Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Conservatives should get on board
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
William S. Lind
Lind is director of the Center for Public Transportation and co-author of the book "Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation."
One of the more curious aspects of American politics is that whole issues are seen as liberal or conservative. For example, national defense is thought of as a conservative issue, as if somehow liberals weren't protected by the U.S. armed forces. Similarly, public transportation is perceived as a liberal issue, even though few conservatives enjoy being stuck in traffic congestion. Onboard surveys show that many riders on rail transit are conservatives, according to their demographics. Yet in city after city, conservatives lead the opposition to building rail transit lines. What gives?
In our recent book, "Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation," the late Paul Weyrich and I explain why conservatives should support more and better public transportation, especially rail. Commuter trains, subways, light rail and streetcars draw large numbers of riders from choice, people who have cars and can drive but choose to take the train. Most conservatives fall into that category. Buses, in contrast, are mostly ridden by "transit dependents," people who can't drive or cannot afford a car. Logically, self-interest would lead conservatives to support rail transit and oppose buses -- the exact opposite of the position most conservative transit critics take.
Part of the reason for conservatives' confusion about public transit is the criticism that "transit is subsidized." That is true. But it is also true of every other mode of travel. According to the latest Federal Highway Administration statistics, the gas tax, highway tolls and vehicle taxes cover only 57 percent of the cost of highways. Well-run rail transit systems can cover more than 50 percent of their operating expenses out of the farebox.
In fact, today's automobile dominance is a product of massive government subsidies, not for transit but for highways. As early as 1920, government was pouring more than $1 billion a year into highways (back when $1 billion was real money). The roads that government money paid for competed against privately-owned, tax-paying railways, including streetcar systems, interurban lines and intercity passenger trains. It should come as no surprise to conservatives that the subsidized mode put its unsubsidized (and taxed) competitors out of business.
But what about today? Why should conservatives care about recreating the balanced transportation system destroyed by government intervention? For starters, because America's dependence on imported oil is our biggest national security vulnerability. Rightly, conservatives favor a strong national defense. But how strong can we be if countries halfway around the world can bring life in America (and our economy) to a screeching halt by cutting off our oil, as they did in 1973 and 1979?
In "Moving Minds," Weyrich and I call for a National Defense Public Transportation Act, modeled on President Eisenhower's National Defense Interstate Highway Act. That 1950s act killed the privately operated passenger train. Our proposed program would bring it back, creating a gradually thickening network of buses and trains that would once again allow Americans to travel wherever they wanted without driving and without flying. Cutting off oil imports would still inconvenience us, but it would no longer shut the country down.
"Moving Minds" looks beyond national security in discussing why conservatives should support more and better public transportation, especially rail. Rail transit (but not buses) is a powerful spur to economic development, something conservatives usually favor.
In city after city, new light rail and streetcar lines have generated billions of dollars of new development, often in blighted urban areas.
We also point out how rail transit benefits people who do not ride it. In local referenda on light rail projects, conservatives often vote no, saying, "I'm never gonna ride that thing." Those same people often benefit from the rising property values proximity to a rail transit line brings. They also face less traffic congestion when they drive to work, because of rail's appeal to riders from choice. Those who choose to ride the train would be driving if there were no train to ride, adding to congestion.
Good public transportation, especially electrified railways, should be supported and encouraged by liberals and conservatives alike. Transit is part of infrastructure, and providing solid infrastructure should be a nonpartisan, nonideological national consensus. With streetcar projects under way or in planning in more than 50 American cities, it's time to say to our fellow conservatives, "Don't miss the train."
