3 ms·
>If you put that money into a fund, you could pay every impoverished kid in the entire state $1,000 per year in perpetuity. Then it's still a good deal. Those
by mancerayder 8y ago
>If you put that money into a fund, you could pay every impoverished kid in the entire state $1,000 per year in perpetuity.
Then it's still a good deal. Those kids grow up and 1000 a year isn't enough for a car, is it.
In addition, infrastructure projects are a long-term investment for this AND future generations. The long-term aspect outlives political terms, and combined with a general myopia around 'government spending' we have an incredibly backwards public transit infra. I live in the most densely populated piece of the US and have a background in countries with top notch transit (and far better roads, incidentally) and that's my perspective. I can only assume people (who aren't millionaires desiring less taxation) who are against transit just haven't traveled very much.
- rayiner 8y ago> Then it's still a good deal. Those kids grow up and 1000 a year isn't enough for a car, is it. All of those kids will get the money growing up. For education, food, etc. Only a tiny fraction of those kids will benefit from being able to pay $6 to rise the Metro. I travel to Tokyo pretty regularly. I love transit. But we pay several times as much per mile to build subways, and get less value for each mile due to our lower density.
- mancerayder 8y agoThat's not an argument to do what the Koch's are doing, namely propagandize against public transit policy. It's an argument for a streamlined approach. For instance: yeah, the NYC MTA and contract sprocurement procedures and culture is corrupt and leads to bloated costs. It's infuriating, inefficient and so forth. But can you imagine NYC without its transit system? Do you think its GDP would go up if suddenly everyone had to drive, walk or bike?