4 ms·

That's because in order for public transit to work it has to cover the place the people work. Which is mostly in DC. Virginia isn't going to pay for public tran

That's because in order for public transit to work it has to cover the place the people work. Which is mostly in DC. Virginia isn't going to pay for public transit in DC. Maryland isn't going to pay for public transit in DC. Whereas what they will absolutely do is pay for roads in their own states. And DC can’t pay for public transit in DC because it’s tax base isn’t big enough. It isn't so much “favoring cars” as it is favoring tax money staying local, which is defined very oddly in the DC area. It's sort of miraculous that the DC Metro exists at all, tbh.

tmnvix 5y ago
> And DC can’t pay for public transit in DC because it’s tax base isn’t big enough. How does DC pay for roads?
- nradov 5y ago
  Congress allocates funds for roads and other infrastructure in DC.
  - GlenTheMachine 5y ago
    Note, also, that DC roads are in terrible shape. The Beltway survives because none of it is actually in DC.
javagram 5y ago
> Virginia isn't going to pay for public transit in DC. Maryland isn't going to pay for public transit in DC. Virginia and Maryland both pay significant funds to subsidize the DC metro system, as does the federal government. Incompetence at WMATA fritters away the money. Moreover, metro has little to do with this road disaster anyway as Metro isn’t going to run between DC and Richmond. Amtrak does that and it’s already subsidized by Virginia and the Feds.
- GlenTheMachine 5y ago
  The kind of money for public transit that would alleviate congestion on I95 (the proximate cause of yesterdays nightmare) has never ever been on the table. It would never get through Richmond or Annapolis.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  > Incompetence at WMATA fritters away the money. There is incompetence everywhere. Why is it any worse at WMATA than Maryland State Highway Administration or literally anywhere else?
  - javagram 5y ago
    Bad administration, maybe you could blame the fact that metro is funded by 4 jurisdictions (DC, Feds, MD, VA) who all sit on the metro board and have done a terrible job of getting costs under control and maintaining quality over the last two decades.
onecommentman 5y ago
DC Metro exists because ~70% of the capital costs were borne by the rest of the US, most of said citizens never saw, or will never see, any direct benefit. It was an easy sell to the Feds as individual people who directly and personally benefited in hedonistic ways and who, unsurprisingly, secured funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#History But the Metro also was politically inevitable, given the position of DC as the political center of the very powerful 20th Century USA. It was a semiotic embarrassment not to have a prestigious functioning subway system in DC in the late 20th Century. Urban Europeans would stick their tongues out and make fun of the DC residents, and the Feds fixed that with the Metro. (Note that DC types still have a lingering inferiority complex with other European cities. The rest of the US, excepting maybe NYC and Boston, couldn’t have cared less.) But the Metro does makes it easier to see the sights if/when the rest of the US visits DC as tourists.
- GlenTheMachine 5y ago
  This is a perfect synopsis of why public transit in DC is so hard. Thanks for making my point. DC, again, doesn't have the tax base one would otherwise expect, for reasons outside its control. The people who control the money that would otherwise be paid to DC do not represent DC. They represent Virginia and Maryland, and also New York and California and Alaska. New York and California and Alaska voters don't particularly want the money to go to DC. They don't see DC as an actual city where real people live, they see it only as the resented center of a distant federal government, only populated by politicians and jackets. The fact that over a million "regular" people live in DC never enters the equation. Meanwhile there's nobody in a position of authority representing DC. So those "real people" DC residents don't get a say.

tmnvix 5y ago

> And DC can’t pay for public transit in DC because it’s tax base isn’t big enough. How does DC pay for roads?

nradov 5y ago
Congress allocates funds for roads and other infrastructure in DC.
- GlenTheMachine 5y ago
  Note, also, that DC roads are in terrible shape. The Beltway survives because none of it is actually in DC.

javagram 5y ago

> Virginia isn't going to pay for public transit in DC. Maryland isn't going to pay for public transit in DC. Virginia and Maryland both pay significant funds to subsidize the DC metro system, as does the federal government. Incompetence at WMATA fritters away the money. Moreover, metro has little to do with this road disaster anyway as Metro isn’t going to run between DC and Richmond. Amtrak does that and it’s already subsidized by Virginia and the Feds.

GlenTheMachine 5y ago
The kind of money for public transit that would alleviate congestion on I95 (the proximate cause of yesterdays nightmare) has never ever been on the table. It would never get through Richmond or Annapolis.
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
> Incompetence at WMATA fritters away the money. There is incompetence everywhere. Why is it any worse at WMATA than Maryland State Highway Administration or literally anywhere else?
- javagram 5y ago
  Bad administration, maybe you could blame the fact that metro is funded by 4 jurisdictions (DC, Feds, MD, VA) who all sit on the metro board and have done a terrible job of getting costs under control and maintaining quality over the last two decades.

onecommentman 5y ago

DC Metro exists because ~70% of the capital costs were borne by the rest of the US, most of said citizens never saw, or will never see, any direct benefit. It was an easy sell to the Feds as individual people who directly and personally benefited in hedonistic ways and who, unsurprisingly, secured funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#History But the Metro also was politically inevitable, given the position of DC as the political center of the very powerful 20th Century USA. It was a semiotic embarrassment not to have a prestigious functioning subway system in DC in the late 20th Century. Urban Europeans would stick their tongues out and make fun of the DC residents, and the Feds fixed that with the Metro. (Note that DC types still have a lingering inferiority complex with other European cities. The rest of the US, excepting maybe NYC and Boston, couldn’t have cared less.) But the Metro does makes it easier to see the sights if/when the rest of the US visits DC as tourists.

GlenTheMachine 5y ago
This is a perfect synopsis of why public transit in DC is so hard. Thanks for making my point. DC, again, doesn't have the tax base one would otherwise expect, for reasons outside its control. The people who control the money that would otherwise be paid to DC do not represent DC. They represent Virginia and Maryland, and also New York and California and Alaska. New York and California and Alaska voters don't particularly want the money to go to DC. They don't see DC as an actual city where real people live, they see it only as the resented center of a distant federal government, only populated by politicians and jackets. The fact that over a million "regular" people live in DC never enters the equation. Meanwhile there's nobody in a position of authority representing DC. So those "real people" DC residents don't get a say.