digamma.net - notes

Atrios ponders the practicality of various public transit initiatives in the US, and says something I don’t understand: “But, between the rigidity of zoning laws, basic Nimbyism, your standard suburban fear of property value decline, and the competition between development and the parking that those who need to drive to the stations demand, all make the necessary changes highly unlikely in most areas.”

Are public transit and property value decline really correlated? Everybody I know in the suburban parts of a “greater metropolitan area” wants more and better trains from her home to the city, and chooses her homes based heavily on proximity to good transit. Yes, my friends all happen to be god damned dirty collectivists, but what’s the downside? Are gangs of urban thugs really taking trains out to the suburbs to rape and pillage?

While we’re on the subject of improving transit, however, why not a massive campaign of deregulation of public transit to encourage businesses to do it more? Back when I lived where Atrios lives now, I spent many an hour on streetcorners in impoverished neighborhoods waiting for buses. Guys using their cars unlicensed cabs would often pull up and offer the huddled masses rides. It was good to see people from poor backgrounds pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and making city life easier in the process, but let’s not forget that, lacking the requisite medallion, they were lawbreakers.

You hear a lot about “Right to Work” policies. I propose a Right to Ride - a set of policies making it easy to operate a small bus business. Out here in the sticks, Advance Transit has been able to pull it off, despite the extremely rural/suburban nature of the community. Sure, not EVERYONE can take it, but to those who can it’s extremely valuable.