LogFAQs > #913014194

Again, that's because you live somewhere that wasn't designed around having a car. European cities don't have the same degree of urban sprawl that most North American cities do because it's cars that enable that sprawl. New York is a notable exception because the islandy nature of Manhattan meant the city's core grew to be extremely dense, rather than sprawling. If everyone in Manhattan drove, nobody could ever get anywhere, so effective public transportation exists.

Not necessarily. If the majority of a city's occupants rely on public transit, reducing the cost of transit passes is an absolutely fantastic platform for a mayoral candidate to run on. Provided the city has some control over that, rather than outsourcing it entirely to a private company that would only adjust prices if competition existed, prices could be kept reasonable.

Alternatively, contract two or more companies to do it so they end up competing with each other. Public transit isn't necessarily a natural monopoly, so provided appropriate anti-collusion measures are in place to prevent the sort of oligopoly situation we currently see with telecoms, it could work.

Though they may up the price since it would be the main form of transportation.