Quote:
Originally Posted by EngiNerd
He's got a point from the cost side of things, that Rail for the most part is always subsidized at least from the way RTD has it structured. If you try and argue just the direct cost side of the argument, then yeah the money RTD brings in from ridership does not add up to how much they spend on operations and maintenance.
The real benefits of rail are reduced congestion and pollution, ease of parking situation downtown especially during games, spurred growth around light rail stations leading to higher property values, and the thing still goes on snowy days, even when cars can't get through.
|
Huh? Rail for the most part is subsidized... because ALL public infrastructure is "subsidized." What percentage of road, sidewalk, rail line and bus stop construction costs are public contributions? About 100%.
I would say that, in fact, there are far more private contributions to features in a transit stop than there are to a highway (such as public art, etc), plus there is a fee to ride, so you could say that transit is much less subsidized than roads.
Fritzdude, tell your friend that government pays for transportation no matter what kind it is. And THIS is the real option we have:
To put money into roads, which benefits middle and upper class people who own cars disproportionately, so people who do not drive (disabled, poor, senior citizens, etc) pay taxes on services they are literally unable to receive.
To put money into transit, which absolutely anyone can use, which is a more fair and representational use of tax dollars.
You could also say that transit:
1) allows poor people to get to work, decreasing the amount we pay on food stamps, public housing and other welfare programs, because they are now eligible for jobs they can actually get to
2) allows disabled people senior citizens who can no longer drive to have some mobility, decreasing the need for welfare programs that would otherwise be providing them with grocery delivery and transportation services
3) decreases the amount of consumer spending that goes to consumables like gas and auto repairs, meaning consumers can put more of their money into long-term goods (like investing or buying a bigger home) which represent long-term growth in the economy - it's always a better investment to acquire something lasting than something consumed
4) decreases the number of accidents and pollution, which saves on health care costs and emergency services
5) increases the amount that people walk to the bus stop and get exercise, which saves on health care costs and emergency services
6) gives people a CHOICE between driving and taking transit, which is arguably an increase in individualism
7) turns blighted urban areas into vitalized urban areas, which saves costs on emergency services and reduces crime
8) increases travel ease for tourists, so they are more likely to visit, and also allows them to spend less on transportation so they'll spend more on restaurants and other local small businesses which have a more positive effect on the local economy
9) decreases the footprint of transportation; the government has to confiscate less property through eminent domain to build a rail line than it does when adding lanes to highways
10) builds our cities in a way that is more aesthetically attractive than one dominated by cars
11) allows people to meet face-to-face with more strangers, and more diverse groups of people, than they encounter when they are traveling alone in a car
12) allows people to do other things like read, study or talk on the phone while they're commuting to work so they are more productive throughout the day and are in better moods than they would have been after being stuck in traffic.
So yeah, as a taxpayer, I'd say transit is a better investment.
Prev
Linear Mode
