Join the discussion on the following article:
APTA advocates for $100 billion for public transport
About $300 per man, woman, and child in the United States, including millions nowhere near any public transit… above and beyond any fares…
Yeah, good luck with that.
With the political mess in mind I say “good luck” both sincerely and sarcastically to this proposal…it’s far too futuristic in terms of planning for our 19th century systems that are in the boondocks of priorities compared to other industrialized nations. I dare say that it is "too radical"for our myopic auto based economy despite the fact we have to frack our way over collapsing infrastructure. My guess is that things will have to get a lot worse to make this sort of vision become reality…despite record breaking usage in the majority of light rail and other commuter roads.
Good luck, with the unions running public transport.
@ALEXANDER D MITCHELL - When you put it like that, it sounds like a bargain. As a percentage of my family’s yearly taxes (and this isn’t yearly, this is a one-off), it’s a small percentage. And everyone benefits, even those not living in areas served by transit. The transitless get:
- Lower fuel bills (less demand for gasoline means lower prices)
- Lower congestion when driving to and from cities with transit
- Lower taxes in the long term given less need to use eminent domain to buy out properties near roads that would otherwise need widening.
- More long distance transportation options (no, Delta vs Southwest is not a “choice”)
People in cities, who are more direct beneficiaries of these projects, generally pay higher taxes for the “privilege” of being more efficient, so seeing suburbanites paying a little more wouldn’t be an injustice even if they didn’t see a benefit. But they will. They will benefit from better public transit systems, even if not directly served. It’s win-win.