34 TeHi ks 2A.U-D UB OUN ae By Ueia ioe ie bay 
Transportation by private automobile makes sense in thinly populated 
areas. In the open spaces, it is fast, efficient, and even pleasant. Too fre- 
quently in the cities, where over 70 percent of our total population lives, 
it is slow, inefficient, dangerous, and nerve-racking. 
Buses and subway cars can carry 12 to 30 times as many passengers 
as can cars: Unlike cars, buses and subways can also remain in constant 
circulation and still be useful. Cars must be parked, and that means a loss 
of time as well as land space. 
Our method of financing the present system is inequitable. Highways are 
financed largely through a 4c tax on every gallon of gasoline, known as a 
“user tax.” It is said that those who use the roads pay for them, and that 
this tax, therefore, is one of the fairest taxes around. This argument ignores 
the fact that many people who do not use the roads pay heavily for them 
too. They pay by giving up their homes of long-standing, by seeing their 
entire neighborhoods disrupted, and their parks paved over. 
This “fair tax” argument ignores the fact that many road users use 
roads only because acceptable alternates do not exist. For perfectly under- 
standable reasons, many people would, if they could, forego their auto- 
mobiles, and thus avoid congestion, exorbitant parking fees, drunk drivers, 
and hazardous and harrowing driving experiences. But these people have 
no choice. They must pay the gas tax and take what it buys: roads, traffic 
jams, and smog. 
The argument that the “user tax” is a fair tax further ignores the fact 
that tax money generated by highway use in urban areas accounts for 
approximately 50% of Highway Trust Fund revenues, and that even though 
these areas might prefer to spend the money differently, they must build 
more highways or lose the money altogether. The National League of 
Cities and the National Governors’ Conference have both gone on record 
as favoring a broader, more flexible Transportation Trust Fund. 
This “fair tax” argument overlooks the existence of millions of Ameri- 
cans who cannot, or should not be forced to, rely exclusively on the auto- 
mobile. This includes 20 million citizens over age 65, 65 million citizens 
under age 16, and ten million whose annual incomes fall below $4,000 
a year. 
I receive letters on almost a daily basis from senior citizens bemoaning 
the dilapidated state and high fares of mass transit. They tell me they have 
no way of getting out to see their friends, visit the doctor, or go shopping 
— all because of inadequate public transportation. 
The elderly are most seriously affected by poor transportation. Indeed, 
the delegates to the White House Conference on Aging held last December 
had this to say—in the words of one elderly person: 
“One of our biggest troubles is transportation. There is no bus 
service here and we don’t own a car now. Sometimes I need to 
go to a doctor, but don’t have money to pay a taxi to get to the 
doctor. My wife has the same problem. Sometimes we do go to 
the doctor, and then we have to go without our medicine on 
account of not having the money to pay. It all goes for taxi 
fares.” 
One of the major recommendations made by the delegates to the 
recently concluded White House Conference on Aging was that: 
