No that's completely false as well as gratuitously insulting.

I'm saying that there's a tradeoff between investment and cost effectiveness relative to individual transportation.

A bus gets like 6 mpg. You have to have a certain average number of people on it per time or distance for it to be more efficient than a person in a car.

A network is more valuable the larger it is. But the more routes you have, the less traffic each one will have.

Being willing to invest is irrelevant, unless you think investing in something that makes people worse off is a no-brainer.

It's not meant to be insulting, it's just based on the numbers. 81% of Federal and State spending is allocated to highways, 19% to all other transit. 61% of local funding, too [1].

American governments tend to prioritize investment and spending for individual transportation over public transportation. The numbers get really crazy when you actually factor in the costs associated with 'free parking' - including requirements that new developments include a minimum amount of parking spots for each housing unit - and all the other subsidies car transportation enjoys.

[edit] > Being willing to invest is irrelevant, unless you think investing in something that makes people worse off is a no-brainer.

The thing is, public transportation isn't meant to be necessarily cost effective or even in all cases fuel efficient at the point of service, it levels the playing field. Poor folks currently have to buy a car to get to work. That's a huge investment in a depreciating asset at usurious interest rates. Public transportation reduces inequality and bolsters the economy indirectly, too.

[1] https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2014/09/ff-transpor...

>It's not meant to be insulting, it's just based on the numbers

It's offensive and insulting to go off on an anti-American tangent that signals a complete lack of engagement with the comment supposedly being replied to.

You're compounding it. Whether what you write is true or not, has nothing to do with it being an obnoxious political digression.

I made a comment on tradeoffs. Whether anybody is willing to spend money on things that have a positive return for society is changing the subject. The assumption was that we all are.

I'm genuinely not sure why you think it's insulting and anti-American to suggest American governments don't prioritize spending on public transit, when the numbers bear that out. It's an observation, not an attack. It's viewed as a welfare program, a lifeline for those who can't afford to own cars. American's don't really like public transit - in part because of this perception. That's not a value judgement. [1] Governments invest in things people like and care about and are popular - that's one way to get elected, after all.

Am I wrong? Do Americans actually love public transit, and is the government in fact willing to invest as much as it takes to make the system work right? All the data I've dug up suggests otherwise but if you have some I'm happy to read it.

> Whether anybody is willing to spend money on things that have a positive return for society is changing the subject. The assumption was that we all are.

Well, not really, narratives and entrenched interests do a good job of convincing people to vote against their own interests.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/transit-center-census-americans-...

That conveniently ignores the fact that public attitudes are not in any way shaped, whether by corporations or politicians. If a leader believes that public transit is in the long term best interest for America, then they can work to change public attitudes. In the same vein, automobile manufacturers will do their best through advertising and lobbying to ensure America's love interest in their private vehicles continues indefinitely without competition from the public sector.

The 800k hybrid buses and the 1.2M pure EV buses don't get 6mpg.

The average number of people you need for simply the fuel is like, 5. But as far as all other factors, a lot are fixed costs, so number of trips is more important that average people.

Not to forget, again, electric buses exist and work well.

Some buses are more fuel efficient than average; so are some cars.

I was not promoting specific numbers; the point is there's a tradeoff and a tipping point where more trips make things worse, whatever the numbers are.

Averages have a way of being a lot lower than peak numbers, too.

Yeah, but the averages don't matter as much as the max in this case. The total carrying capacity between 8-10 and 4-6 is what's important, as traditionally, this is when most of the people moving occurred. It doesn't really matter if the buses are less efficient than cars the rest of the time, as long as they take enough of the overall journeys at peak times that the whole city traffic system moves quicker.