The Most Subsidized Form of Transportation

I was struck by a phrase in “Sluggish Pace Will Bring Social Conflict” (Jan. 1) referring to France’s “money-losing” railway lines, and by its similarity to numerous references in the media to partially subsidized public transport systems that try to characterize such systems as monstrous leeches on society.

Let me ask you this: How much money do the streets and highways bring in, then? According to figures I have seen, fuel taxes, registration fees and even tolls amount to such a minuscule proportion of the cost of building, maintaining and policing roadways that it becomes evident that the private automobile is the most heavily tax-subsidized form of transportation on Earth, as well as the most destructive to the community, the environment and, quite often, to physical life itself.

Trains and buses, no matter how heavily subsidized, are models of fiscal efficiency when compared to cars; only walking and bicycling, which use no resources and require only rudimentary paths, could in theory be close to self-supporting, though of course in practice bicyclists use (though they do not wear out) streets, and pedestrians use sidewalks and bridges.

In other words, we all participate in and benefit from culture; let us then as a culture emphasize the use of transportation and modalities that are more efficient (such as walking, bicycling, buses and trains) and not employ false arguments to promote the most grossly inefficient and expensive form of transport yet devised. Yes, trains require subsidies, but not nearly so much as autos do.

RICHARD RISEMBERG

Los Angeles