From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:12:24 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Oct8.042236.25686@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>The problem with this analogy is that there are no known benefits to
>having cancer. There are clear and present benefits to having a car.

	I will concede certain pluses. But let us not us forget about
the minuses, such as the great expense of one.

>The debate centers on whether it is more cost efficient, and individually
>liberating, to switch from automotive transportation to some mass alternative.
>The indications are that wherever cars are available, most people choose
>to use them in preference to alternatives.

	You would never know it by how many people use some
public-transit systems. Gary Coffman, if you ever visit the Bay Area
someday, try riding BART, especially during commute hours, and you
will see _lots_ of counterevidence. Even a lot of car owners prefer
not to drive sometimes, especially when it comes to driving long
distances every day.

The indications are that wherever
>mass transit operates, it runs at a loss.

	And so do the various road-building and -maintaining agencies.
They are about 38% subsidized.

	Furthermore, public-transit agencies have to buy and maintain
their vehicles, as car owners do, so that skews the economics
considerably.

	And on a sufficiently comfortable system (usually a train),
you can get a lot of reading done. Gary Coffman, you'll never believe
how much reading I've been able to do on BART, reading I'd never be
able to do if I had to drive. My only serious annoyance is that BART
just isn't big enough for my convenience; I eagerly await an extension
to Livermore.

Meanwhile car manufacturers, 
>dealers, service shops, gas stations, road contractors, and the like show
>profits and people are willing to pay. This may be a case of the philosophy
>that it is better to burn out than fade away, but that's the market's
>decision.

	And also a case of political favoritism for roads and cars.

	I'd like more money for public transit.

Puritanical, sacrifice is good for the soul, types might not
>like it, but there it is, vox populi.

	Even car owners use BART and other public-transit systems; it
saves a hassle of a drive. And it allows their cars to last longer.
I've seen BART parking lots packed with cars, and the same thing
happens at other commuter-train park-and-ride lots. Gary Coffman, why
don't you see how MARTA park-and-ride lots do some time. And even
carpoolers and vanpoolers like not having to drive long distances
every day.

	And there is a lot of the "vox populi" that likes public
transit. Simply consider the BART extensions being constructed here in
the Bay Area. Or even look at car-happy Los Angeles, with the
following rail transit projects:

The Blue Line, from downtown LA to Long Beach, already having more
riders than expected. It will be extended to Pasadena.

The Green Line, from Norwalk to LAX and El Segundo.

The Red and Orange lines, from downtown LA to Wilshire Blvd. and Hollywood.

The Metrolink commuter rail system, from downtown LA to Moorpark (NW),
Santa Clarita (N), and Pomona (NE), set to open late this month.
Future branches will go to Riverside (E) and Orange County (SE).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton