objecting to mass transit subsidization

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

In another thread in the pit, at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=117070 , matt_mcl, a serious proponent of mass transit, responds to my objection to mass transit subsidization with the following:

matt_mcl
The fact is, public transit makes the streets livable for people to dryve their Ford LeBehemoths about. The daily ridership of Montreal transit, if converted to cars, would create a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam on three lanes of the 401 from Montreal to Toronto.

Worse yet, we’re on an island - if the people who took transit every day from the South Shore to Montreal were to take cars instead, the traffic delays (already unconscionable) would expand to utterly unmanageable proportions. You would have to get up at god knows what hour to get two kilometers over the Jacques-Cartier Bridge.

Furthermore, reducing traffic by means of public transit benefits car drivers in the category of health (that’s your air too, pal) and safety (every 1,200 cars replaced by a professional metro driver is 1,200 fewer accidents waiting to happen). So the short answer is yes - transit directly and indirectly benefits car users, who should expect to pay for it because they use a car.

I did not want to hijack a thread with an almost completely unrelated topic, but I did want to challenge his position.

With regard to paragraph 1, the hypothetical scenario of jammed 401 traffic, I would respond that mass transit would be so attractive that it would be economically feasible, not requiring subsidization.

With regard to paragraph 2, I have the same answer as above

With regard to paragraph 3, may I suggest that these 1200 cars are not threatened by terrorist attacks. As Montreal accumulates 1200 car accidents, most likely representing 600 incidents, these incidents will do nothing to contribute to the national/provincial angst. Blowing up one bus in Montreal with 40 people in it will surely add to the national anxiety. Look at the attention a few mailboxes got pre War Measures Act. Why should the nation encourage this?

Okay, on a more serious note

Now I think mass transit has a great future for the cities . First of all it is cheap. According to published transit fares for the city of Vancouver that my daughter uses ( see http://www.translink.bc.ca/Schedules_and_Fares/ ) , a comprehensive 3 zone monthly pass is $120.00 . A comparitive study on the monthly cost of vehicle use from http://www.caa.ca/CAAInternet/automotive&consumerservices/driving_costs_2002.pdf shows a table for the annual driving cost of a Cavalier in Canada, (Chevy’s cheap car). Taking the minimum 12000 km per year figures which represent a 15 mile daily trip (to compare to a 3 zone transit pass) to work 5 days a week, the annual driving cost of $7733.40 is equivalent to a monthly cost of $644.45.

Now if a 537 % increase in transportation cost to drive by car isn’t enough to discourage private automobile commutership, How can a measily 100% subsidization of transit fares be effective in discouraging automobile use??? As a country boy, I do not want to contribute to any scheme that is of no benefit to me and does not address the problem for which the proposed transit subsidies were intended.

(By the way, I haven’t even addressed parking fees which I understand are well in excess of the cost of transit fares in the city.)

I find that transportation planners, mainly those of a particular political bent ( ) fail to recognize the problems that the public have with public transportation. I am reminded here in BC of the government provided fast ferries in response to public concerns of costs and ferry waits. What a joke that was. Most Canadian would love to cut there commuter costs, but do not want to spend 4 or 5 hours a day to get to and from work. Mass transit is wonderful if you have a reasonable expectation of not having to spend too much time waiting in the rain, and you have a sense of directly moving in a direction to where you want to go. Clean environment, reasonable seating capacity, safety from hooligans, and yes, an ability to maintain distance from some less desirable members of society, would go a long way to increase ridership.

But we limit mass transit potential by focusing on the backbone of present ridership which is the poor. We don’t want to lose this core business so we believe we have to keep the rates low. By doing so we confuse the objective, and the mass transit option fails to live up to its potential.

If we lets say trippled the fares, had taxis on contract whipping around the suburbs collecting passengers from there homes to public transport nodes with spacious clean buses directed to rapid transit facilities, and a comparable disbursement to the workplace/destination points by contracted taxis (perhaps with minibuses), with plenty of transit hosts (like flight attendants) and cops to ensure a safe and pleasant trip, we might actually make a serious dent in the city transportation problem.

As for the poor, I don’t mind helping the poor. Increase the welfare payments or the minimum wage or the student grant/loans to cover the reality of the cost of a good city public transportion system. But lets not have the limitations of the poor limit the potential of public transit.

[pldennison]

Both of matt’s first two paragraphs, while certainly true in the strictest sense (and living in the Wash. DC metro area, I know from traffic jams), appear to ignore away any potential substitution effects that might manifest in the absence of public transportation. That is, people might choose jobs that lie in other directions, or choose homes that lie closer to work, in order to minimize their commutes and reverse some of those traffic effects.

[Kimstu]

It is a very common, but erroneous, assumption that mass transit systems are just a means of “subsidizing the poor.” In fact, total government subsidies for direct and external costs of automobile use (parking construction, gas subsidies, highway and road maintenance, pollution control, etc. etc.) are at least comparable to those for public transit. That is, subsidies for mass transit are on average greater per passenger-mile, but smaller per capita, than those for automobiles: so in fact, the average non-car-owning transit rider is providing a net subsidy to the average auto owner, not the other way around.

In addition, public transit systems (in the US, at least) on average cover about 25–40% of their total costs from farebox revenues (i.e., rider fares) alone (and that’s factoring in the very expensive, though few and small, paratransit systems for the elderly and disabled; without paratransit, the average IIRC is more like 50%). Transit riders are certainly not getting transit systems handed to them for free or nearly free.

grienspace: *If we lets say trippled the fares, had taxis on contract whipping around the suburbs collecting passengers from there homes to public transport nodes with spacious clean buses directed to rapid transit facilities, and a comparable disbursement to the workplace/destination points by contracted taxis (perhaps with minibuses), with plenty of transit hosts (like flight attendants) and cops to ensure a safe and pleasant trip, we might actually make a serious dent in the city transportation problem. *

Your numbers sound extremely optimistic to me. Operating costs for paratransit (flexible-route on-demand service, as opposed to fixed-route fixed-schedule trains or buses) are generally something like ten or fifteen times higher, not three times—and that’s without factoring the extra personnel that you’re proposing. Suburban and “exurban” regions, with their much lower population densities, are always very costly to provide with mass transit.

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**That is, people might choose jobs that lie in other directions, or choose homes that lie closer to work, in order to minimize their commutes and reverse some of those traffic effects. **

Actually, residential density in Montreal’s centre city is already one of the highest in North America, so much so there’s a severe housing crisis, and yet the traffic is still that intense. Recall that the fact we live on an island exacerbates the situation.

Also, describing subsidised mass transit as being the opposite of “economically feasible” is a bizarre claim. By this logic, car use is not economically feasible. The amount it costs to build, maintain, and expand our road system is coming from somewhere, not to mention the costs engendered by the health and environmental effects of air pollution, economic harm caused by traffic delays ($2 billion in costs to the trucking industry for the Toronto area alone per year), health and social costs of road accidents (I’ll ignore your divagation about terrorists), and so forth. The fact is, car use has huge costs which are not directly felt by the consumer because they’re subsumed into various other rubrics and not accounted for by integrated methods.

But public transit, which carries a number of important economic benefits (reducing traffic delay costs, attracting new investment in green technologies, reducing health costs, etc.), is regarded as a “subsidy”, as if spending millions to build roads wasn’t a subsidy.

$3 billion is invested in transit operations per year in Canada - gridlock costs the trucking industry 66% of that in Toronto alone - and farebox revenues cover more than 60% of operating costs nationwide. Moreover, cities with strong transit systems require significantly lower total public and private spending on transportation.

In Los Angeles, 80 cents of every dollar spent on public transit is recirculated into that region. Conversely, 85 cents of every dollar spent on gasoline leaves that region. New urban expressways cost up to $60 million/kilometre, whereas rail facilities cost on average $9 million/kilometre.*

It’s just more efficient to move 100 people in one vehicle than in fifty!

‘The financial price Northwest motorists pay for each kilometre they drive is 32 cents, but the full cost is 92 cents.’ Motorists make non-monetary payments - in time and in assuming the risk of accidents - worth another 30 cents per kilometre. They bill other people, especially non-drivers, the poor, and tax payers, for the remaining third. In economic terminology, these costs imposed on others are ‘external.’

At first, 30c in external costs does not sound like much… but consider that vehicles in Canada travel over 300 billion kilometres a year. What costs are counted in this 30c a kilometre? …air pollution, sprawl, congestion, accident risk imposed on others, and subsidies for parking… waste generation, water and noise pollution, land values lost to roads and parking facilities, and a litany of other auto-related government expenses not fully recoverede from fuel and vehicle taxes - such as road construction and maintenance, protection of oil fields and supply lines, traffic policing, and emergency services… **

Furthermore, far from transit being a subsidy for the poor, it could even be said that automobiles are a subsidy for the rich:

Underpricing automobile use leads to massive transfers of wealth - and well-being - from people who drive less to people who drive more. Households with annual incomes of less than $20 000 drive a fourth as much on average as households with incomes more than $75 000. And urban households drive about a third as much as suburban households. Furthermore, more than one in ten Canadians are in households that own no car; these people pay all the external costs of driving…

(My numbers are from the Canadian Urban Transit Association, except * from Centre for Sustainable Transportation Inquiry on Sustainable Transportation, April 1998, and ** from Adam Thein Durning, The Car and the City, 1996.)

Now if a 537 % increase in transportation cost to drive by car isn’t enough to discourage private automobile commutership, How can a measily 100% subsidization of transit fares be effective in discouraging automobile use??

(About ten ?s deleted.)

First, as has been mentioned, transit fares are not 100% subsidized; farebox revenues represent 60% of the operating costs of transit in Canada.

You also have to account for the fact that we live in a car culture. Much, much work has to be done to break the default we have towards cars. It’s why I spent five days in Ottawa at the National Youth Summit on Sustainable Urban Transportation this month - we need to get the message to commuters and policy-makers. It’s not as easy as it sounds - a car habit can last a lifetime once begun in adolescence when car ownership is the height of cool. And our cities continue to be designed and expanded to cater to the automobile.

People consider (or, more accurately, fail to consider) more factors than simple economics when choosing to use cars. It’s a default pattern in our society. You turn 16 - you go get a driver’s license and a car. It’s not based on a rational assessment of the pros and cons of transit vs. car. It’s a societal thing. That’s the largest task - to change social values.

Furthermore, transit quality can be improved without gross increases to fares. In 1966, Montreal constructed what was universally lauded as one of the cleanest, safest, most architecturally beautiful, and cheapest metro systems in the world. Even now, our transit fares are among the lowest in North America. We are quite fortunate in this regard, but it does demonstrate that a good transit system is not a luxury, nor does it have to involve excessive fares. (Now if we could just get them to stop with this ridiculous Notre-Dame Expressway idea and finish the damn Anjou line, we’d be sitting pretty.)

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *

Your numbers sound extremely optimistic to me. Operating costs for paratransit (flexible-route on-demand service, as opposed to fixed-route fixed-schedule trains or buses) are generally something like ten or fifteen times higher, not three times

I just pulled the 3 times figure out of the hat, but with regards to the paratransit costs, I would say that the short distances involved to get to the longer fixed-schedule routes, would minimize the impact of the paratransit component on the overall cost of the entire trip. By utilizing the taxi industry for example by providing municipal transit contracted services during peak periods and limiting paratransit services at other times would also allow private enterprise to recover their capital costs from other sources while stabalizing their own labour pool. ( people that can afford taxis generally don’t have to travel during peak periods)

[pldennison]

matt, thanks for attributing grienspace’s comment about terrorists to me. :rolleyes: I appreciate that, since all I mentioned was potential substitution effects, which are a legitimate matter of discussion in any economic problem.

I have no problem with public transportation. I think it’s a great thing, although I don’t use it to commute. I used to, in Cleveland, and I did for a while here, too. But even here in DC, with one of the best systems in the country, it simply doesn’t go where I need it to go and when I need it to go there.

Our car (my wife and I have one car, thank you) was in the shop for a week and a half in April. I, as it happens, was overseas in Frankfurt for the month (and using the U-Bahn and S-Bahn every day–great system), but my wife had to use the bus and the Metro. Between waiting for a bus, getting to the station, changing trains twice and getting another bus to her office, it took her 2.5 hours to get to work and another 2.5 to get home. Five hours to commute 40 miles round-trip? No thanks. I’ll gladly pay my portion of tax money to prop up the WMATA, but it does not serve my needs as a commuter.

[Ottto]

The people that use mass transit should pay for it. I have not and will not use mass transit, so why should I have to pay for someone that does?

I dislike strangers. I dislike waiting. I dislike having to travel according to some govermental schedule. So I pay for, with my own money (no gov’t subsidies involved) a nice Chevy Trailblazer. My own little pod to and from work, the store, hunting trips, etc. If a bus went from my front door at home to work, I wouldn’t take it. And I most certainly shouldn’t pay for it.

There are all sorts of great arguments for public transportation, no doubt. But if public transportation was actually fiscally viable, it would pay for itself, not impose yet another drain on what money I have left after the gov’t is through with me.

As for ‘helping the poor’, to them my advice is simple: ‘Get a better job’. Don’t ask for more of my tax money. Not to be cruel, but the tax situation is really out of control here.

[matt_mcl]

Sorry, I didn’t mean that I thought you made the terrorist comment. My response was both to you, pldennison, and to grienspace.

I’m sorry you are having difficult times with DC transit. Perhaps you should encourage them to improve their routes in your area.

( people that can afford taxis generally don’t have to travel during peak periods)

Aren’t the people who can afford taxis the people with well-paying, 9-to-5 jobs? (And aren’t the people who can’t afford taxis the ones working swing shift?)

[matt_mcl]

I have not and will not use mass transit, so why should I have to pay for someone that does?

You do use mass transit - to make sure your air, your traffic, and your accident rates aren’t any higher than they are.

Furthermore, what stretch of the imagination leads you to believe that cars “pay for themselves” any more than transit does? Do you think that the costs of (quotes self) “air pollution, sprawl, congestion, accident risk imposed on others, and subsidies for parking… waste generation, water and noise pollution, land values lost to roads and parking facilities, and a litany of other auto-related government expenses not fully recoverede from fuel and vehicle taxes - such as road construction and maintenance, protection of oil fields and supply lines, traffic policing, and emergency services” just come out of thin air?

Finally, in the “friendly information” category, we already have a poster called Otto. You may wish to look into a different screen name.

[Ottto]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**
You do use mass transit - to make sure your air, your traffic, and your accident rates aren’t any higher than they are.
**

Ahh, but the difference is that I benifit from air traffic, even though I may or may not fly a lot (I do, but that is secondary). The same for sea traffic, and frieght trains. I may or may not DIRECTLY use them as modes of transportation, but the fact that they exist help lower the cost of goods for me, and allow me to purchase a wider range of higher quality goods. Again, not even goods that I might use directly, but it is good to know that if I go to the hospital, they are well-stocked, thanks to our transportation system (among other things).

**
Furthermore, what stretch of the imagination leads you to believe that cars “pay for themselves” any more than transit does? Do you think that the costs of (quotes self) “air pollution, sprawl, congestion, accident risk imposed on others, and subsidies for parking… waste generation, water and noise pollution, land values lost to roads and parking facilities, and a litany of other auto-related government expenses not fully recoverede from fuel and vehicle taxes - such as road construction and maintenance, protection of oil fields and supply lines, traffic policing, and emergency services” just come out of thin air?

**

I pay gas tax. I pay automotive insurance tax. I paid for sales tax on my SUV. I pay my share. And if I did NOT pay my share, what would your precious buses run on? Dirt roads? They need the same road infrastructure we all do, yet (in Michigan, at least), mass transit is EXEMPT from gas tax and EXEMPT from sales tax on the buses (busses?) themselves. On top of that, they want more of my money.

As for accidents, I pay for automotive insurance. As usual, I am paying for others, since I have never actually been in an accident (knock on wood).

Since automobiles are not the number one user of petrol in this country (Industrial usage is tops), I imagine that we would still have to have a carrier or two, keeping an eye on the middle east.

And while I am all for fuel-cells and whatnot, what is the ‘cost’ of pollution? You mention air and noise pollution. What ‘cost’ is associated with these, and how would this cost be any lower if fleets of buses replaced automobiles?

Friendly note: I am ‘Ottto’, not ‘Otto’. If this is a cause for confusion, I’ll gladly change my moniker.

[Ottto]

P.S. To clarify my position:

1. A good transportation (carry stuff) system is vital to a nation. The goverment must see to this; It is one of their few actual responsiblities.

2. A mass-transit system (carry people) , however, is NOT vital to a nation. It is important to some people in that nation, but not the nation as a whole. The goverment should not be involved, except for as a regulatory body.

[capacitor]

Double o triple t, Mike Bloomberg takes the subway to work, and he is not exactly a pauper.

You tried driving in Manhattan while four festivals and three parades are going on at the same time? Also, try driving while a street marathon is going on. Many people I know who drive cars don’t even bother driving to downtown Manhattan on any day. Even the car owners say mass transit is the way to go.

[Ottto]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
**Double o triple t, Mike Bloomberg takes the subway to work, and he is not exactly a pauper.

You tried driving in Manhattan while four festivals and three parades are going on at the same time? Also, try driving while a street marathon is going on. Many people I know who drive cars don’t even bother driving to downtown Manhattan on any day. Even the car owners say mass transit is the way to go. **

Then it is a matter for NYC citizens to decide. That is the beauty of local goverment!

For a true ‘mega-city’ like NYC, MT may be attractive. But Detroit is a suburb, basically, with a few tall building in the middle. Our ‘rush-hour’ probably wouldn’t register to New Yorkers as such.

[Zap_Rowsdower]

Originally posted by Ottto *
The people that use mass transit should pay for it. I have not and will not use mass transit, so why should I have to pay for someone that does?
That is ok, but start having people who drive cars actually pay what it costs rather than have the government subsidize highways and motor infrastructure.
**
I dislike strangers. I dislike waiting. I dislike having to travel according to some govermental schedule. **
Waiting is no fun, especially when I am stuck in an endless traffic jam so everyone can get an eyeful of the latest fender bender
So I pay for, with my own money (no gov’t subsidies involved) a nice Chevy Trailblazer. My own little pod to and from work, the store, hunting trips, etc. If a bus went from my front door at home to work, I wouldn’t take it. And I most certainly shouldn’t pay for it. and the result of everyone in their own little pod is massive traffic jams, being unable to find a parking spot at peak times and slowing down people who do rely on public transportation whether it is by choice or because they cannot afford a car. Also, what happens if in your older years you are unable to drive for whatever reason and there is no more public transportation. Do you just want to become a virtual shut-in? Do you want to rely on other people, neighbors, family to drive you around according to there schedule?
**
There are all sorts of great arguments for public transportation, no doubt. But if public transportation was actually fiscally viable, it would pay for itself, not impose yet another drain on what money I have left after the gov’t is through with me.*

If public transportation had equal footing and did not compete against the subsidized freeway system, maybe it would pay for itself. As far as I know rail companies often have to pay for right of way and the rail they lay and use. While the road system is subsidizedby the government.

**As for ‘helping the poor’, to them my advice is simple: ‘Get a better job’. Don’t ask for more of my tax money. Not to be cruel, but the tax situation is really out of control here. **How can they get a better job, if there is no way to get to it? In many cities the poor are forced into run down areas, which cause the jobs to leave the city for the suburbs. They cannot afford to live in the 'burbs, do not have a way to get there and get stuck in a catch-22.

If we are able to decide where our taxes go, then I have a list of my own.

1. I have no kids, so why should I pay for public schools?
2. I would love not to have to spend a large chunk of my paycheck to car payments, gas, insurance, tires and general upkeep, so I do not want my taxes to pay for auto centric roads and the general car culture.
3. I am not a sports fan, so do not use my taxes to pay for unneeded sports stadiums.
4. I do not want my taxes to subsidize tobacco farmers, then pay for anti-smoking messages and lawsuits.

[capacitor]

How is the parking in Detroit, and the traffic between Detroit and Ontario and the other suburbs?

[Ottto]

Parking in Detroit is not a problem, apart from maybe during a hockey game near the stadium. The advantages of living in a less then world-class city are innumerable.

We have family in Toronto, which is about a 4 hour drive from here. Also, we vacation up in Grand Bend (Ont), which is also, give or take, a 3-4 hour drive.

If we are able to decide where our taxes go, then I have a list of my own.

1. I have no kids, so why should I pay for public schools?
2. I would love not to have to spend a large chunk of my paycheck to car payments, gas, insurance, tires and general upkeep, so I do not want my taxes to pay for auto centric roads and the general car culture.
3. I am not a sports fan, so do not use my taxes to pay for unneeded sports stadiums.
4. I do not want my taxes to subsidize tobacco farmers, then pay for anti-smoking messages and lawsuits.

1)Public schooling in America is a disgrace, to say the least. I am all for a more intelligent system where the parent can choose the school. (I am a product of the Catholic school system, and I feel that I recieved a far better education then our various city schools, which had just over twice as much money allocated per student!)

2)Buses run on roads, the last time I checked. Trains run on tracks. There will be infrastructure whether or not we all ride the happy fun bus. At least with roads, we ALL can use them. Train tracks are rather fussy about having multiple trains heading in the wrong direction.

3)AMEN! As much as I detest social programs (welfare, ADC, etc) for individuals, I feel the same about corporate welfare. Free markets are free markets for all. I don’t want to prop up failing industries.

4. As 3.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
You also have to account for the fact that we live in a car culture. Much, much work has to be done to break the default we have towards cars. It’s why I spent five days in Ottawa at the National Youth Summit on Sustainable Urban Transportation this month - we need to get the message to commuters and policy-makers. It’s not as easy as it sounds

You know, I do wish you guys actually succeed. But what can you tell commuters that they don’t already know? And what is your message to policy makers? What you’re telling us here?

I’m afraid you are not listening to the reasons why mass transit which we all agree is much cheaper has not overtaken the automobile. You haven’t addressed how to solve the problems of the majority of city dwellers who don’t want to spend 5 hours in getting to and from work every working day, battling the elements, and quite often filthy environments including harrassment by strangers. Don’t blame it on the car culture. Most people have voted with their pocket book to avoid the negative aspects of present day mass transit. And most people will pay a lot to avoid it. No one can really enjoy driving in city rush hour traffic. Did you not discuss ways to make mass transit better for the people and if so how?

[hazel-rah]

You haven’t addressed how to solve the problems of the majority of city dwellers who don’t want to spend 5 hours in getting to and from work every working day, battling the elements, and quite often filthy environments including harrassment by strangers. Don’t blame it on the car culture.

Why not? Seventy years of car culture created the problem, and it’s pretty disingenuous for those who favor cars to blame the lack of an easy solution on those who favor mass transit. It’s the seventy years of investment in an ill-conceived transit system that is causing the problem, not the difficulty in retrofitting mass transit to try and correct the problem.

Look, I grew up in Houston. I love cars. But face it, as a transit basis for urban design, cars don’t scale. As the population of your city increases, the space and resources that cars need increase exponentially with no gain in efficiency. Mass transit like rail, buses, and walkable neighborhoods do scale.

We didn’t know that in 1930, but we know it now, and it’s foolish to keep acting like it’s 1930. I lived in Montreal, and through whatever twist of fate that let mass transit evolve with cars there, it has produced a much more livable city than Houston, which becomes more of a hell hole with each passing year.

No one can really enjoy driving in city rush hour traffic. Did you not discuss ways to make mass transit better for the people and if so how?

It’s going to be expensive and the benefits will not appear in the short term, but it is necessary to avoid an impending disaster, which is a total systemic failure of our transit system with no alternative available. You can’t build workable mass transit in a month, but a month is all we need for an oil crisis to totally cripple our car-dependent transit systems and annihilate the economy. I think we should get started now, and even people who love cars (like me) should be happy to subsidize such development.

-fh

[even_sven]

I am completely obsessed with public transportations. Busses are my favorite thing in the whole world. So I am a little abnormally passionate about this subject. I’ll try not to foam at the mouth while I address this.

Take a bus one day. Look at who is traveling with you.

Old Folks These people are at the twilight of their lives, but the simple truth is that they still need to get to the grocery store. Our nation is pretty unlikely to let major portions of our population starve because they can’t make it to the supermarket, and if public transportation were to be abolished or outpriced, we would probably see a para-transit-esque system or a meals-on-wheels service impliments. Both of these would be pretty costly. Additionally, we would see even more old folks holding on to their licenses after their driving abilities have degraded to the point that they are a danger on the road. This would be a pretty bad scene for everyone. I say let the old folks ride.

Teenagers A lot of teenagers, especially in poorer areas, use city transit to get to school. School provided transportation is a luxery many districts cannot afford. A lot of kids as is spend most of their after school time working so that they can buy a car at sixteen. If there were no busses (or they were unaffordable) even more kids would do that. Although getting a job in high school can teach responsibility and all that, working the amount it takes to buy and maintain a car often has a severe effect on school attendence and work. The end result is these kids are less likely to succeed in school, less likely to go on to higher education, less likely to teach their kids the importance of education and less likely to make a positive contribution to their community. This may sound like hyperbole (and it is to some degree) but I have seen with my own eyes what happens when high school students learn that work is more important than getting their diplomas. I say let the high school students ride.

College Kids (like me!)- Well the rich college kids have cars their parents bought them, so what we see is the poor college kids. These people already receive tens of thousands of dollars worth of financial aid (which we don’t, for some reason, call welfare). A few more bucks worth of bus rides won’t hurt much. Besides, these people are presumably getting an education which they will theoretically use to get a worthwhile job and become a contributing member of society. If there isn’t bus service college kids are pretty likely to hitch hike, which is fairly unsafe. Let them ride.

Poor People- A lot of these people are going to work. I thought we were supposed to support the poor getting off welfare and working? Let’s look at our options here- either they go to work and succeed and reach the point at which they can afford an electric car to get around and won’t have to take the bus, or they sit at home doing nothing and selling drugs because that is the only booming economy in their neighborhood. I know which one I’d prefer.

In Conclusion There are a lot of positive effects that come from substadized mass transit. Even ignoring environmental, traffic, parking and other issues, there are serious economic advantages to having affordable mass transit. It is often essential to helping people break out of poverty through education and honest work. The more people we have contributing economically and cultrually in our society, the better off we all are- even in the pocketbook.

[matt_mcl]

2. A mass-transit system (carry people) , however, is NOT vital to a nation. It is important to some people in that nation, but not the nation as a whole. The goverment should not be involved, except for as a regulatory body.

Depends which nation you’re talking about. 80% of Canadians live in cities - cities which, in large part, are kept livable by having effective urban transit. Take away mass transit, and you’d take away every scrap of livability in Montreal or Toronto. I know I wouldn’t have wanted to live here if I had to breathe the smog of the STM’s entire ridership in cars.

I pay gas tax. I pay automotive insurance tax. I paid for sales tax on my SUV. I pay my share. And if I did NOT pay my share, what would your precious buses run on? Dirt roads? They need the same road infrastructure we all do, yet (in Michigan, at least), mass transit is EXEMPT from gas tax and EXEMPT from sales tax on the buses (busses?) themselves. On top of that, they want more of my money.

I told you already that 30 cents per kilometre (of the 300 billion km/year driven by cars in Canada) is subsidized by the government and directly by others. You are not paying for the cost of your driving habit.