We’re not sure where you read this to be a strategy for the east and west coasts alone;
Hi Tim, thank you for your thoughtful response.

My apology for being unclear. Please see this map.

You’re allocating the lion’s share of funding to:

  • $495 billion for rail and bus transit
  • $250 billion for high-speed and intercity rail

And unfortunately, rail and bus transit like this only work between cities (which doesn’t describe most people’s transit needs on a daily basis) or in dense urban environments where there are numerous tightly-coupled point-to-point transit requirements (aka you can put enough people on a bus to be worth the cost of operating the bus).

Because the majority of this map by land-area isn’t population-dense enough for rail or bus to support people’s daily needs, this means the majority of the funding is going to the swaths of density on the east and west costs, with a splash of funding for the small patches of density in the middle.

However, those areas only represent about half the population, so your funding allocation leaves everyone who’s not already in a major urban area to suffer without any improvements.

From 2012, “[i]n 43 states, more than three-quarters of the commuter population drive alone to work.” This means your funding plan, allocating no funds to road and bridge improvements, ignores the needs of 3/4 of workers in 43 states.

Hence my comment that you’re only providing for the east and west coast.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Tim Sylvester’s story.