Much of the infrastructure was built when (1) the country was so rich that most of the people with any influence at all had cars and (2) the country was less populated so traffic and parking were less severe problems.

Everybody builds the infrastructure that the then-state-of-the-art calls for. That was roads and freeways for most of the US. It's an accident of history, not an idiotic mistake. Not doing anything about it for the past ten years is the possible mistake, but from the perspective of the people who already live somewhere, and like having relatively lower density, they have just as much right to doing things how they want as the new tech crowd interlopers do.

Much of the transit infrastructure was torn down and replaced with roads. The bay area had a great rail system, but it was removed.

The Key System is one notable example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System

The new Bay Bridge span was specifically not designed to carry rail, so rail over the bridge is not coming back.

I actually sympathize with the NIMBY-ers quite a bit when it comes to housing. But in terms of transportation, it depresses me to know from first-hand experience how much better things could be. Better public transit is simply a win-win for almost everyone: far fewer cars, more pedestrian areas and access, an increased number of people willing to live outside the city, and streets that don't feel like DMZs. City life is categorically improved when you no longer have to shuffle streetcar schedules or chase the bus around. (Or sit in traffic for 3 hours to go across town.)

This is what bothers me whenever I hear people rave about the future that driverless cars will finally make possible. They basically list your win-win list: far fewer cars, more pedestrian areas, etc. That might all be true, but we don't to wait for self-driving cars for that! Just build reliable public transportation just like countless cities have already done.

>the future that driverless cars will finally make possible

I tend to think these are further away than most people think. But I also have a lot of trouble seeing how they don't massively increase traffic. Maybe you need less parking and maybe inter-car communications can make traffic move more smoothly. But does anyone seriously believe that people will drive less when they effectively have a personal driver at their beck and call?

>Better public transit is simply a win-win for almost everyone

No it isn't. Many neighborhoods are quiet and/or cheap because they're difficult to access. Their residents have a vested interest in keeping it that way. You don't vote for a new subway stop if you'll be priced out or have your perception fo quiet and safety ruined by the people it brings.

They only have that right if we believe that it's ok for some people to shrug off the fact that they're contributing several times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere than they would otherwise.

the way they want to do things causes ends up causing massive suffering for really no good reason.

Mass transit in America is terrible, period (outside of maybe Manhattan, despite the fact that our subway has been getting worse and is in dire need of upgrading). America sucks at mass transit, but for whatever reason Americans don't seem to care. I think it's because they're complacent, don't know any better, and have this toxic "everybody for themselves" mentality that makes it impossible to improve anything that's in the general public welfare.

Even IF there was a desire among politicians to fix the transportation issues in San Francisco I doubt they'd find a means to do so. It would cost a ton of money and congress has no idea where to get that money from.

The middle class is taxed to capacity. When ~30-40% of your paycheck is taxes (including federal), and another 30-40% is exorbitant rent costs, you're left feeling quite squeezed. I myself for example, simply mark NO on all tax supported programs on the ballot, regardless of their merit.

It sucks because many of those programs are so desperately needed. But asking me to raise my taxes any further is a non-starter. If you include property tax and sales tax in your estimation of how much you're getting taxed the number is astonishing. Yet look around and witness what that buys - failing infrastructure, skyrocketing housing prices, terrible roads, healthcare prices spiraling out of control, an educational system in decline, the list goes on, and on...

It's not that I have an "every man for them self" perspective, it's just that I have believe there are deeper issues with our country that we can't tax ourselves out of.

One thing I wish I understood better is where the hell does the money go?

The federal budget is to a first approximation is 2/3 medicare/medicaid/social security/defense. In California across state and local has it's 2/3 being spent on health care/education/pensions. The Golden Gate Bridge cost $1.5B in today's dollars to build. Today-ish it took $6.4B to rebuild the east span of the Bay bridge.

How have things gotten so expensive, where does that money go, it just seems like despite paying a fair amount in taxes we're just not getting very much for our money.

It's more expensive everywhere than it used to be, but the construction cost inflation is vastly greater in the US than in other developed countries. Construction is getting less efficient over time.

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-constr... https://www.economist.com/news/business/21726714-american-bu...

I have the same damn question - where is all the money going?

Put another way, why is my dollar buying exponentially less than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago? Don't even try to tell me it's inflation.

I don't know the answer. We pay politicians to know those things and to work on finding solutions. Funny how they don't seem any better at understanding the problem and finding a solution than you and me.

So while I don't honestly have any solid understanding, I can only posit that it may have something to do with wealth consolidation [1]. I'm no proponent of socialism or artificially redistributing wealth but I look to the growing divide between the rich and poor in the U.S. (and globally) and can't help but notice it correlates quite strongly with my dollar buying less, and less. Yes, correlation != causation, but you gotta start somewhere.

If you can get past the 90s era cinematography "The Money Makers" is a fascinating documentary which illuminates some of the issues with our monetary system.

https://youtu.be/XbEu-OLMKLQ

[1] The top 0.01% of households, with net assets of over $40m, short-changed the taxman by a whopping 30%.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/06/daily-...

> where does that money go

Contractors and sub contractors. The more layers in the supply chain, the harder it is for that money to be tracked.

Chicago is decent.

A big factor in the USA that we only have a few major cities with a built up core like New York.

We have many major cities built like LA or Houston where it's spread out and makes public transport less of a priority.

The bus arrives on time: Yes

But it's so crowded and stinky, it's not worth it. That's my educated guess about why so many people use car sharing services

Also, why do they keep doing so many new buildings?

Those buildings are going to need people, and people need transportation, and a house...

Nobody uses buses anymore. They're too crowded.

(apologies to Y.B.)

ahh, nice :)