Light Rail
I sometimes drive along a road which parallels light rail transit tracks. I see many individuals walking to the station in the morning and walking away from the station in the afternoon. Why are their jobs somewhere else; rather than in their own village?
A current Economist article cited Vancouver, Toronto, and Calgary as world class places to live. Is the Economist’s measuring device flawed? Did the breadwinner(s) see their kids in the morning? In the evening? Did anybody speak to their neighbor through the whole day? Whole week. Whole month? Could the kids play in the neighborhood without direct supervision? Could the kids play at school without one or more teachers on high alert? Could the family drive an hour or two once a year to go to a special cultural event which would resonate for months or years? Could the employers come to the village? Could the whole household know everyone in the village? Could local stores provide the day to day supplies for all the families? Should Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary be 2,000th or 2,000,000th on the list instead of top ten?
Why do we have urban planners? So we can plan more Vancouvers, Torontos, and Calgarys? Should we have village planners instead? Should we walk or bike to work? Should we drink out of reusable cups? Should we eat off of reusable plates? Should we recognize a pervert in our midst? Should one police person be adequate in our village?
Many perceive Light Rail Transit to be in the public interest? What if we apply a decision tree to decide if Light Rail Transit would survive? Read on.
Does the installation of a Light Rail Transit system follow the rule of law?
Yes.
Does the construction and operation of Light Rail Transit protect every individual’s right to act independently as long as the individual does not initiate force?
No, the construction is decided by elected councilors independent of the taxpayers who absorb the payment of city taxes. The provincial and federal governments also get into the funding with no ability, or interest, in getting the blessing of those who are forced to pay. The operations are not self-supporting so the taxpayer continues to pay with no ability to head off the costs.
Does Light Rail Transit protect diversity?
Yes, because it allows a broader group of individuals to access the city core.
Does Light Rail Transit protect from discrimination?
No, it allows a few developers and bureaucrats to concentrate expensive properties in a core so villagers are manipulated into commutes for no purpose other than feeding the wealth of the downtown developers and bureaucrats. It drags villagers away from their fellow villagers and families for hours longer than they would be away if they worked in their village.
Does the action protect from concentration of power?
No, it tends to concentrate power in the hands of city officials and labor unions. Two entities demonstrating little concern for the taxpayer.
Does the action have the support of a majority of the public who will pay any public cost of implementation equally?
No. It’s designed to subsidize the commute of individuals while loading the subsidized cost on defenseless taxpayers.
Conclusion: Any rational consideration of Light Rail Transit would reject it as a policy in direct conflict with the objectives of developing viable, self-contained villages where the environment, health, safety, and satisfaction of the villagers are foremost. Light Rail Transit is built, at massive cost, to haul people away from their best location, their village. Not in my definition of the public interest.