of around 4.2 million.

Buses also take a few hundred thousand passengers daily -- without those two networks, Sydney's gridlock would make cities like LA look like a picnic, because we have a limited, "orbital" freeway system.

Mass transit can and does work in many places in the US, including most major cities and even small towns and low density (not rural) areas. It's all a matter of how committed the government is to providing it, and whether the citizens use it. It's important to realize that mass transit and individual (car/bike) transport modes are not mutually exclusive, but help reinforce and compensate for each other's weaknesses in modern transportation infrastructures. As the market adjusts to a declining supply of fossil fuels, we will see use of mass transit trend upwards.

Here in Washington DC, we have the nation's second busiest metro system (after New York), designed almost exclusively for commuters, and not for residents. Lots of people use it down here, which is nice, considering that they considered lots of freeways instead. Obviously, traffic here is monstrous during the workday, but it'd be far worse without our mass transit. So yes, I do see a future for it.

Here in Washington DC, we have the nation's second busiest metro system (after New York), designed almost exclusively for commuters, and not for residents. Lots of people use it down here, which is nice, considering that they considered lots of freeways instead. Obviously, traffic here is monstrous during the workday, but it'd be far worse without our mass transit. So yes, I do see a future for it.

I bet they're using it because it's pretty.

Charleston, SC, has one of the finest bus systems I've encountered-it almost totally supplants the need for private transport-but Charleston also makes good money off horse-drawn carriage tours, so there's a solid economic reason for keeping the streets clear. Similarly, Chicago has a most excellent train system, that at one time was a mainstay of Chicago's economy. I think the trick is to make a mass transit system economically convenient, then maximizing the service becomes second nature.

Sure it can. If there is a demand, some entrepreneurs will find a way to meet it.

It takes about an hour for me to drive into the city, then I have to pay absurd amounts of money for parking, while there was no effective public transportation where I live. Eventually a company convinced the transit authority to allow them to use the bus stops in the city, and put a bus stop in my local Park n Ride (parking lots out in the middle of nowhere built in an attempt to promote car pooling into the city). There is now a bus service running from my middle of nowhere into downtown DC for less than the cost of the parking garage at the office.

The only problem I have with it is the schedule - the last bus leaves the city at 6:40, which I could catch, but I dont like the prospect of missing it and being stuck overnight. If there were just one last bus at 8pm, it could be a bus of last resort making people feel more comfortable about catching the bus home and also provide a chance for people to make it to happy hour (where a lot of business is actually done - or at least corporate politics you have to play to get promoted).

Anyway, the point being that there was enough demand (traffic is a pain in the ass and a lot of people work downtown but live in the burbs) that a for-profit business started offering a service to meet that demand. That Park n Ride used to be mostly empty - now it is always full.

This is not to say that everyone everywhere will have mass transit options to get wherever they want to go, from wherever they are, at whatever time they want, but if there are enough people for that mass transit to move, someone will provide it (providing they are allowed by local regulations to do so).

For profit? Probably only in big metropolitan areas, and maybe the larger surrounding suburbs.

Well if oil prices keep going up it will become the most affordable option for a lot of people.

Yessum. It really isn't feasible to connect every single street in every single suburb to mass transit.


It's a financial thing. No entity can afford to provide service in areas where there is no revenue. Bus service is a great way to service suburbs, but the city or county is going to have to accept routes that cost more than they earn for bus service to be widespread.

I bet they're using it because it's pretty.

Actually, no. The trains are old, and the stations are this 1960s futuristic shit; even the newer ones look like this. But they are extremely clean.

I dont think it will work on a nationwide basis, most areas of the US are just to remote for it to work. Urban area, sure.

I dont see the car going anywhere, ever. Its such a imporant peice of the ecnomey its not even funny. If all automakers were to shut down, millions of jobs around the world would be lost, and as much as 20 percent of all manfucating plants would be lost as well, not good.

Cars will evovle to become far more eco freindly, and they will move away from fossiel fuels eventually.

Americans just don't want it. That's all there is to it. They're completely wed to their horrible cars.

Americans just don't want it. That's all there is to it. They're completely wed to their horrible cars.

May I ask, whats wrong with cars?

May I ask, whats wrong with cars?

They're horrible. DIDN'T YOU READ MY POST????? :upyours:

Anyway, I just don't like them. They're ugly and polluting and ruin the entire look and design of a city (hence America's alarming lack of good cities despite the size and wealth of the place). And over-reliance on them means you can't get a proper public transport system which means that people who don't like cars (me) have to get them anyway.

They're horrible. DIDN'T YOU READ MY POST????? :upyours:

Anyway, I just don't like them. They're ugly and polluting and ruin the entire look and design of a city (hence America's alarming lack of good cities despite the size and wealth of the place). And over-reliance on them means you can't get a proper public transport system which means that people who don't like cars (me) have to get them anyway.

They're awesome, just throw away your POS hybrid and get a REAL car.

Ugly? Right....

http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/09/civicsi06_07.jpg ( Mines peral white :) )
http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/100-greatest/03-large/37-ferrari-f430.jpg

Cars arent ugly at all.

Ok, so I drive a car? I live 20 miles away from the nearest town, what the fuck am I supposed to do without one?

They're awesome, just throw away your POS hybrid and get a REAL car.

Ugly? Right....

http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/09/civicsi06_07.jpg ( Mines peral white :) )
http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/100-greatest/03-large/37-ferrari-f430.jpg

Cars arent ugly at all.

Ok, so I drive a car? I live 20 miles away from the nearest town, what the fuck am I supposed to do without one?

Most cars don't look like Ferraris.

And move.

Most cars don't look like Ferraris.

And move.

Move, lets say we take your obsence idea of banning cars?

What is about half of the population of the US supposed to do? There are places ( such as were I live ) where public transit is imspossible.

Plus, who doeesnt like going out to the track? Nothing beats revving my honda to 7500, then dumping it straight into 2nd.

Move, lets say we take your obsence idea of banning cars?


Let's play a game called 'find where I said anything of the sort'. You find, I'll go count to a hundred.

No. I don't believe that any large scale mass-transit is cost effective. Don't get me wrong, I love riding in trains. But the US has too many small villages, farms, and in general wide spaces for either a decent train or bus network. And plus, us Americans, being the impacient people we are, would much rather jump in a car than to take mass-transit.

Or you could support the same legislature that I do, which is to change zoning laws to effectively outlaw the suburbs.
Um.. May I ask why?

Let's play a game called 'find where I said anything of the sort'. You find, I'll go count to a hundred.

Thats just the vibe Im getting from those posts.

Cars are not ugly, they dont hurt the envioment, and they're personal freedom, they're here to stay

Thats just the vibe Im getting from those posts.

Cars are not ugly, they dont hurt the envioment, and they're personal freedom, they're here to stay

You're getting a "this person wants to ban cars" vibe? Haha.

And OF COURSE they hurt the enviroment.

You're getting a "this person wants to ban cars" vibe? Haha.

And OF COURSE they hurt the enviroment.

Meh, it cant be that bad, your talking to someone who as soon as he gets a new car, the 1st thing he does is hallow out the cats, or just chop them off, emission control robs horsepower.

Meh, it cant be that bad, your talking to someone who as soon as he gets a new car, the 1st thing he does is hallow out the cats, or just chop them off, emission control robs horsepower.

I'm surprised you don't try to add some commas.

Actually, no. The trains are old, and the stations are this 1960s futuristic shit; even the newer ones look like this. But they are extremely clean.

You tell me this isn't pretty! (http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/newcam/vacation/Subway/?action=view&current=DSCF5719.jpg)

You tell me this isn't pretty! (http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/newcam/vacation/Subway/?action=view&current=DSCF5719.jpg)

Ok. That's fuckin' ugly. Otherwise known as fugly.

I live in an inner suburb/metro region and mass transit is unbearably shitty, despite the huge amounts of cash the county throws at it. We have like the 1st or the 2nd largest bus fleet in the nation, and my neighborhood (which is about 1 mile by 1 mile) consisting of 10,000 people only gets visited twice a day: 6:30 am and 5:20 pm. If I miss the bus, I have to drive 2 or 3 miles just to catch it. And there are so many stops, it takes forever.

Our metro rail is just the same. It has huge funds behind it, but there are only a few stops interspersed around the county. It takes forever to drive to it (nullificating some of the benefits), it is gastly expensive, it takes FOREVER, and it's limited number of stops can leave you miles away from your intended destination.

Suburbs are designed to be accessed solely by private automobiles. Which sucks. Given that the traffic takes forever to work through anyway.

Suburbs were actually not designed for access solely by private automobiles -they were originally designed for access by rail or tram networks; it was only after World War II that the nature of suburbs changed and that they become auto-centric.

To the original topic of this thread, I do believe that mass transit in the United States can work, however, there are problems in terms of attitude and other items that do not make it work. By the way, I'll predominantely be talking from a rail standpoint

The first problem is that the railroad line owners put more emphasis on getting paths for their freight and not for passenger runs for Amtrak. Obviously, this means that Amtrak trains are given a significant disadvantage over intercity buses in that they end up slower

The second problem is Amtrak rolling stock - it simply does not suit the passenger loads. What point is there in having an eight-carriage train when there are not the passenger numbers to justify it. My personal opinion is that Amtrak should invest in railcars (something similar to the Silver Fern of New Zealand; the Endeavour railcars in New South Wales and so on). That would cover the passenger loads on the lighter routes, allowing for the eight-carriage trains to be used on the more popular routes where they are suited.

Now moving toward the cities themselves, the third problem is that the powers that be in the United States are looking at rail from the wrong angle - they are trying to do a suburb to suburb approach, and that just doesn't work. The mass transit lines need to be from suburb to CBD, that would attract the most passengers and make the routes more viable.

As with many things US, it's a "for profit" setup.

People have argued make it convenient and people will use it while the powers to be argue people should use it and then it will be convenient.

A couple days ago my girl had a Brownie scout function in the downtown park. It was cheaper for me to take our jeep, drive down town, and park in a lot versus the three of us jumping on the Light-Rail system.

Can a mass-transit work on a profit oriented setup? Should it?
Why should mass transit have to be profit-oriented? The most important part of it is that it's an alternative to the pollution from automobiles on roads, and ironically the government pays for the paving of the roads?

As for your example, I can understand that sometimes taking a rail instead of driving is inconvenient, but I think that for the most part society needs to shift away from using vehicles and to mostly using mass transit, especially with all the burning of fossil fuels and the implications of climate change. There would still be roads for the emergency vehicles, and I suppose non-emergency vehicles could use it if they had some kind of special exception, but with how roads are government-funded now, mass transit should DEFINITELY be government-funded since it isn't as wasteful as roads are.

Why should mass transit have to be profit-oriented? The most important part of it is that it's an alternative to the pollution from automobiles on roads, and ironically the government pays for the paving of the roads?

As for your example, I can understand that sometimes taking a rail instead of driving is inconvenient, but I think that for the most part society needs to shift away from using vehicles and to mostly using mass transit, especially with all the burning of fossil fuels and the implications of climate change. There would still be roads for the emergency vehicles, and I suppose non-emergency vehicles could use it if they had some kind of special exception, but with how roads are government-funded now, mass transit should DEFINITELY be government-funded since it isn't as wasteful as roads are.

Just wondering, now I really hate mass transit outside urban areas, and wouldnt use it if I had the option.

But anyway, what about areas out in the boonies? Theres ALOT Of the USA that would never work with public transit, what are they supported to do? What would I do? I live 20 miles from the nearest bus stop.

You tell me this isn't pretty! (http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/newcam/vacation/Subway/?action=view&current=DSCF5719.jpg)

Sometimes, during the summer, it gets mad hot in there. Then, I feel like I'm in a crematorium.

Just wondering, now I really hate mass transit outside urban areas, and wouldnt use it if I had the option.

But anyway, what about areas out in the boonies? Theres ALOT Of the USA that would never work with public transit, what are they supported to do? What would I do? I live 20 miles from the nearest bus stop.
There's lots of area all over the world that isn't suitable for mass transit. I don't know that the rural United States is any different than rural France, Israel, or Kenya in that respect. Except that there may be more of it...

Eventually, the market will develop ways to either make transportation more efficient, or to abandon commuting all together. That's what we're really after, isn't it? More efficient use of resources? Why would we want to adopt a paradigm from the last century moving forward?

Just wondering, now I really hate mass transit outside urban areas, and wouldnt use it if I had the option.

But anyway, what about areas out in the boonies? Theres ALOT Of the USA that would never work with public transit, what are they supported to do? What would I do? I live 20 miles from the nearest bus stop.
Well, again, I said there would still be roads and non-emergency vehicles could use them if they had some sort of exception. Also there could be some sort of parking garage next to a station outside the city that all the highways lead to and that station leads people into the city railways.