if a train leaves the station…it saves me $63?
by Sandra Neish
Published: June 16, 2008
A non-scientific Quick Vote poll on CNN.com brought the current fuel malady to the forefront of my mind. Granted, filling up my car last night for almost $63 already had thoughts about soaring gas prices floating through my brain, but it took this homepage poll to really get the hamster wheel turning.
The poll queried “Would you support using more tax money to improve U.S. public transportation systems?” and an overwhelming 66% voted in favor, myself included. In the not-so-distant past, I may not have supported more of my tax money going to fix roads and bridges and to add a few time-saving, traffic-decreasing measures here and there. But now I find myself increasingly looking forward to the time in the not-so-far-off future when my family and I will (hopefully) relocate to Washington, D.C. and be able to hop on and off the train system instead of driving.
Having lived in a few different regions of the country and visited many others, I have seen the best and the worst of rapid transit systems. Among the best are: New York City (of course), San Francisco and the aforementioned Washington, D.C. The worst being: Los Angeles, where I currently reside and Panama City, Florida. My hometown of Atlanta, GA is somewhere in the middle. MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority for you non-ATL-ians) is an apparent blessing and curse. Each time there is talk of taking it further into suburbia, some rocket scientist pipes up with the argument that crime will surely follow. After all, it is a well-known fact that criminals are just itching to hop on the subway and dirty up the suburbs.
Of course, we can always tax Big Oil and make them pay for an upgraded infrastructure, but that’s a bit ludicrous in my opinion. The tax would just trickle back down to the consumers anyway. I really do not see Exxon paying the extra tax and not charging more for oil to make up the cost. As a general rule, CEOs and stockholders do not like parting with large amounts of money. If I were the CEO, I’d do the same.
So why doesn’t the federal government give the states a bigger reason to invest in public transportation? Albeit, there are many incentive programs in existence already; for example, states get federal funds in exchange for having the legal drinking age of 21. But the federal government could be more ingenious in its funding schemes so that improving public transportation could be a priority for any state in the Union. Currently, the U.S. government only funds the states - on average - $0.31 per $1000 GDP for public transport. Interestingly enough, there are only two locals that receive at least $1 per $1000 GDP: Washington, D.C. at $2.26 and Oregon at $1.00. New York only receives $0.88, California receives $0.42 and New Hampshire and Wyoming tie for last place with a paltry $0.08. If the federal government is interested in capping greenhouse emissions and lowering the cost of fuel at the pump, why not provide more incentives to the states for much-needed public transportation projects?
Yes, I realize that running bus or train lines out to suburbs surrounding major cities is an expensive undertaking, but adding a few train lines per state so that people could drive shorter distances to reach major cities would definitely help consumers deal with the increase in fuel prices. Not only that, it would reduce the number of cars on the road, which lowers emissions. So not only would it help to lower the price of gas (less demand means lower cost), but it would help make the world a slightly greener place in which to live.
And more green, be it in the form of dollars or clean air, is always a good thing.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(6)
June 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
The government is sqaundering enough of my money. I’m not at all interested in handing over new taxes. If more infrastructure needs to be built, let the Feds and locals tighten up their belt and use what they already have.