Should the US invest in a national mass transit system?

Question

Due to increasing oil prices, private transportation hits the lower/middle classes hard. Public transportation is unreliable and most are run off petro, and hence, are affected as well. Can we adopt a mass transit as well honed as those found in Europe or Japan?

One would think the US would have learned from the first oil crunch in the 1970s when OPEC disrupted the oil flow then. Alas, the cars seems bigger (look at the Hummers) today and not much progress has been made towards making efficient cars or cost effective mass transit.

Answer 1

Wouldn't THAT be a dream come true!

Answer 2

No, Americans are too selfish to share their space. We have not traditionally supported transit between major cities. This is why AMTRAK is in so much trouble.
Not to mention the size and cost of such a system. Except for a few cities on the Eastern Seaboard, most of the Major Cities are to far away from each other for this to be an economically viable solution.

The oil crunch is due to the rich wanting to get richer, and they are exploiting the lower/middle class to do it.

P.S. Car makers would stop making bigger cars if people would stop buying them. This is simple economics.

Answer 3

When labour was free or cheap America built an efficient national rail system. The cost of labour climbed, the cost of steel climbed and unfortunately rail travel dwindled except for freighting. However, now the price of oil is climbing, a lot depends on how much it climbs and if the increase in oil prices can outpace the prices of steel and labour.

Boaz.

Answer 4

No one wants a national mass transit system. We already had GreyHound buses and Amtrack, no one uses them, especially Amtrack, A lot of tax payers money gets wasted on it.

Gas is still cheap here compared to Europe. If people want to go somewhere they will drive 2 days instead of taking a train or bus for 3-5 days.

Answer 5

We have mass transit for long distances: Airplanes. No rail system makes money, which means that taxpayers pay for it, which means that the economy slows down.

People use cars for short distances because it is more expensive and more difficult to get places except in the biggest and most crowded cities. Those cities already have rail systems, and they still have to subsidize them.

Answer 6

They did. It was called AmTrak. And the government was a dismal failure at managing it.

That's the problem with a national anything. It requires the creation of some bureaucratic agency, and federal tax money allocated by Congress. Such matters are much more efficiently handled by local/county and state governments.

Answer 7

we don't look drawn to development mass transportation structures in any respect. This has allot to do with the motor vehicle manufacturers and oil agencies, as much less vehicles and gasoline could be required. DC is merely drawn to taking our money no longer enhancing our lives.

Answer 8

That is a great idean but the US is so much bigger than those countries that it would be very difficult to do. There are not large populations in much of the country and there would be no need for it there. I would love to see it happen though.

Answer 9

NO, it would just give the Terrorist another target that could kill thousands at a time. I think the Governemnt, State and Federal should scale back the taxes on Gas to what it was in 2002
. We could save more at the pump. Just look to see what those taxes cost us now. Just look at what they were then.

http://www.lmoga.com/taxrates.htm

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html

Answer 10

I think that would be good to a point. There are a lot of remote places out here in the west that it would not be feasible for that type of system.

Answer 11

Ethanol Dude. The heartland is already converting, soon its going to be e-85 in every station in America.