Quote:
Originally Posted by John Martin
We're not balanced, but if you're inclined to favor transit, you should be thrilled about that. Hypothetically you could've bought a brand new car for every daily rail commuter with the money that was spent on commuter and light rail infrastructure in the past several years. I'm just being anecdotal of course, but that seems kind of steep for something that we were by no means in dire need of. FrontRunner is hovering around.. what, 6000 riders a day? Those people could be driving Bentleys with the money that's been spent on them!
|
Someone has been listening to anti-transit propaganda. You know those claims have been widely discredited, right?
You're right that we're not balanced, but totally wrong in the direction. We spent so much money on car infrastructure in the latter half of the 20th Century that in order to reach "balance" we would have to completely stop funding cars/highways totally and funnel all our money to transit for several decades in order to catch up. Even if it is true that we are currently spending more on transit (which is almost certainly not true, but I haven't seen Utah's budget so I won't make a claim either way), the system is still highly imbalanced in favor of roads.
More importantly, it is totally disingenuous to claim that for the capital costs of a rail line we could buy everyone a fancy car. I can think of about 50 ways it is disingenuous, but the simplest way is that you are ignoring the capital cost of building the roads that those cars are supposed to be driving upon. In case you're not aware, roads are not free. Another way that statement is disingenuous is that it ignores most of the reasons why transit is useful, such as its effect on land use and the ability of transit users to bypass traffic congestion. It's like saying you could buy a nice video game with the money you spend on a tank of gas; the statement might be true, but it ignores the benefits of using that gas to travel.
Frankly, anyone who parrots disinformation of the sort contained in that post really just makes themselves look foolish. It is so blatantly wrong, and has been so overwhelmingly discredited by years of research, that individuals who make such claims show themselves to be ill-informed and/or extremely biased.