Millions of people like myself live in places where public transportation is limited or nonexistent. I live 18 miles from my job. That leaves me some simple choices:

1. Drive myself - takes 25 minutes each way. My CRV gets 25+ MPG so the round-trip gas costs are less than $2 a day.

2. Carpool - if I can find a coworker who lives close enough to be practical. This is a good option and I've done it for years. At the moment, no coworkers live close enough but I'm looking at the possibilities.

3. Spend over an hour each way on the city bus system. Sorry, but this isn't a realistic option.

4. Change jobs. Nope, I like my job.

5. Sell my home and move closer to work. Sorry, but I like my home. Besides, selling a home just to move a little closer to work is a rather expensive proposition, especially in a slow housing market.

Like many cities, Colorado Springs is spread out over a wide area. This means that the population density is low, making mass transit impractical and expensive to operate. Ridership is low and the system has to be subsidized to the tune of several million dollars a year to continue operating.

Economics is called the dismal science because it disproves the liberal fantasy of a free lunch. Everything has a cost and someone has to pay. There's also the concept known as opportunity costs. Money spent for one thing isn't available for other things. That being the case, practical people seek to get the maximum benefit for a given sum of money. Using your example, spending $10 million for something that _might_ save 10 lives a year may be a good decision. However, if that $10 million can be spent on something else that would save 20 lives a year, which is the better choice, assuming the $20 million necessary to save the combined 30 lives a year isn't available?