I can see how some people avoid public transport out of elitism.<p>But in Silicon Valley (for example), the problem is that the routes were largely drawn for <i>political motives</i>, not to meet actual needs.<p>Take, for example, the VTA light rail routes.  The trains are so empty that farebox returns barely make a <i>dent</i> in operating costs, let alone debt service, worker benefits, etc.  I have to wait at crossings for the Mountain View &#x2F; Tasman line often, and I rarely see more than 2-3 people per car.  It seems to have been designed to serve the Lockheed complex first and foremost, except that Lockheed now has a <i>fraction</i> of the employees that it did when the line was drawn.  Head of the House Transportation Committee then?  Norm Mineta.  In 1995, Mineta <i>quit his seat</i> mid-term after losing his chairmanship (forcing a chain reaction of special elections that cost county taxpayers tens of millions of dollars... but that&#x27;s another rant) to become an executive in the private sector.  Guess where?  Yup, Lockheed Martin.<p>Overall, the VTA bus&#x2F;rail system has a farebox return of about 14%, last I checked.  <i>It would be cheaper to buy ridesharing-company rides at retail for every passenger at public expense</i> than VTA costs taxpayers overall.<p>They even artificially boost ridership stats by allowing homeless to just ride and sleep on buses, end to end for the whole route, all night.<p>Meanwhile, Caltrain is so crowded that most trains need standing room for at least part of the route... because Caltrain actually goes where people need to go and is comparatively well-run.<p>It&#x27;s not elitism, for the most part; it&#x27;s functionality.