Impressions from a newcomer (home, rent, income)

[sobo16]

Originally Posted by atlas1882

Roads are certainly subsidized, but if we are going to base our decision on a comparison of efficiency then the subsidy improving and expanding the road network as opposed to investing in light rail or subways is a no brainer. Depending on which form of public transit you are talking about and whose calculations you trust, roads are anywhere from 10 to 60 times cheaper for the taxpayers than rails.

Roads might be cheaper in the short term, but one needs to consider the long-term benefits of having a comprehensive and efficient public transportation system. In 25 years, will we be glad we have more roads and 12-lane highways that are still packed with cars at all hours of the day, or will Baltimore become a Boston or DC, with the average citizen making good use of the rail network?

[atlas1882]

I think the point of the calculations I mentioned before is that roads are economically more efficient over the lifetime of service. They are cheaper to build up front, easier to maintain over time, and more amendable to technological adaptations that can improve upon both the environmental impact and time demands of users. For most people, it takes less time, door to door, to travel from Baltimore to DC or from one end of Baltimore to the other using a car than trying to use a train or a bus, even during rush hour. Sure, we can try to force people into using transit by redirecting funding, allowing the road network to degrade, and imposing strict zoning ordinances dictating where and how they live, but all those things are costly, run against the revealed preferences of the overwhelming majority, and violate the spirit of individual freedom and liberty that many people associate with their private vehicles. The appeal is weak to me, and the justification non-existent.

[amelluz]

i personally hate driving. if i could give up my car right now, i probably would. but to be able to get anywhere conveniently and have it not take two hours, i have to use my car. the rail system in baltimore doesn't cover enough ground and imo the bus system is inefficient. i use public transportation in other cities and it seems to work a lot better than here. if they were to dump money into anything, please please please make it a decent public transportation system. i spend at least $250 on my car each month (and that's just gas and insurance) not to mention the oil changes that keep getting more and more expensive. if i could get a metro pass for a quarter of what i spend each month and get to places in a decent amount of time, i don't mind if they spend more money on it than they would on making our home one large beltway. you speak of forcing people into using the transit system, i feel like i'm forced to use my car.

[atlas1882]

Amelluz, you may not mind that the government wastes money, but I certainly do. It seems rather convenient to ignore the price tag when other people's money is on the line, don't you think? I don't like driving either, and regularly use public transit to get to work, but that doesn't mean that I think that other's should be forced to subsidize my preferences. If you feel like your travel options are restricted now by your car, you might consider what the world would look like if we had to rely solely on subways and light rails. The fact of the matter is that rail networks simply cannot compete with the versatility of automobiles.

[sobo16]

But just think, if the government would invest in better public transportation, fewer cars would be on the road. So the transit riders can enjoy their train rides, and the auto lovers can enjoy less traffic.

[amelluz]

well, i'm forced to subsidize your choices by paying for more highways and beltways. so i guess we should just agree to disagree.

[jonjj]

As a city resident who uses mass transit on a regular basis, I sometimes become a bit overwhelmed about how my taxes are being spent on widening highways and paying for everyone to enjoy their "suburban lifestyle". Baltimore desperately needs better mass transit to compete in the future and we are late as it is compared to other northeast cities.

[carolott]

I just walk everywhere. I gave up on mass transit AND driving.

[atlas1882]

Amelluz, if the question was whether we should be providing subsidies for any form of transportation, cars, trains, or teleportation, evidently you and I would be on the same side. We wouldn't have to settle for agreeing to disagree, we could agree unanimously that the government should not be involved at all. Unfortunately, that is not the proposition being discussed. We are assuming government extortion of funds and subsequent disbursement. Under this scenario, the least offensive expenditure is the one that most closely corresponds to the preferences of the population. As I mentioned before, I don't like driving, and I am a regular user of public transit; however, I recognize that I am in the minority, and that as this is not an issue of inviolable rights, I am not entitled to demand that others conform to my view. Regarding the prospect of future competitiveness, it might be instructive to look at past growth and migration patterns. My understanding is that states and cities without pervasive mass transit networks, like Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia, have been growing much faster than their counterparts like NYC, Boston, and Portland. Perhaps we should devote more consideration to the revealed preferences of the populace and less to the desired preferences of the urban planning contingent.

[rudy_d]

Atlas,
The areas you mentioned that have experienced rapid growth did so because they have cheap land, better weather, and room to grow, not because they had a great road system in place. The large northern cities are already built-out or, like Portland, have strict restrictions on growth. The recent growth pattern is also a consequence of the era of cheap oil and a strong dollar. That era appears to be coming to an end. Even Los Angeles, perhaps the most car-centric city in the country, has come to that realization and is expanding its transit system and building transit-oriented development.

I constantly hear gripes about the state of the transit system in Baltimore and other US cities, outside of the handful that actually have a decent system. I think there are a lot of regular people who would support better public transit. It's not just the "urban planning contingent." A major reason why people are opposed to public transit is because what's been built to date is inadequate. If citizens demand a system that is well-planned and adequately funded, I think people would have a much different view.
I think you also have to consider quality-of-life issues. I consider myself a libertarian on many issues, but in this case I don't support the argument that government should subsidize building roads because driving is a right and it's how the majority wants to get around. Whether or not you buy into the global warming argument, there are serious environmental consequences from autos (just ask the people in the counties whose well water is tainted with gasoline additives). You could also look at it from a strictly economic stance. How much money is wasted and productivity lost by people stuck in traffic, sitting in their cars? Is it really in the country's best interest to funnel billions of dollars to countries that don't necessarily have our best interests in mind (or want to destroy us), just so we can drive to the mall rather than take a train or bus?

The original poster probably had no idea about the tangent this thread would go off on.