Should We Fund Mass Transit Over Highways to Reduce CO2?

Question

According to the following website, mass transit emits half the CO2 emissions as passenger cars per mile. Instead of spending as much on highways, should most states take highway funds out of their budget, and use that money to increase mass transit funding?

http://www.serconline.org/transFund/fact.html

Answer 1

Spending money should come only after a lot of thought, and a lot of questions.  What would we spend it on?  Why that?

Start out with relevant questions.  Does your town have bus service?  Do you ride the bus to work?  Why not?

Do you use existing bus service (e.g. Greyhound) to take vacation?  Why not?

Some common reasons given are:

The bus stop is too far away.

I don't like to wait 15 minutes for the bus.

I don't like to wait in the rain or snow.

It's just not convenient.

Fixing the 'claimed' problem may consume tax $ without increasing the passenger count.  For example, do the little huts at the bus stop actually make you WANT to ride the bus?  Or is it a nice thing to do for the people who already rode the bus?

Tripling the number of bus routes in the city will make the bus stop closer to your home.  It will also triple the CO2.  If the bus stops at the corner, will you ride it to work?  to the mall?  to the grocery?  We need to get 3 times the number of riders just to break even.  Will that happen?

Will spending money fix the problem?  Will it make you want to ride the bus?

My answer is "no."  People ride the bus because they have to, not because they want to.  They way to get people to ride the bus is to tax or legislate cars out of existence.  As long as you have a car, won't you drive it to the mall instead of riding the bus?

Answer 2

Mass transit is always more economical on fuel compared to private cars, its also better for traffic congestion.

All countries should go for mass transit at least the major cities should have good public transport internally and connecting various cities.

Answer 3

CO2 is not the problem ,the plants is taking care of it for us.

Answer 4

More railroads for freight maybe.

Answer 5

Um... well, using Europe as a model, their train system goes literally everywhere.  People commute using trains, they go from city to city using trains.  They're comfortable, convenient, inexpensive (when considering fuel costs) and you don't have to deal with traffic issues.  Seriously, where's the downside?  So what if high speed trains go half the speed of an airplane and make a few more stops?  There are more than enough people and more than enough freight so as to make the investment of high quality, high speed rail systems financially feasible.  

One of the biggest polluters in the US is the fleet of freight trucks.  They're great for local delivery, but for nationwide hauls, they're a nightmare ecologically.  Improving and widening our rail structure would be one of the most beneficial things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint.