Fair enough, today’s Journal front-pager clearly and concisely shows that PART is a certified money loser.
UNCC prof David Hartgen weighs in, and PART director Brent McKinney pushes back. Seems to me if, as McKinney admits, PART is having little affect on congestion, it would have equally little affect on air pollution and gas consumption. And I’m not sure if ‘convoluted’ is the right word to describe the logic behind McKinney’s closing argument:
Hartgen…. says the number of cars PART pulls off the road – about 600 a day – is also too small to have any real effect on infrastructure.
“Not one new turn signal will be prevented because of this service,” Hartgen said. “This is just another form of government largess.”
…..McKinney said he doesn’t contest Hartgen’s assertion that PART’s impact on congestion may not be noticeable to drivers stuck in rush-hour traffic.
But he said he feels that when you consider the combined effect that PART has on congestion, air pollution and fuel consumption, that effort has been justified.
…..Hartgen said that if bussing commuters was viable it would pay for itself and the private sector would have already figured out how to do it.
“There’s no practical way that commuters to and from Winston-Salem are going to be convinced to leave their cars at home,” he said.
McKinney disagrees, saying that private cars are subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars a year in expensive roads and structures such as parking decks.
He also said he believes that it makes sense to use some transportation dollars in ways that remove cars from roads and reduce the need for downtown parking lots. Those lots could be turned into buildings that could add to a county’s tax base and bring new people who could ride buses, he said.
“Parking takes away development space,” McKinney said. “We need to bring people in but leave as many vehicles as possible outside the region’s core.”
Just a look into the mindset of those who believe it’s their mission to spend millions on mass transportation.
