[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

No they don't. Real estate interests push and push against infrastructure projects of all types. Washington, DC is unique in that the government is the main employer, and as such, construction of the Metro system in the district was minimally controversial.

Many mid-sized U.S. cities are still lorded over by blue blood families who control real estate values through political connections at the local, state, and national level. These people literally put their henchmen in office for the purpose of creating a moat around their business interests, which include real estate. Those forces weren't at play in Washington, DC in the 1960s when Metro was planned.

In other cities, the places where subways could most economically be built didn't coincide with the long game played by the blue bloods, and so public transportation improvements had to be smeared. Its supporters were feminized. The up-front costs were emphasized. Transit is always "subsidized", whereas money-losing expressways and garages are an "investment".

Power is sources in a mastery of emotions, not facts. The nerd knows the facts, but he has no power.

The costs of road and highway construction is not limited to the roadways themselves. A rail system's capital costs necessarily include the rail vehicles themselves, so a mile of highway does not equal a mile of rail transit. Meanwhile, the owner of a automobile often naively pays $10+ per day in depreciation. The underground public parking garages built in my city in the past ten years have averaged $40,000 per space. Each car commuter that switches over to the bus or rail is a structured parking space that doesn't need to be built.

Great summary!