America’s Transit Exceptionalism
America’s stagnant investment in subways and urban rail, especially compared with China and other regions, prompts debate over whether the core problem is density, bureaucracy and regulation, political capture by car and oil interests, or cultural preferences for suburban living and private vehicles. Commenters contrast high-performing systems in Europe and Asia with costly, delayed, or underused U.S. projects, pointing to loss of technical expertise, NIMBY zoning, and social attitudes that associate transit with poverty or crime. Others argue that low-density sprawl, remote work, and highways already serve most Americans well, questioning whether large new rail systems are either economically viable or socially desired.
Interpretation of the transit graphs
- Several note the chart is per‑capita, so China and South Korea look especially steep, but even India’s “small” bump represents massive absolute growth.
- There’s disagreement on whether population adjustment “skews” the picture; some argue it understates India, others say it doesn’t handle population growth well.
- Many highlight that almost every country’s curve rises except the US and UK.
China, India, and “overbuilding”
- One side claims China is overbuilding housing and rail, creating ghost cities and mismatched demand.
- Others counter that excess capacity is intentional: supporting ongoing urbanization, future quality upgrades, and building while labor is cheap; they argue structures are generally durable for 50–70+ years.
- India is cited as rapidly expanding metros (hundreds of km in ~20 years), with more under construction, and poised to surpass US metro mileage.
US institutions, cost, and project choices
- Some blame US bureaucracy and environmental reviews; others note highly regulated regions (EU, East Asia) still build aggressively, so the issue is US-specific execution and politics.
- High costs and mis‑prioritized megaprojects (e.g., East Side Access) are contrasted with cheaper, higher‑impact builds abroad (e.g., Paris extensions, Crossrail).
- Loss of in‑house expertise after long construction pauses is seen as a cost driver.
Boring Company / Hyperloop as distraction
- Many see Boring Company and Hyperloop as intentional or de facto stalling tactics against conventional rail, especially California HSR and Las Vegas transit.
- Others argue the evidence of deliberate sabotage is weak or speculative; they view these as overhyped tech experiments, not serious transit.
Modes: trams, buses, metros, cars
- Some favor trams for comfort, legibility, and city visibility; others see them as inflexible, slower, and often redundant with buses.
- Strong support appears for layered networks: metro for fast trunk lines, trams or buses for local, and regional rail on top.
- A recurring point: cars remain space‑inefficient in dense cores even if automated; they may help with last‑mile but not mainline capacity.
Culture, density, and inequality
- One camp argues most Americans genuinely prefer low‑density, car‑oriented living and that public transit is for those who can’t afford cars.
- Opponents reply that high urban housing costs signal unmet demand for dense, transit‑rich living; people “choose” sprawl partly because cities are unaffordable or have poor schools.
- Several link weak US transit to racism/classism: transit is coded as for “poor and minorities,” so higher‑income voters resist funding or riding it.
Safety, crime, and perceived quality
- Multiple comments claim fear of crime, disorder, and mentally ill or drug‑using riders is a major reason middle‑ and upper‑income Americans avoid transit, especially in some US cities.
- Others counter that crime rates per rider are still low and that perceptions are amplified, but acknowledge quality and safety problems on systems like BART or some NYC lines.