Arguing for Cars, Not Transit, as a Poverty Solution

Data show that cars are more effective than transit in providing poor people to jobs and economic opportunity. But does that mean transit systems are fundamentally inadequate or just currently inadequate?
June 6, 2014, 2pm PDT | James Brasuell | @CasualBrasuell
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email Comments
chungking

Scott Beyer cites a number of studies, from a 2011 study by the Brooking Institute to a 2014 study by the Urban Institute, to argue that cars are a better investment than transit for improving economic mobility.

"Of course, these ideas can be challenging to urban planners, who cling to the default assumption that cities must improve mass transit to reduce poverty. If existing services remain inadequate, then planners use it as an argument for more funding. But what if some of the money went instead towards increasing automobile access? Would that not better help economic conditions for the poor?"

Beyer's article piggybacks on an April article on the Washington Post's Wonkblog, but with a slightly different frame. That is, Beyer's argument is more anti-transit, citing the bus system in Charlottesville, Virginia as a model of inefficiency and supporting Wendell Cox's arguments for subsidizing car ownership.

Full Story:
Published on Wednesday, June 4, 2014 in The Daily Beast
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email