[volatilecarbon]

I'd much rather see public investment in projects that will make the world livable once energy and resources are no longer cheap. Rail transportation in particular. Every car a person is not required to own to live in America would save them ~$10,000 a year in costs today. When cars and gas are more expensive, they'll save even more. Those savings might even save them from losing their home or going hungry if things get bad.

In particular, I look at suburban areas with no stores or workplaces for miles, where the only transport option is the car, and I struggle to see how they won't become blighted slums (like what Detroit's became as it shrank) when gas and cars are too expensive for the average person to afford.

[fennecfoxen]

> Rail transportation in particular.

ahem bus rapid transit

[f1yght]

BRT is still reliant on using roads that cars are on and even if it were electric, requires recharging (Unless it's on a wire). So rail in this instance makes more sense as you get cars out of the way and you wouldn't need to charge it. If it's on a guided wire might as well make it a rail.

[TuringTest]

The infrastructure for railways is considerably more expensive to build than a BRT, even with the dedicated lanes required for it to be fast.

A middle ground are light rail and tram, but those tend to be slower than a bus based-BRT system as the cheap rails don't support speeds as fast as a metro or railway.

[fennecfoxen]

> BRT is still reliant on using roads that cars are on

no no no no NO. The whole point of it being Bus Rapid Transit (as opposed to just a series of buses) is that it ISN'T just using the same roads that cars are on.