This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: g foods and farmers; at the same time, trucks as
technologies shaped the economic and social structures underlying those political debates. In
doing so, long-haul trucking in the rural countryside set the pace for the low-price, low-wage, "freemarket" economic ideologies of late twentieth-century American capitalism. 10 | P a g e Capitalism Critique BDL
Link – Highways [___] Investment in highways directly reinforces the inequalities of capitalism
Thomas Sanchez et al, associate professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech, 2003
(Thomas W. Sanchez, Rich Stolz, Jacinta S. M, “MOVING TO EQUITY: Addressing Inequitable
Effects of Transportation Policies on Minorities”)
Transportation costs are particularly burdensome for low-income households, which devote
greater proportions of their incomes to transportation-related expenses than do higher-income
households. In 1998, those in the lowest income quintile, making $11,943 or less, spent 36
percent of their household budget on transportation, compared with those in the highest income
quintile, making $60,535 or more, who spent only 14 percent . Transportation expenditures
continue to rise, reducing the amount low-income households have to spend on housing,
food, health care, insurance, education, and other needs. The costs of car ownership can
make it difficult to afford to purchase a home, and cars quickly depreciate compared with real
property. Between 1992 and 2000, households with incomes of less than $20,000 saw the
amount of their income spent on transportation increase by 36.5 percent or more (households
with incomes between $5,000 and $9,999 spent 57 percent more on transportation than they did
in 1992). In comparison, households with incomes of $70,000 and above only spent 16.8 percen t
more on transportation expenses than they did in 1992. There are significant inequities between
bus service, which tends to serve more low-income riders, and rail service, which tends to serve
higher-income riders. These inequities pale in comparison to the differences between
governmental financial and political support for highway systems and for public transit systems.
Many transportation planners and policymakers, concerned primarily with the needs of
suburban commuters, have focused on constructing h ighways and commuter rail lines that do
little to serve the needs of minority and low-income communities that depend on public
transportation. Examination of state transportation spending priorities reveals another inequity.
A body of research suggests that states are spending more resources on transportation needs in
nonmetropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas. More research examining geographically
coded data on spending between cities and other areas would provide a better understanding of
how transportation spending patterns impact minority and low-income communities.
Transportation policies that favor highway development over public transit have several
indirect negative effects. F...
View Full Document
- Spring '14