Editing 76-08-B4 (section)

= Rapid Transit =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
In the last election, the people of Los Angeles once again voted "no" on a several-hundred-mile fixed rail rapid transit system. But the proponents of such a system didn't get the message. They are still planning, with only one change in direction. They now seek aid from the federal government, meaning the proponents of such a system didn't get the message. They are still planning, with only one change in
direction. They now seek aid from the federal government, meaning the people of Illinois, Iowa, New York and all the other 50 states will help pay for it with their federal taxes.

In the 1960's and early 70's, Washington spent some $4 billion promoting mass rapid transit. Then, two years ago, Congress passed an $11.8 billion subsidy bill. Some $210 million of this was spent in Chicago, where rapid transit is already established by way of the famous "Elevated" and where the city's geography is ideally suited to a fixed rail system. The idea was to lure more people out of their automobiles and thus reduce downtown traffic. The new system attracted passengers but only 8% of them came from automobiles. The rest simply moved to the new system from the "L", as it's called, and the buses. In fact, it put one bus line out of business. In Washington, "Metro", an elaborate subway system, is supposed to have 100 miles of track at a cost of two-and-a-half billion dollars. That cost figure has already doubled; it is years behind schedule and only four-and-a-half miles of track are open for use at a loss of $55,000 a day.

Here in California, the pattern remains the same. San Francisco, much more geographically suited to a fixed rail system than Los Angeles, has "BART" -- the Bay Area Rapid Transit. The original cost estimate has doubled.

In 1976, a projected 11 billion dollar operating surplus turned out to be a $40 billion deficit. The number of trips were only half of what had been projected and most of the passengers came from buses, not automobiles. Buses, incidentally, are anywhere from one-eighth to one-half cheaper than BART. As a matter of fact, driving a sub-compact car is cheaper than BART.

Environmentalists support rapid transit as an answer to air pollution and a saver of energy. There can be no argument that both of these aims would be advanced if rapid transit could replace travel by private automobile. But at what cost? Even where rapid transit has been long established, it only handles a tiny fraction of the passenger load carried by automobiles.

Most cities, including those of modest size, once had "rapid" transit. The clang of the trolley car's bell was a familiar- sound until people abandoned public transportation for their own set of wheels. The automobile gave man one more freedom. The freedom to choose his own timetable and route of travel on a portal-portal basis. He has shown he does not intend to give up that freedom, and government has no right to take it from him by a program of deliberately planned congestion.

We need improvement in fuel consumption and the elimination of air pollution, perhaps even a new energy source for our cars. How much progress in these directions could we have bought for the $16 billion the federal government is spending on rapid transit which will not appreciably reduce traffic and which apparently the people don't want? 

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>12/22/[[Radio1976|1976]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-307]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>