> Toll roads in this area would actually add some progressivity
> to funding transportation, becaouse as it stands now - it cheaper
> to drive than to use transit here.
Maybe we have a different dictionary, but farebox recovery for transit is usually far below actual cost, with the difference being made up by tax money. In California, for instance, the General Fund is made up of about 60% income tax, 30% sales tax, and 10% other, which makes *all* transit relatively progressive. Want a more progressive system? Get rid of sales taxes. But I digress ...
> It costs me about 10 cents per mile to drive from Silver Spring
> to Baltimore ...
Are you sure? Are you just counting gas? My ~25mpg vehicle costs about $0.16/mile these days just in gas, not to mention maintenance, taxes and insurance, "depreciation" (I'll have to replace it someday), other consumables (tires, whatnot). The IRS tracks this kind of thing, and this year's rate is like $0.49/mi.
AAA says that this is a _low_ estimate for operating an automobile.
http://wcpl-businessbriefs.blogspot.com/2007/04/aaa-releases-2007-driving-costs-study.html
> That is highly regressive, because you can hardly see a white
> face on Ride-On or MTA buses during the rush hours.
Taxes are regressive or progressive; expenditures aren't. So I can't tell what you're trying to say here; is it something like this?
Of the total cost (personal plus taxed) of Public Transit
(per-person-served-mile?), more of it is provided by the user
than a similar calculation for driving ...?
Setting aside whether that's true or not (or even whether "white people" ride busses during rush hour), maybe the word you're looking for is "unfair" ...?
I don't think the word you're looking for is "regressive" ...
/jordan