Since you are visiting the site from New York City and probably have an idea of how many people use transit, I’ll assume you are being sarcastic in saying, “the fact that no one ever uses transit”.

But, to clarify for the readers, the cost per trip differential is almost never higher than cost per mile since transit users tend to commute from closer distances than driving commuters. Since the cost per mile has a higher denominator, junk economists like to distort the facts using that metric as opposed to the more informative cost per trip metric.

While it may be more expensive to move five people in a train than it is to move one person in a car (I’ll assume that is a fact), one must consider all costs (such as land, capital, and other opportunity costs) before making a conclusion. There’s much more to it than just moving people.

Being that you are in New York, would you consider aquiring all the buildings along Broadway plus the additional land needed to build ramps,etc on top of the construction costs of a major highway a feasible economic alternative to the underground subway lines that run under it? This may be an extreme example, but not as extreme as O’Toole’s example that completely neglects land costs and is only relevent in undeveloped areas.

By no means am I arguing that transit is superior or that roads are inherently bad. My main point is that both systems are highly socialist and completely distort land use patterns. Huge subsidies to both systems divert resources from other productive activities.

2. I long ago stopped reading anything written by one-trick-pony Randall O’Toole. It looks like he hasn’t changed. (I wonder if his mass-transit phobia extends to airplanes and elevators. Or at least elevators in government buildings…)

3. To support socialized highways over socialized transit is like preferring socialized hi-rise public housing over socialized sprawling public housing. I’m sure that arguments could be made for/against each, but it is has nothing to do with reducing the detrimental effects of government. Instead, that discussion is best left for the expertise of insulated planners and other “experts”.