Friday, July 25, 2014

Been working on the railroad for the rich

Or, at least, the upper middle class says Randall O'Toole;
Nationwide, the data reveal, 5.0 percent of workers take transit to work. For low-income workers–those making less than $25,000 a year–the share is only slightly higher, at 5.9 percent. The shares are lower for other income classes except for people earning $75,000 a year or more, 6.1 percent of whom take transit to work. Where just under 1.2 million people who earn less than $10,000 take transit, more than 1.3 million people who earn more than $75,000 take transit.
How did we get here, from there?
Most people believe we originally decided to have government take over transit to help low-income people who were transit-dependent. In fact, Congress first passed the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964 to rescue commuter trains in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco, whose private operators wanted to terminate service. In other words, transit was really a subsidy to big-city downtown property owners, not low-income workers.
Later he adds unionized public transit workers to the subsidized list.
We also know that transit isn’t particularly green: except in New York and a few other big cities, transit uses a lot more energy and emits a lot more pollution, per passenger mile, than driving. Nor, outside of New York, does transit carry enough people to relieve much congestion, especially when you consider that the real congestion problem is poorly priced roads, a problem that isn’t solved by providing transit alternatives. All of which leads me to conclude that there is no longer any sound reason for giving $41 billion in subsidies to transit each year.
Transit has become nothing more than a source of political favors to unions, downtown property owners, and rail contractors. 
Actually, it always was just that.

No comments:

Post a Comment