Comment 46937

By arienc (registered) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 22:41:43

I think what you're saying makes sense, in the context of setting priorities for spending.

Personally, I believe that spending $50 million on improving the cycling network is the most cost-effective method to deliver transportation improvements and remove excess cars from the road. The only drawback is we don;t have sufficient evidence that bike lanes create incentive for development along the cycling network, which LRT has shown to generate.

We also know that transportation investments generally precede private decision making. By investing hundreds of millions in suburban highways, people have flocked to the outer reaches of the city and development has continued on the fringes. When you subsidize something, people naturally want more of it. By subsidizing LRT, we in effect incentivize compact urban form development, which requires far less public money to service than the autocentric model.

Some very interesting reading...from within the American Conservative movement, on why investing in public transit makes sense from the right wing point of view:

Comment edited by arienc on 2010-08-31 21:42:34

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools