Submitted by Darren Embry (not verified) on December 4, 2010 - 1:21pm.
Begin rant.
Here's TARC [yes, I'm going there, bear with me ;)] and just about every other public transit agency in the country, getting piss-poor funding (federal grants mostly for capital expenses aside), especially on the operations side. Particularly, TARC receives virtually no scratch from the Commonwealth. Since 1974 there have been plenty of route extensions and new lines, but service *improvements* have been few and far between. And they were forced to cut most of their radial routes outside the Watterson over the past year or two.
Yet here the supporters of both bridges are, seeing it perfectly justified to spend billions in the name of “progress” to accomodate what will eventually be a few more lanes of cars getting stuck in traffic during rush-hour. Because hey, sprawl is going to just continue to happen and you can’t stop it, right?
Honestly, folks, which is a more positive, ambitious, efficient, environmentally friendly, and JUST EPICALLY AWESOME ALL AROUND way to use billions of dollars?
(a) significant transit expansion, not only to serve the captive rider but with the goal in mind of getting the rich and poor alike to take public transportation, including crosstown service along and outside the Watterson (which might especially require some risk and creativity).
(b) adding a few more lanes so we might have less congestion for a few years, but essentially maintaining the status quo.
Hell, even you, the driver, wants less of those other drivers on the road when you do need to use your car, right? More lanes isn't a long-term solution to that.
89°F7:55 PM 
Begin rant.Here's
Begin rant.
Here's TARC [yes, I'm going there, bear with me ;)] and just about every other public transit agency in the country, getting piss-poor funding (federal grants mostly for capital expenses aside), especially on the operations side. Particularly, TARC receives virtually no scratch from the Commonwealth. Since 1974 there have been plenty of route extensions and new lines, but service *improvements* have been few and far between. And they were forced to cut most of their radial routes outside the Watterson over the past year or two.
Yet here the supporters of both bridges are, seeing it perfectly justified to spend billions in the name of “progress” to accomodate what will eventually be a few more lanes of cars getting stuck in traffic during rush-hour. Because hey, sprawl is going to just continue to happen and you can’t stop it, right?
Honestly, folks, which is a more positive, ambitious, efficient, environmentally friendly, and JUST EPICALLY AWESOME ALL AROUND way to use billions of dollars?
(a) significant transit expansion, not only to serve the captive rider but with the goal in mind of getting the rich and poor alike to take public transportation, including crosstown service along and outside the Watterson (which might especially require some risk and creativity).
(b) adding a few more lanes so we might have less congestion for a few years, but essentially maintaining the status quo.
Hell, even you, the driver, wants less of those other drivers on the road when you do need to use your car, right? More lanes isn't a long-term solution to that.
End rant.