Benjamin de la Peña gets it right again. When more people ride mass transit, we reduce the number of vehicles on the road, and therefore reduce or minimize traffic congestion, which means more people get to where they need to go in less time. Fewer motor vehicles also equals less pollution. Less pollution leads to a healthier environment and healthier people. This makes our megacity more competitive in the global market. In addition, when the middle-class and lower-income users spend less on transit, they get more money in their pocket. They can spend that money on goods or services and this is good for the rest of the economy. They can also save that money, which is good for economic stability. When transportation is efficient, people and companies save time. This increases productivity, which increases our megacitys economic output. Metro Manila, the tagasalo, has more to share with her siblings. Not just our problem Were not the only megacity struggling with how to pay for mass transit. In fact, most transit systems in the world operate at a loss and receive government subsidies. The UK subsidizes Transport for London at about £3 billion a year. New York subsidizes the MTA at about $1.8B per year. (The subsidy goes to train AND bus service in both New York and London.) Meanwhile, the government pays for about 97 percent of the cost of running the subway in Mexico City. The only systems which operate at a profit are Hong Kongs MTR and the rail systems in Tokyo. These rail systems get income from the land around the stations, not just fares. (Planners call this value capture. We should copy it.)
Posted on: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 07:22:08 +0000