Letter to the Bee

RE: RT a drain on the county's taxpayers, Dec 19:

The opinion correctly states how intensive public transit subsidies are, but fails to offer that the major alternative to transit, namely cars, are provided much larger subsidies from public tax revenues. The costs of highway building, maintenance and free parking are borne only partially by users but also indirectly through higher taxes and prices. I doubt California would build any additional highways if federal matching or stimulus funds weren't available to subsidize them.

The underlying problem is that the Sacramento region is comprised chiefly of low-density suburban development which cannot be adequately served by public transit. Combined with single use zoning that pervades regional planning, it is absurd to suggest that light rail ought to reduce congestion and commute times. We implicitly built in automobile dependency.

The question that isn't asked is "what kind of environment do we want to live in?" A region where the only viable transportation option is your own car(s) and perpetual debt servicing? Continued dependence on foreign energy? Public transit ought to be subsidized even more, and integrated with medium density, walkable, mixed-use development. A more liveable Sacramento would result, and would promote the climate and energy security goals that loom on our horizon.

Edit: Published in the Bee on 24 Dec, 2009.