Report a Comment

@charlie:
I agree with you wrt Citizens United. I apologize if I didn't make that clear in the last comment.

With respect to the land grant program, I have never intimated otherwise. Yes. Railroads have been subsidized for over a century. Just like all modes of transportation.

And like all modes of transportation, they have "given" back to the American people. The railroads provided (and continue to provide) mobility and opened up the land to settlers. Some have argued that the railroads bound East and West together in a way that ensured America would not split due to the vast size of the continent.

I have never argued that highway building has not provided similar benefits. My hometown largely flourished over the last 2 decades due to the construction of an Interstate spur. Without it, it would likely be economically depressed, since the primary employer (a textile mill) closed 2 years before the freeway opened. Instead, the town is now a generic suburb, and until the real-estate bubble burst, was rolling in the dough.

It's all well and good to point out how much we spend on transportation. But remember that we do get benefits back from that spending. The recent report from Metro is an excellent example.

Sure we spent a goodly amount on building the system. Sure, we have to subsidize it's operations every year. But the system has created much more in terms of real-estate investment, energy savings, and in terms of place-building.

My views on freeway building are not opposed because we don't get tolls back from users. It's that they destroy communities, promote an inefficient use of resources, and encourage an unsustainable built form. They may have a place in society, but that place is not urban areas.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 18, 2012 10:47 am • link • report