Places where the populace and government are supportive of transit

Singapore!

Tax the shit out of cagers to the point few can actually afford to drive.

>>1055001
Washington DC.

>>1055001
You're from the Toronto thread aren't you Anon?

>>1055002
Yeah but Singapore is a horrible place to live unless you're rich.

>>1055872
>2017
>not being rich

>>1055874
And even if I were rich, I wouldn't want to live in a stressful, expensive city full of neurotic moneygrubbers with horrible climate.

Pittsburgh. It work well for what we have.

>$240 million into a BRT system by 2020
>dropped $500+ million for a LRT tunnel to cross the Allegheny river. Makes expanding light rail north far easier
>refurbished parts of the southern light rail lines
>adding so many bikes lanes the go to insult against the mayor is bike lanes
>the planned 30 year overhaul on I-279 is happening at 29 years since opening.
>so many self driving cars

>Also, if the place is just an individual city, then it should get most of its funding from the city, so that the county or province doesn't hold it back (unless they support it too

There are close to a 100 small townships/boroughs surrounding the city. Most have some degree of bus or LRT service. Many of the towns along the river are tied into a bike path system that stretches to DC.

OP here, I appreciate all the replies. Please keep them coming!

>>1055001
Kansas City region is working on some sort of regional transport network, mostly just buses right now, and the streetcar on Main Street. Mid-rise apartment buildings are going up all over the place from what I can tell, but they all have lots of parking, so no expectation of decent buses by the developers to get people to let go of cars. Real light rail doesn't seem to be an option in the near future, and I'm fairly sure driverless cars will replace most suburban families cars in 15-20 years. If we had more people here in greater density I could see people being more interested in public transportation, but living in the KC region is relatively cheap, so the burden of paying for your own car isn't as big of a hassle.

I get this feeling cities and towns that don't even want to try to fund transit will just subsidize a company like Uber to deploy driverless cars at discounted prices to assist mediocre bus systems.

>>1055002
>>1055872
Same for Hong Kong but in a bad way.
Singapore is moving towards a good direction with its cross-border rail, possible express on Cross-Island Line and mainstay of bus.

>>1056749
>>1055001
>The place should (ideally) also not waste money on retarded projects that serve no purpose or would better be spent elsewhere (although this is highly subjective so don't lean on this too much), or just generally do retarded shit (like spending way too much on a project, handing over the system to a private operator which just made things worse). Ideally ideally, the place wouldn't cut corners
Wait nvm.
Fuck me.
>building a metro system with medium capacity cars
Ours (one metro and one mainline) is heavy rail standard though. The metro one is constrained by space and alighnment. The mainline one is upgrading to full 8-car heavy rail from 4.

>>1056576
I have a magazine called Motor Coach Age which does stories on bus lines:urban and long distance. They did a story on Kansas City which transit agencies in the 20s called a poor transit town because of mostly detached houses and few apartments. And this for a system that had trolleys and buses.