It shows 50 people moving on a street in three photos -- by private motor vehicle and taxi, on bicycles, and on a bus. The 50 people in private motor vehicles are gridlocked, the 50 on bicycles occupy fraction of the street, the 50 on a bus even less. It is striking.

My only criticism is that one has to read the fine print in the text to find out that it is the same number of people traveling in each photo. It would be better if "50 people moving" was in big block letters next to each photo, so no one would miss it.

To turn that poster into one that makes the point I suggested at the beginning of this discussion, there would have to be one Ford Expedition with tinted windows in each photo, and 49 bus riders, cyclists, or people in other vehicles.

Some people would see themselves on the bus or the bike and thus benefitting. But others would see themselves in Ford Expedition, benefitting from other people being on the bus or bikes.

1. Advocate budget reallocation for infrastructure. Infrastructure spending is around 1-2% of the Federal budget, while defense spending is around 10%. The inverse is true for Europe and Japan. Rather than raise taxes, why not direct 1-2% of funding away from defense and into pure infrastructure? Or come up with ways to "co-brand" infrastructure projects, similar to how Dwight D. Eisenhower marshalled support for the Interstate Highway System.

This might seem impossible in today's climate. But the next one is a real doozy - something that neither London nor Paris have to deal with, and one that would require enormous political will.

2. Rationalize the patchwork of government agencies providing transport. You've got the US DOT, the NYS DOT, the MTA, NYC DOT, NJ DOT, and PANYNJ all serving the same set of consumers. Funding mechanisms and income streams differ for each. Coordinated discounts are difficult if not impossible. Linked/intermodal projects take forever, are subject to bickering and turf wars. Constituency fragmentation means that urban centers and urban concerns can't be directed to one agency and are thus diffused across many, lessening advocacy effectiveness. There needs to be City-Region based agencies (funded based on 10-year fixed terms from Federal and State government) that have the political empowerment to drive transport initiatives for their region and adjust funding mechanisms & fare schemes accordingly.

Taxes are NOT progressive in this country -- they are close to flat.

The wealthiest only pay a small percentage more in federal tax than school teachers. When you factore in state & local, the wealthiest are paying the same percentage of their income in tax as median earners are.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/04/my-tax-day-post

What is there to argue about?

I think we do it rather poorly! How much money goes where it isn't needed, and doesn't go where it is?

"I fail to see the need for a special 'poor fare'."

The thing is, we're all paying the 'poor fare' right now. Having discounts for the poor would relieve downward pressure on the base fare, and pressure against fare zones. The transit authority would have a little more flexibility to change a fair price for their services. Or at the very least, we would find out who is advocating low base fares in the name of the poor but is really only after a cheap ride for their middle-class selves.

One problem, though, is countries that have these discounts already have administrations in place to apply them as fairly as they can, for a range of government and even private goods and services. If we try the same thing, will it be immediately corrupted by NYC government insiders—like everything else—and will it exclude our actual poor, people that pay (some) taxes but don't get anything from their government other than the threat of deportation?

The government is already pretty good at redistributing tax dollars to the poor--especially here in NYC. I fail to see the need for a special "poor fare".

There is nothing new in the world: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_98_percent_of_u_s_commuters

It would not be possible to have an economic engine like New York without mass transit.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/default.aspx

Road and parking space is limited, and the cost of expanding it is prohibitive. It isn't the cost of building and maintaining roads and parking facilities that is the killer, it is the cost of the land they sit on in any developed area. So how to make more room on the road for YOU?

If the other guy and younger generations are crammed into steerage-like mass transit or forced to ride bicycles, decent hardworking middle class Americans and our dear seniors will run into less traffic when they drive. The remaining drivers would thus be the real winners.