Should Conservatives Support Public Transit?
Decatur Metro | September 1, 2010William Lind writes in The American Conservative that they should. Here’s a snippet….
The perception that conservatives do not use public transportation is only one of the mistaken notions that has warped the Right’s position on transportation policy. Another is that the dominance of automobiles and highways is a free-market outcome. Nothing could be further from the truth. Were we to drop back 100 years, we would find that Americans were highly mobile. Their mobility was based on a dense, nationwide network of rail transportation: intercity trains, streetcars, and interurbans (the latter two electrically powered). Almost all of these rail systems were privately owned, paid taxes, and were expected to make a profit. But they were wiped out by massive government subsidies to highways. Today’s situation, where “drive or die” is the reality for most Americans, is a product of almost a century of government intervention in the transportation market.
Another misperception is that public transportation does not serve conservative goals.
Again, to understand the real situation we must differentiate between buses and trains. Buses do help the transit-dependent get to jobs, but for the most part, it is rail transit that serves conservatives’ goals. Subways, Light Rail, and streetcars often bring massive economic development or redevelopment of previously rundown areas. Portland, Oregon built a new streetcar line, a loop of just 2.4 miles, for $57 million. It quickly brought more than $2 billion in new development. The small city of Kenosha, Wisconsin put in a streetcar line for just over $4 million. It immediately brought $150 million in development, with another $150 million planned. Not surprisingly, both cities are expanding their streetcar systems. Buses have no such effect on development because a bus line can be here today, gone tomorrow. The investment in track and overhead wires streetcars and Light Rail require tells developers the service will be there for years to come.
Another misperception is that public transportation does not serve conservative goals.
At a time when conservative goals have devolved to nothing other than obstruction, this is a sassy claim.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight……..
Last time I checked Democrats have led the House since 2006.
“Party of NO!”
So the government gave no subsidies to automobile and oil companies, both of which are notoriously liberal.
Say what?
Yeah, that’s an odd statement. They’re not “liberal,” they are out to maximize profits. You don’t see Exxon lobbying for increased public school spending, or against the Iraq war…
I know. Our public schools need more money. Their track record has been amazing!
Just last night the President said we need to fix education.
But wait! We should take even more money away from public education in the form of vouchers so all those financially strapped private schools can set us straight–and steer us in a proper, faithful direction.
I know! These types of schools SUCKED!:
http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html
I think his point was lost in the snark.
I see DM has the magnifying glass out today, cheers.
Great point. Public transit is a needless sacrifice to the gods of polarization – they’re for it, so I’m against it, or the other way around. Another thing that, it seems to me, conservatives should really support: getting rid of antiquated zoning laws, and parking laws, that restrict development to suburban patterns. Let freedom (to build mixed-use and walkably dense areas) ring, right?
“Let freedom (to build mixed-use and walkably dense areas) ring, right?”
Actually, believe it or not, the right wing has been using this type of development recently to convince their listeners that the liberal/socialist/communists want to force everyone into high density high rises and not allow anyone, even farmers, to own land.
Do you happen to have any linkage with this absurd argument included?
Not handy, but I’m working on digging it up and will post when I find it.
Here’s one link:
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/
Agenda 21 is what some are calling it…SO sinister sounding. You can read a lengthy “debate” about it on the City Data politics forum, whic contains numerous other links.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1049771-agenda-21-coming-your-neighborhood-soon-2.html
Don’t forget about the United Nations Bicycle Conspiracy.
Off topic, but is it OK to pick on nellie again?
When did you stop?
I thought Agenda 21 mandated that all secret U.N. bicycles and helicopters are painted black.
Oh, so the UN’s flaccid incompetence is all a ruse.
Yes, large multinational bureaucratic organizations with thousands of employees are adept at pulling off amazing complicated plots and maintaining total secrecy about their plans. The fact that no one will confirm it confirms it.
Occam’s Razor?
Oh my stars. Then they probably think community gardens are part of this plot.
Who can I blame for my kudzu?
“Plot” that’s a good pun.
It’s all part of a community plot.
Were we to drop back 100 years, we would find that Americans were highly mobile. Their mobility was based on a dense, nationwide network of rail transportation: intercity trains, streetcars, and interurbans (the latter two electrically powered). Almost all of these rail systems were privately owned, paid taxes, and were expected to make a profit. But they were wiped out by massive government subsidies to highways.
___________________
He gives no actual evidence to support any of this, of course. And it rings untrue to me. The Model T, the first mass produced car designed for middle class consumption, came about in 1908. Its sales grew exponentially through the 1920s and beyond, making the Fords a vast fortune that they’ve passed down to the current generation. So it seems that the highly mobile people of 1910-20 actually wanted these cars. No one was forcing them to buy.
Now, was the market skewed in favor of the car by government spending on highways and roads? As for local roads, that is very hard to determine, and so, to that extent, the author’s claim seems very hard to verify. But note that he refers to “massive government subsidies to highways.” The most massive of those subsidies, of course, was the hugely expensive interstate highway system. Did that vault the car to the top and kill off the private transit that made the people of 1910 so “highly mobile?” Again, it seems doubtful, as the interstate highway system was a creature of the 1950s. How then to explain the increasing automobile sales of 1910 – 1950, except that people chose autos over the other options available to them?
As for whether we’d all be better off now had the government not chosen to subsidize roads, and instead subsidize rail, here’s what a DOT website has to say about it:
“This was not an option in 1955 and 1956 when the congressional debate took place. At the time, transit was provided mainly by private companies. No one in the industry, in State and local governments, or in Congress imagined that the Federal Government would support these companies financially. In fact, the only thing the American Transit Association asked Congress to do was exempt buses from the gas tax. Congress did so.”
Yes, and not to mention the highways were and are used to move freight and are therefore a crucial element in US commerce. Maybe here he could take a jab at the teamsters.
DEM, the construction of highways takes lots of money, and you seem happy to shell it out. I am not arguing with your choice, I am just pointing out that you seem to be really happy about some massive taxpayer-enabled government projects, and less happy about others. Highways are massive government projects. So is state-run medical care, and so are streetcars. We can argue cost/benefits, but they are all government projects.
More importantly, here is an amazing and very true story of the demolition of large amounts of public transit in the US, done at the behest of car companies and other assorted companies that stood to profit from the demise of public transit and the growth of the personal automobile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal
I saw that in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”
“happy to shell it out” presumes an awful lot. I’d call the spending a necessary evil, though I am sure we could cut it some and never look back. For example, most of the “shovel ready” projects of the recent 800 billion “stimulus” that hasn’t stimulated much of anything. If Obama prpoposed a 15% cut on highway spending tomorrow, I’d support it.
But let’s be honest here, spending on roads is an absolute drop in the bucket compared to medicare, medicaid, and social security. Defense spending is a distant 4th. Those are what is bankrupting us. The rest is nickels and dimes, comparatively.
So we let folks get sick, not retire, die, but keep the Pentagon in business?
We are a very affluent country–therefore we spend more. We elect the spenders…
Or we could means test all of those, cut the spending growth in the out years, and tell young people now to save for their own retirements (imagine that!). Either that or the programs stop altogether without warning once the bond market — read, China — stops buying T bills.
However, once the spenders on both sides of the aisle are in office they suddenly become deaf to that sort of common sense. I agree with you, but I don’t see it ever happening–if China stops loaning us money Congress and the White House will just print more–figuratively and literally. Oh well.
The most massive of those subsidies, of course, was the hugely expensive interstate highway system. Did that vault the car to the top and kill off the private transit that made the people of 1910 so “highly mobile?” Again, it seems doubtful, as the interstate highway system was a creature of the 1950s. How then to explain the increasing automobile sales of 1910 – 1950, except that people chose autos over the other options available to them?
——————————–
I believe back between 1910 – 1950 they were choosing the car over the horse and the trolley. It wasn’t until the interstates were built that it became a competitive alternative for long-distance travel.
Don’t get me wrong, the car has limitless uses. Especially outside urban centers. Just like the horse.
I just think the fed has gone overboard in subsidizing it, and thus wrecked our urban fabric. For me personally, there’s just too many things that I appreciate, which have been lost thanks to the affordability and convenience of the car. From historic buildings to walkable neighborhoods to cleaner air. And if this were a result of the free market, I’m pragmatic enough to just suck it up and say, well that’s progress for you!
But it’s not a result of the free market. It’s the result of government intervention. What we got in terms of convenience, we lost in a myriad of other ways, that we were too short-sighted to see at the time. Was it inevitable? For a young country like the U.S. probably. But I still think we can learn from our mistakes.
You may be right. Certainly the spending on roads accelerated the death of other transit. My point was only that in the very early years, it seems like cars were already winning the battle, even without massive subsidies. Maybe they would have won even if the government subsidies to road building had been much smaller, because, let’s face it, cars can be pretty damn convenient sometimes.
That said, I completely agree that where we’ve ended up — i.e., you have to drive to get damn near everywhere and anywhere — sucks. Problem is, we are in a very distinct minority on that. Most people seem to have no issues with paying a fortune for gas, endlessly sitting at red lights, getting stuck in traffic, hunting for places to park, etc. That was me, too, until I woke up one day and said “I don’t have to do this.” 95% of the rest of us are not there, and may never get there.
If the political will and corresponding policies are in place, the necessity for cars is lessened considerably. 60% of the population of Zurich, Switzerland, the largest city in that country, with nearly 400,000 people, do not own cars. Public transportation fills their needs.
I can certainly see who it could be viewed that the rush to the ‘burbs was proof that people don’t mind the INconveniences of cars. However, wasn’t there a recent study that showed the largest single factor that promoted unhappiness was a long commute? Also, we seem to remain on the cusp of just tolerable gas prices. If we jump up to $4 again, people will start getting back on the trains again.
But why is it that we tend to overestimate what comes with a longer commute and underestimate what’s lost?
I’m all for street cars! and I think marta needs to expand the rail system. I.e. make a ring around 285, connecting all of the outer branches without having to go through town. I also want high speed rail between Atlanta, Columbus, Macon, Valdosta or Albany, Augusta, Savannah and Brunswick. Alas, thats all just a pipe dream, as is wanting i-20 to spur from augusta to athens to i-85 to i-75 to i20 again, in a super “northern arc” as well as the same done as a “super southern arc” going from I-16 to I-20, to I-75 to I85. I also want a direct 4 lane route from savannah to valdosta.
one day!
As a fiscal conservative I say let the market dictate whether or not we have “public transportation”. It should be driven by demand not politics. MARTA is a financial disaster ($120 million budget deficit).
Come on, I see an awful lot of cars driving around our beloved city, filled with Decaturites proudly displaying their “no war for oil” stickers. How many of us take the bus to work, or to play for that matter, to support public transportation? Seems to me that if enough people regularly used MARTA there would be enough money to fully fund the system.
We all love the idea of public transportation and we self-righteously talk about it, but at the end of the day we get in our nifty little Priuses (or is it Prii?) and leave public transportation to the great unwashed. We don’t really have to use public transportation if our bumper stickers profess support, or perhaps a few posts on an internet forum or a vote for a political advocate, right?
We lead busy lives. Time is more precious than ever. We opt for convenience.
If MARTA was a private company it might actually provide a pleasant experience. I guarantee the elevators would not smell like urine, the cars would be clean, there would more security and you could count on the schedules.
Did I mention the $80,000 a year landscape specialist, corruption, cronyism, etc.?
Keith,
like a lot of sectors of the American economy, transportation is not really a free market, and so consumer choice is not always indicative of actual desires.
As an example of how un-free the transportation market is (and how susceptible public transit is to meddling), take a look at this amazingly true story of the destruction of streetcar systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal
Oh dear, Keith.
If there is any self-righteousness left out in DM-land after the Dollar General discussion, I believe it’s going to be directed at you in short order. Didn’t you know that saying something positive about the personal automobile and/or something negative about MARTA is tantamount to touching the third rail? (transit pun only somewhat intended)
Now you will learn that all DM readers ride MARTA all the time, that it is the safest & most responsible mode of transit, and that you must be a racist and/or Republican hack to not LOVE it. Best of luck to you, my friend.
Grrrrrrr… Naw. No energy left. Maybe later!
I don’t know anything about the Dollar General conversation, but I do ride public transit every day. I don’t hate cars, and I don’t really care what people personally prefer. What I do care about is: (1) lots of people say things about public transit that are outright lies, and (2) these lies actually do alter the course of public policy discussions and decisions that (3) effect millions of people who use public transit in Atlanta every year, including me. It’s not a problem of self-righteousness. On the contrary, lots of people talk about transit issues because it actually is important to their daily life. Please try not to be so condescending as to chalk it up to self-righteousness, like Keith here. I don’t own a Prius, nor do I have a bumper sticker. Let’s drop the weird identity politics and psychologizing and talk about the actual policy issues instead. For example: if you want free markets, we need to address the issue of immense government subsidies to certain forms of transportation over and against other forms. Is this what you want from the government? If so, how does this fit into your ideological presuppositions about free markets?
Two questions: Are there any examples of successful, large transportation systems of any kind that were determined by the market?
And what came first: the money or the convenience of transit?
One can cite the high speed rail systems of Europe, where, given the choice, many people ride trains rather than fly or drive. Rail captured a substantial portion of that travel when it became available. The same thing happened between New York and Washington. When presented with a competitive choice, more people began taking the train. Amtrak now carries over 60% of all intercity riders in that corridor, with the other 40% split between driving and flying.
Keith, roads cost the public also. They are not self-supporting. They are not free-market. We have no choice because of policy decisions that date back 60 years or more, as BB points out. Many examples, both here and abroad, show that when given alternatives, the public will use them.
Roads are far from free market; and if you won’t to talk about corruption in Marta, take it from someone who knows that the road building industry is one of the most corrupt around and the cronyism would shock even the most cynical good ole boy.
I
I have ridden MARTA daily both ways for five years in professional clothes and never had a problem with dirt or security. Unlike my experiences in L.A., N.Y.C., and Europe, I’ve never been pickpocketed, hassled, or accosted. The schedule on the east-west line is regular, frequent, and on-schedule.
The elevators do indeed smell of urine. But you are not supposed to use them anyway unless you are handicapped or have luggage. The stairs and escalators smell fine.
I think anyone who has experienced the BART, DC METRO, or even the NY subways/Amtrak systems would say MARTA pales in almost every comparable way, cleanlinest not the least of them.
Going out of the FIVE POINTS station to street level is reminiscent of of a Calcutta street fair. I go beyond that station now just to avoid panhandlers, loiterers, etc.
Maybe we expect too much by wanting timeliness, cleanliness, and trains that go somewhere other than the four points of a compass.
Re Calcutta at Five Points: A bit of an exaggeration I’d say but anyway that’s an Atlanta problem, not a MARTA problem. The vendors and Jesus freaks are not in the MARTA station but beyond it. And I’d agree that MARTA could be improved greatly if any political will was put into it but let’s not get carried away about the NY Subway. It’s much nicer since Guiliani but there are still stops that one should not frequent after 6 PM unless one has the right gang credentials. And the rats are still there–they keep out the terrorists!
You must have a delicate disposition if you can’t brave a few vendors, panhandlers, and street people at Five Points station and the immediate area. Just sayin’…
Te unwillingness …or lack of care…to create a more amenable environment around the central hub station of MARTA by Atlanta is my point. Having worked for some time in Manhattan, I am not delicate ( no offense taken
), but my thought is rather the overall impression one gets of the city’s transit system in that location is a huge detriment to how MARTA is perceived by locals and visitors alike. Especially since such a big deal was made of how Atlanta was going to stop all of that “hanging out and asking/asking for money” with new panhandling ordinance. Like so many things in ATL, they talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. In many ways, you can’t separate the image of MARTA and ATLANTA in the public mind. MARTA is the public transportation face of ATLANTA. As a comparison, we don’t have a “street fair” outside of the two entrances in Decatur.
And while it is true that there a some “nasty” stops in NYC, as a percentage overall it is MUCH lower than some of the grubby MARTA stops. It is all about perception of a clean and safe operation. But it still just goes N/S/E/W, for the most part. And that will always hold it back from
major usage by the thousands that need to come into the city daily.
Having spent a significant time in the Bay Area, I think BART is the standard the all others should achieve. I’ll throw in the rest of the public stuff and say it is what I want us to achieve. A lot of things get in the way of that, but I just want to express how highly I think of their public transportation. I think they got it right. Is it perfect? Is it better than Marta? Answer those mutually so you brain will explode.
For you conservatives out there: here is an article about how transportation policies – like mandated parking requirements and anti-mixed-use zoning laws – create an UNFREE MARKET. Let’s get the government out of parking and allow people to freely build places like Decatur! Freedom! Liberty! Free markets! Let’s build some liberty-trains and liberty-mixed-use-buildings! Invisible hands, join together!
http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/09/01/shoup-to-otoole-the-market-for-parking-is-anything-but-free/