Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Public transit in Chicago is really good - we used it all the time.

It's also one of the biggest sources of corruption in that chity.

Shy of a drive to the train stations in the suburbs, you can get anywhere in the Chicago area without a car.

The El is expanding currently.

It's not hard. Transit is good where population density supports it.

That's NY, Boston, SF, Chicago, Philly, Miami, and to an extent Los Angeles (although the sprawl here makes living w/o car very difficult).

Most cities who want fancy light rail services don't have enough population density to need it.

But there's always somebody willing to sell it to them, anyway.  And some local politicians looking to get in on the grift.

Maybe those options were not cost effective and not sensible, at least in some cases.  Maybe the people didn't want them.  Every bus I see around town is empty, or has 2-3 riders on it, seems inefficient to me.

I've mentioned before that at some point autonomous EVs may completely eliminate the real need for mass transit, that is speculative, in many areas, including HSR, which is a boondoogle in my view.

Cost:Benefit.

Maybe, maybe. What is undeniable is we constantly chose more cars and more roads over public transit wherever that was an option in a bet on cheap gas and cheap cars. When those prices rise, we are stuck with very limited options and thus are stuck with paying the higher prices. Certainly, looking at options to decrease fuel prices is important. Not sure why making the need for less gas is somehow not on the same playing field. Well, I do know why, people don't understand economics.

It's not hard. Transit is good where population density supports it.

That's NY, Boston, SF, Chicago, Philly, Miami, and to an extent Los Angeles (although the sprawl here makes living w/o car very difficult).

Most cities who want fancy light rail services don't have enough population density to need it.

Well, it is hard. Population density is a direct result of the transit options. So to say, hey, our city is too spread out to need or use public transit is more of a just so story than a policy. 

Maybe, maybe. What is undeniable is we constantly chose more cars and more roads over public transit wherever that was an option in a bet on cheap gas and cheap cars. When those prices rise, we are stuck with very limited options and thus are stuck with paying the higher prices. Certainly, looking at options to decrease fuel prices is important. Not sure why making the need for less gas is somehow not on the same playing field. Well, I do know why, people don't understand economics.

Yeah, and a lot of those transit systems that DO get built have poor ridership numbers and are not self-sustaining. Yet the answer is "build more transit!" even though you can look at past history in cities with low-mid population density and realize it's likely to be a failure...

The best transit to expand would be bus services. It's cheap [relatively], modular, and can adjust routes/timing to match changing population needs.

That's my point, you can build it, and they won't come, it's a waste, like the CA HSR nonsense that was obvious nonsense from its start.  These things often are masquerading as social justice, feel good wannabes that make zero sense.

Atlanta has a streecar no one rides, so does Cincy (who I think just made it free).  This was to try and develop a black area of town, it didn't work.  The subway here is "OK", we use it at times, and I'd hate to think what the city would be like without it, but it's way underutilized, and very costly.

All the plans here for bus rapid transit and light rail cost a lot of money and seems to me doomed to failure as well.  If people largely don't like the product, it's going to fail.