Highways or Public Transit: What's the better investment?
The problem with continued public investment in new highway "capacity," be it bridges, lanes or altogether new stretches of pavement, is that it does nothing to alleviate our individual need to spend continually more for private transportation. In the last generation, transportation has become the number two expense for American households. As a nation, between 17 and 21% of our average household spending has gone towards transportation. In the 1960's that number was closer to 10%. Eighty years ago it was nearer 5%. In Louisville this means that if the average family spends roughly $47,000 per year, $8,300 is spent on transportation. (This is about the national average. I don't know what average household spending is in Louisville.) Never mind the public, social and environmental costs associated with this type of public investment.
The beautiful thing about investing in public transit is that it provides us with the ability to choose to spend less of our increasingly hard earned dollars on transportation. My public investment, my contribution to those taxes that are directed to public transit, gives me the ability to reduce my private investment in transportation. More highways, more money for gas and insurance. More public transit, more money in my pocket for other things.
Imagine what we could do if every household in Louisville chose to shift just $1,000 of that $8,300 they currently spend on cars to an investment in public transit infrastructure. How many households are there in Louisville Metro? 200,000? I'll let you imagine. Is it possible? Could we, as a community, begin to let go of some of our vaunted independence and begin to build a better, more beautiful, more livable Louisville based on our interdependence?
I believe we can. I pray that we will.
Comments
independence
Could we, as a community, begin to let go of some of our vaunted independence and begin to build a better, more beautiful, more livable Louisville based on our interdependence?
Motorists are not "independent". It only feels like they are. How many people make their own auto fuel? Not many. I can't even change a tire by myself. The point is, both systems are complex and rely on a highly interdependent web of public and private systems to function. To pretend otherwise is wishful thinking borne of car advertising.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Moscow subway kept running. So for them, transit was the system that had the fewest dependencies.
imagining two hundred million dollars
So $200 million - I'm trying to imagine how much transit that would buy. TARC's operating expenses are, what, $65 million, and let's assume that the new money is added to that. We could run about 400% the bus system we currently have. Routes with 75 minute intervals, like the Airport, would suddenly have 18 minute intervals. Routes with 15 minute intervals - like Bardstown Rd - would become 4 minute intervals. That means you wait only an average of 2 minutes to catch a bus on Bardstown Road. It takes longer than that to park.
Another idea is to eliminate the bus fare completely. That would further speed up the buses, and make them cheaper - who needs fareboxes when there are no fares? Last I heard farebox revenue was about 1/6th of the cost of a trip, though that was before the days of $1.25.
Hm...Tarc3?
Overall, the effect on the local economy would be roughly equivalent to an oil shock, but in the good direction. Our existing roads would decongest, making even motorists' lives better. We would have no need to widen roads. We would have fewer traffic fatalities. We would add hundreds (thousands?) of green-collar jobs to the local economy. We would greatly curtail the flow of oil money out of the economy. Teens, Elders, and people with driving disabilities would become more self-reliant.