What you stated to begin your blog piece could be applied in this way. “What would happen if government didn’t subsidize highways in the United States? How would millions of car-bound Americans ever get around?” Federal highway statistics indicate that user fees from federal and state sources cover only 51 percent of the direct cost of highways (the rest coming from general revenues and other sources). I really get tired of reading about how unacceptable subsidized transit is when ALL modes are subsidized to some extent in this country.

And since when can we equate Nairobi, Kenya with conditions in the U.S? So we apply the Matatus solution. All those vans buzzing around say, the Washington metropolitan area (or even Richmond) and, viola, problem solved. And who would these Matususes be appealing to? Would this service entice throngs of auto-bound drivers to switch to transit, er, Matatus service?

Yes, it’s fascinating to see ad hoc solutions rise out of chaos, answers to problems the government either refuses to address or is incapable of doing so. And, yes, maybe our government is headed in that direction but it’s not there yet. And ‘til we reach the level of chaos practiced in Kenyan cities on a daily basis, I’m looking for First World solutions, not dreamy, netherworld ideas based on ideological considerations.

Perhaps you don’t agree that attracting people out of their cars is a key job for transit. It’s not the transit-dependent riders that transit needs to draw. By definition, they will take transit. Transit has to appeal to the choice rider to be successful. True multimodal solutions need to be adopted. While it has become cliché to say that no city has built its way out of congestion, it is nevertheless true. Former Governor McDonnell’s relentless pursuit of highway-based solutions during his term (HOT lanes on I-495 in Northern Virginia, HOT lanes on I-95 South now abuilding, the Charlottesville Bypass, the 460 toll Road boondoggle, Bi-County Parkway, etc.) simply means that scarce dollars are being applied to expand capacity that will be quickly filled (460 likely being an exception, of course) and we’re really right back to where we started.

I wish I could say that this kind of article adds to the debate over transit versus highways in this country. I just don’t think it does. In fact, I think it may trivialize transit and reinforce the negative feelings that many conservatives have toward transit. This conservative feels that transit, especially rail transit, has a key role to play in providing mobility and choice in our metropolitan areas. It can also play a major role in sparking economic development. But I must admit that I’m not looking to Nairobi, Kenya for definitive answers.

I say leave the Matatus solution to think tanks in their Ivory Towers to mull over. We need to pursue more practical, workable alternatives. Some private solutions may have merit but only if all subsidies are abolished and consumers pay the true cost of transportation. But how likely is that?