An infrastructure with an emphasis on public transportation will promote the greatest long-term happiness for a society—specifically Austin, Texas. What leads me to this conclusion are several qualifiers. An ideal society is a society in which happiness is experienced by the greatest number of people. A virtuous society is a means to a happy society, so there is utility in virtue. While there are countless means to happiness, virtue in this community is desired, so I will consider it to be a part of the end similar to happiness. In this same way, money is desired in our community. It is a means to reach the end goal of happiness. Expanding on the statement by Wilhelm Von Humboldt in our chapter Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being, Harriet Taylor and I came to the conclusion that the development of individuality had utility, and thus the suppression of that development was harmful within historical context. For the purpose of this exercise, an infrastructure system which provides all of these qualifications for a happy society would be considered ideal.
In the majority of large cities in the US public transportation is more cost-effective than car ownership and maintenance. Because Austin is the 11th largest city in the US, it qualifies as a “large” city. The decreased cost of mobility can afford many who otherwise wouldn’t have the capability the option to travel across town, which can increase work opportunities or experiences. Poverty is a hindrance to development, so public transport may help in this regard as well. If a public transit program were implemented through referendum with the knowledge that public transportation would provide these benefits, it could be said that the initiative is virtuous. So, public transport is worth pursuing in theory, but what about in practice?
On this year’s ballot is Proposition A—a $7.1 billion transit proposal that is highly contested. It would “build the city’s first light rail lines, create multiple new rapid bus routes, install a downtown tunnel system, and provide $300 million for affordable housing and to address housing displacement.” An opinion piece in the Austin American Statesman by Jim Duncan claimed that this proposal’s goals are unrealistic, that the debate over this proposition was stacked in favor of the proposition, and that the improvements are geographically imbalanced. I’m mainly interested in two of his concerns. In the debate, he claims that there were only “transit supporters, central city residents”, and “car haters”. The formation of this proposition may not be created in ideal circumstances if the debate weren’t argued thoroughly on both sides. He also makes the case that most of the improvements would “serve central Austin residents and businesses and provide access to the airport.” I would need clarification to see if this would violate the utility of the proposal, as he doesn’t say whether less people are served or just certain areas are excluded. What leads me to support this proposition are this: the proposition is a referendum of public opinion. It’s passing will bring happiness to the largest amount of people. If not, then the proposition will not be considered. Additionally, the $300 million allocated to affordable housing will benefit the community by encouraging individual development in addition to the benefit of affordable public transportation. While some may play up the tax burden of Prop A, the average of 4% increase in homeowner’s tax is a “bargain” even by Jim Duncan’s standards. It is my understanding that the passing of Proposition A would provide the greatest long-term happiness for Austin.