Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Transit
»
Public Transit Ridership in the United States

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
So back to one of my original points in another thread.  I noted that only five (5) per cent of people in the U.S. use public transit, i.e. commuter rail, buses, light rail, etc. Pushing back was the claim that this was a national figure and did not reflect the usage in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Agreed! But even when the metro numbers are taken into consideration, only a minority of Americans use public transport, which includes not only commuter rail (an exception), but buses, light rail, etc.   A number of folks have noted that the emphasis on highways has contributed to urban sprawl. Agreed! At the same time many of these same folks argue for subsidized suburban commuter rail. It too contributes to urban sprawl. I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year. I would like to see some hard evidence that high paid persons would not live in suburbia if they did not have subsidized commuter train services. Highly paid persons have been gravitating to the suburbs since the end of WWII for a variety of lifestyle reasons. Mainline Philadelphia developed long before special interests decided to use public funds to support commuter rail. Requiring suburbanites to tote the note for commuter rail or buses would eliminate some of the marginal users, but I suspect the in-the-money crowd would pony up the money and continue to live in suburbia.  At least until the kids are out of school.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag