My vision for transit is not a reinterpretation of the automobile highway – corridors for commuters – but a return to traditional transit systems: investments in financially productive places. A successful transit trip begins in a financially-productive place and ends in a financially-productive place, connecting the two in a way that is scaled to

Another important factor here is that our scarce resources will be applied where there is the greatest demand, not the greatest political connections. While the former might sometimes benefit wealthy drivers, this proposal is going to be a lot more egalitarian than the current patronage system. And right now our system is pretty fair in that, when

Most transit advocates I know – “Chuck, I just want a train” is one lament I’ve heard

When we began to build the interstate system, in many ways we were attempting to re-create the transformative economic expansion brought about by the construction of the railroads. Only this time it would not be the private sector leading the way and taking the risk. It would be the government.

our core transportation funding problem is that we’ve built more transportation infrastructure than we can effectively utilize. Our solution, bizarrely, is to build more.

So, before operating the actual railroad, these private companies were first land developers. Without developing the land and capturing the value their investment created, few railroad lines would have ever been built[xiv]

(Note that there is a fairly large swath of people that think of themselves as “free market advocates” that will be shocked to find out how insolvent the current system is and how non-market oriented it is.

Free Market Advocates (WINNERS): I count myself among this group and I love the concept of transportation spending decisions actually being made by supply and demand, not political patronage or an arbitrary standard.

after the U.S. Civil War, foreign money poured into the country and fueled rampant speculation in railroad-led development.