Regarding today’s front-page story on bus service, a few thoughts:

(1) Why do some folks expect the government to drive them to work?

(2) Why do some businesses expect the government to bring workers to them?

(3) If there’s a labor shortage in, say, Short Pump, and there is a pool of available labor in the city, then it seems clear at least one of two things should happen—and probably both:

(a) Workers should move closer to the jobs, and

(b) Companies should pay workers enough to be able to afford cars.

Don’t people who use mass transit pay for it?

And mass transit is about more than just workers getting to jobs.  If every person coming into or out of the city drove cars, Richmond (or any city) would become a smaller version of the L.A. area.  For those who have not had the pleasure, driving on “the 10 Freeway” is not so much a “driving” experience as it is a “crawling” one.  And it mostly doesn’t matter what time of day it is - you’re lucky when you can get up to 50; most of the time you’re sluggishly sliding along the pavement.  (This is, after all, the city that invented the bumper sticker: “Keep honking; I’m reloading.“)

Mass transit makes it possible for large numbers of people to move quickly into and out of the city on a daily basis.  Sure, the concepts of new urbanism are neat and have some merit, but we’re talking about moving a work force from the bedroom community into the center of commerce every morning, then returning them again each evening.

If we don’t think government should bring workers to work, why do we even expect government to provide nice roads and bridges upon which to drive those cars?

Post Your Comments: