Recently in a comment thread I was lectured about being narrow-minded and not realizing that public investments were meant to improve society, even if (for example) an investment by KC-Metro didn’t actually improve the finances of the transit agency itself.
This immediately reminded me of the death of the great train stations. When they became de facto homeless shelters in the 50s and 60s, travelers, railroads and civic leaders concurred in thinking they should be closed and torn down, rather than prolong the agony.
You could also flip this around, and think Metro could upgrade the rider experience by providing somewhere else for their less desirable riders to hang out.
And this comes up all the time. It’s good for transit to create TOD- but not so good, apparently, for the agency to buy land in anticipation of future demand and profitable resale. Parking for transit riders is good- or is it? Who pays for synchronized traffic lights- the agency, or the city? Cui bono?
Right now, blue-pencil agency staff are recommending the replacement of the electric trolley buses by diesel hybrids, in order to achieve short-term savings- but at what cost, as oil becomes more expensive and less obtainable?
I personally take the broadest possible view of improving society by public investment- but believe that view can only rationally be maintained by asking the hardest and most skeptical questions when vague promises are made.
It’s a good question. Is it a public service, or a social service? That’s a reason the audit also asked Metro (or more likely the King County Council) set clear policy goals.