Where there's a will, there's a subway

Londoners have bought into public transit

In virtually every major city in the Western world, more and more people rely on the private automobile, fewer and fewer take public transit. This, despite punishing taxes on gasoline, despite other anti-car measures such as car-free lanes and car-free zones, and despite lavish government subsidies that transit receives in attempts to keep fares down and lure people out of their automobiles. Except for one major city: London, UK. There, public transit has gained market share against the car, not through even more lavish subsidies and not by discriminations against private automobiles. London has steadily increased its public transit use over the past two decades by slashing subsidies, by deregulating, by privatizing, and most recently, by tolling roads. London proves the left wrong: Public transit does not depend on subsidies; it can thrive in a free-market environment. And London proves the right wrong: Public transit is not inherently inferior to the private automobile; it can outcompete the car where market forces reign. Public transit deregulation is now beginning its third decade in London, and London's transit authorities are confident of more gains. By 2010, they expect a whopping 45% increase in public transit patronage, compared with 2000 levels. Meanwhile, transit authorities in the world's other major cities, because they cannot contemplate even a first decade of deregulation, are going nowhere.
(National Post 061103)

For the doubters out there (I'm not picking on you, Matt!), yes, there may be a requirement of a certain population base size in order for public transit to be privatizable, or subsidy-free, or without some sort of government intervention, but it is proof positive (once again - how many times does this have to play out?) that IF YOU GIVE PEOPLE ACCEPTABLE OPTIONS, THEY WILL USE THEM. Calgary is the ultimate proof of short-sighted and elitist planning. A large majority of western North American city governments were simply too vision-lacking, poll whoring, and greedy to see long-term what would be required in their futures, so now here you have fucking millions of people completely dependent on one (completely inefficient and resource/environment devastating) transportation mode that can only grow with massive infrastructure upgrades and a huge strain on the taxpayer base. Besides suburbia, it's the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of mankind.

Shamefully, Calgary is one of the wealthiest cities in the world with a public transit system that would make a third-world nation's citizens embarrassed. Okay, that's a stretch, but you get my point. Who the hell is going to wait for an hour on a weekend to get on a bus at one end of the city, knowing full well they have at least an hour and a half of travelling (plus two or three transfers) in order to get to the other end? Absolutely no one. Who the hell is going to pay $50-60 for a cab ride from downtown to the south end of the city? Absolutely no one. So Bronconnier and his lackeys have put ridiculous amounts of money into building more, bigger roads, which are only going to fill with more cars and congestion (it's not like this trend is going to magically change just because it is Calgary, after all), while you have a light rail transit system that is probably about five years behind in its capacity all the while it has been more than obvious that the demand in all the city's new neighborhoods for this option has been huge for a very long time? The outer C-train parking lots are full at 7am, the train cars are packed at that same time. People have to wait for several trains in the cold outside before they can get on one. Do you think these people using this service are going to tolerate this for very long? No. They're going to be going back to their cars and filling up all that extra capacity on those new fucking roadways! God damn! Catch a grip already, city planners! Grr!

end of rant.