Debate panelists split over buses, broader impact of transit investments
December 16, 2009By Sean Barry
 |
| Albuquerque1 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America |
| The new Rail Runner commuter rail service in New Mexico has been hugely popular, drawing new riders and luring former drivers to the service. |
Monday’s online debate on conservatives and public transportation was billed as a back-and-forth on why the ideological right should embrace public transportation. While differences persisted between our conservative and libertarian panelists about the impact of transit investments, another schism developed over how big a role buses should play.
Monday’s debate hosted by Transportation for America centered around the book Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation, written by conservatives William Lind and the late Paul Weyrich.
Lind used his opening remarks to summarize the book and refute the oft-repeated right-wing argument that public transportation requires government subsidies while automobiles and the roads required to support them are somehow a free-market outcome.
“In fact, the dominance of the automobile is a product of massive government intervention in the marketplace,” Lind said, citing decades of federal support for the interstate highway system as streetcars remained privately operated — resulting in crushingly unfair competition. “Conservatives above all people should know what happens when you subsidize one competitor and tax the other.”
“You’re either investing in (both highways and transit) or subsidizing both,” agreed panelist John Robert Smith, president and CEO of Reconnecting America and former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi. “You can’t have it both ways.”
Sam Staley, director of urban and land use policy at the libertarian Reason Foundation, was the designated mass transit critic of the debate, which he conceded was “probably accurate” but in need of further clarification. Staley is skeptical about the ability of transit to drive economic development or result in major lifestyle changes.
“I definitely think that transit has an important role to play,” Staley said, “but I think we need to be paying a lot more attention to the conditions under which transit works and when it doesn’t.”
Staley cited the Washington D.C. Metro’s Orange Line, saying transit has succeeded in dense, developed areas like Ballston in Northern Virginia but is less effective when those conditions are missing in places like New Carrollton, on the Maryland side of the District. (Didn’t the changes along the Orange line in Virginia come about largely due to that transit investment?)
Despite his misgivings about mass transit in general, Staley found himself in the unlikely position of defending buses from Lind’s attacks. Lind argued most Americans “don’t like riding buses” and that only trolleys or streetcars would persuade choice-riders to give up their cars, to which Staley responded: “If we discount buses, we’re really doing a disservice to transit generally.”
The final panelist, American Public Transportation Association (APTA) president Bill Millar, also defended buses, saying the industry is rapidly adopting new technologies like bus rapid transit and dedicated lanes, which will appeal to drivers.
Panelists answered a number of interesting questions from listeners on topics such as public-private partnerships, rural transit needs and winning over anti-tax conservatives. Overall, despite differences over the role of buses and transit’s ability to influence broader change, panelists agreed on the general importance of public transportation and the need to make practical decisions not rooted in partisanship.
Smith put it well: “As mayor, I never found a pothole or a railroad crossing that identified as a Democrat or a Republican.”
If you missed the webinar or want to listen again, you can do that with any of the links below, or on the webinars page:
- Audio/video of session with presenter slides (click to launch in a new window)
- Full audio file (.mp3)
- Full downloadable video file (.mp4)
- Read more about the Moving Minds book.
- Buy the book from Reconnecting America
Still time to register for today’s discussion on conservatives and public transportation
December 14, 2009By Sean Barry
What is the conservative rationale for providing efficient public transportation? Some conservatives would likely suggest that the entire concept is an oxymoron. Conservatives William Lind and the late Paul Weyrich believe otherwise.
This is the final post in a three-part series on Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation, the subject of an online debate later today (at 3 p.m. Eastern, register now!) Panelists include co-author Lind, mass transit critic Sam Staley, director of urban and land use policy at the Reason Foundation; John Robert Smith, president and CEO of Reconnecting America and former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi; and Bill Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).
The authors identify four elements to their conservative vision for good public transport: coverage, frequency, ease of connection and a preference for rail over buses.
In a previous post, we noted the community-building element of public transportation and how that exemplified a conservative value few would fault. There is also the element of preserving — or, in some cases, reviving — what has worked in the past. Many of America’s greatest cities not only have a tradition of robust transportation infrastructure, but they also contain a historic built environment with untapped potential.
“As conservatives, we want to revive America’s older, industrial cities,” the authors note. “Older cities have lots of infrastructure that can be built on. Conservatives prefer building on what exists to creating vast systems from nothing (at vast cost).”
While lining up with many traditional conservative principles, the notions of preserving resources, building on existing traditions and making good use of what we have are goals most can support.
As conservatives, Weyrich and Lind do not speak the language of visionary social programs and even say they “desire no new technology.” Yet they reach the same conclusion as others in increasing public transportation investment as a means to achieve both economic and social ends.
We hope you’ll join us at 3 p.m. today.
Conservatives and public transportation — join us on Monday the 14th
December 2, 2009By Sean Barry
 |
| Sign up to listen to the free online debate next Monday, 12/14 |
UPDATED: This session has been rescheduled for 12/14. If you already signed up with the link below, you won’t need to do a thing, and should get an email from us.
“As conservatives, our first principle is the reality principle,” wrote William Lind and the late Paul Weyrich in Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation. “Public policy must be based on reality, not on the fairy-tale wishes so beloved by liberals.”
Left-leaning transit advocates need not be insulted.
The authors are simply trying to talk about public transportation in ways that appeal to right-of-center allies. If your interest is piqued, you’ll definitely want to join us for an online debate next Monday, December 7, December 14th in which a handful of experts, including co-author Lind, will discuss — and debate — the ideas contained in the book. Register for the debate here.
Reality-based planning can find appeal across political persuasions because everybody relies on America’s transportation system in one form or another. Even people who don’t use public transportation on a regular basis receive numerous benefits from its expansion, the authors point out. The reason? More rail passengers means less traffic congestion and faster commute times, a win-win.
In Salt Lake County, Utah, for instance, supporters of a referendum on light rail developed a campaign aimed at non-transit riders with the simple message: “even if you don’t ride it, you use it.” One ad focused on an automobile wheel moving along faster because of less crowded roads, while another emphasized the advantages of less traffic congestion, the authors noted.
They offer three concrete reasons in the book for why transit is good for non-riders. The first is the reduction in road gridlock. The second is “the big football game” or the car being in the shop or some other circumstance that creates the need for an alternative. The third reason is that lower congestion and better transit access actually raises property values and improves quality of life.
The authors make several peripheral points as well, such as the influence of heavy subsidies and market distortions on the prevalence of auto-oriented, low-density growth — a concept getting some notoriety in the last week.
“Every urban and suburban area should offer two alternate building codes, one the current ‘sprawl’ code and the other a code that allows traditional neighborhood design, where living, working and shopping are all close by each other,” the authors argue. “Which code will prevail? Let the market decide!”
Weyrich and Lind also reject the oft-prevailing wisdom that the “obvious” solution to traffic congestion is building more roads or lanes. When more lanes are made available, people who would not have driven otherwise make additional trips, inducing demand and resulting in yet more gridlock — the exact problem that the lanes were supposed to solve.
There is no unanimity about public transport among conservatives. One right-leaning mass transit critic is Sam Staley, director of urban and land use policy at the Reason Foundation. He will appear alongside Lind in Monday’s debate, along with John Robert Smith, president and CEO of Reconnecting America and former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi; and Bill Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).
We hope you’ll join us too. Register today.
Washington lawmakers receive your message on high-speed rail
October 20, 2009By Stephen Lee Davis
Four billion or about one billion for high-speed rail.
That’s the question that a group of representatives in the House and Senate will soon have to answer as they try to reconcile differences in the two chambers’ versions of the yearly transportation appropriations bill. A few weeks ago, the House passed a transportation budget with $4 billion for high-speed rail. Shortly afterward, the Senate passed their version of the yearly spending bill with only $1.2 billion for high-speed rail.
So a group of organizations, including Transportation for America, started rallying support for more funding for high-speed rail. Did you or your organization sign the petition at FourBillion.com urging Congress to keep the $4 billion in the bill?
A few members of the FourBillion.com campaign took that petition with more than 100 organizations and thousands of names to a few Congressional offices last week and hand-delivered the message that now is the time to make a historic investment in rail and kickstart a national investment in fast, clean rail travel that can connect our metro areas.
John Krieger from US PIRG and Danny Plaugher, executive director of Virginians for High Speed Rail visited with Rep. Tom Perriello (VA), Rep. John Olver (MA), Rep. Eric Cantor (VA), and Rep. Debbie Halvorson (IL) to deliver the signatures. The full set of photos are here on our Flickr stream.
 |
| FourBillion.com 6 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America |
| House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (VA), right, meets with John Krieger, left, and Danny Plaugher of Virginians for High Speed Rail as they deliver petition signatures from FourBillion.com to Rep. Cantor supporting the $4 billion for high-speed rail in the House DOT appropriations bill. Photos courtesy of FourBillion.com and US PIRG. |
 |
| FourBillion.com 2 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America |
| Rep. John Olver (MA), right, with John Krieger of US PIRG, left, and Danny Plaugher of Virginians for High Speed Rail as they deliver petition signatures to Rep. Olver from FourBillion.com supporting the $4 billion for high-speed rail in the House DOT appropriations bill. Photos courtesy of FourBillion.com and US PIRG. |
PBS Blueprint America looks at freight, rail, and trucks
September 1, 2009By Stephen Lee Davis
PBS continued their excellent Blueprint America series with an episode on NOW last Friday night examining the issue of freight movement in America. Watch it below or over at the terrific Blueprint America site.
Today’s Headlines — 06/16/09
June 16, 2009By Andrew Bielak
- The Baltimore Sun editorial board calls for a fresh start for our transportation system.
- Train executives see the link between climate change, energy, and transportation. (CNN)
- Zipcar founder Robin Chase speaks about ride sharing, transportation costs, and infrastructure. (Infrastructurist)
- A look at the worst cities for angry drivers. (Reuters)
Today’s Headlines — 06/15/09
June 15, 2009By Andrew Bielak
- New York Times takes an in-depth look at California’s complex plan for high-speed rail…
- …And talks to DOT Secretary Ray LaHood about helping Americans drive less and creating livable communities.
- Domestic and international flights dropped by 9.1 percent from March 2008 to March 2009. (Streetsblog SF)
- Officials in Los Angeles County consider implementing congestion pricing to manage traffic and pay for transportation projects. (Los Angeles Times)
Breaking Down the Blueprint: Energy Efficiency and Energy Security, Pt. 2
June 5, 2009By Andrew Bielak
| The T4 America Blueprint has six overarching national objectives to provide a new vision and guide our federal transportation policy. If our transportation system is in need of a clear purpose, these six objectives are like the rudder that will steer the ship. To ensure that we can meet these objectives and measure our progress, we created 10 performance targets — clear, quantifiable goals for the next 20 years that are tied directly to the six national objectives. |
In our previous post breaking down the T4 America Blueprint, we discussed our national objective of creating an energy efficient transportation system that boosts our economy and helps America use less oil. Today, we’re going to look at this issue from a slightly different angle, by explaining how we plan to achieve this goal — and measure our success — through strong, accountable reforms.
It may seem obvious that our federal transportation program should encourage less fuel use. Unfortunately, our existing policies do the exact opposite.
Instead of giving Americans options like public transportation, high-speed rail, and walking and biking, federal policy still has a heavy bias towards new road construction, promoting more driving — even as Americans continue to drive less and use transit in record numbers. And while research shows that transferring even a moderate portion of our goods movement from trucks to rail would have a huge impact on our overall fuel use (not to mention congestion), recent federal transportation bills have done nothing to incentivize this smart and essential shift in our freight policy.
To jumpstart the needed transition to an energy-efficient transportation system and a secure economy, Transportation for America has created a road map to reform that includes strong, clear policies and programs that we recommend Congress adopt in the next transportation bill. Continue reading below the fold to learn more about some of the specific policies and programs we’re proposing to lead this transition:
(Continue Reading)
A new vision for freight
March 3, 2009By Andrew Bielak
| Download our fact sheet on freight (.PDF) |
The safe and efficient movement of goods across the United States is an absolutely critical aspect of our national economy. While discussions about building a modern transportation network often focus on the need to provide people with better options, an equally important ingredient for broad-based reform is the creation of a truly multi-modal freight system that matches the increasing demand for freight improvement while addressing national objectives for greater efficiency and reduced oil demand. Reforming our approach to freight won’t just improve the movement of goods — it will also make life much easier for commuters by reducing demand on our highways and opening our rail system for the freer movement of passengers.
The existing problems and needs in our system are clear:
- Between 1980 and 2006, road infrastructure capacity increased 4.5 percent while railroad route miles actually decreased 23.6 percent.
- Recent cargo projections for contained ports anticipate a doubling or tripling of throughput growth in the next 15 or 20 years.
- Recurring road congestion during peak periods is forecast to slow traffic on 20,000 miles of highway system and create stop-and-go conditions on an additional 45,000 miles by 2035.
- Every ton-mile of freight moved by rail instead of truck reduces GHG emissions by two-thirds of more.
Check out our fact sheet on freight, which is linked above, and be sure to sign Transportation for America’s petition urging Congress to take a new direction by making the creation of a 21st-century freight system a top priority in the next transportation bill. To get a more detailed look at some of our positions on investment in freight capacity, be sure to check out our newly released platform.
President Bush to sign rail safety bill
October 8, 2008By Andrew Bielak
The White House agrees to sign a bill intended to improve rail safety — a response to the tragic September 12 crash in California — which also includes more than $12 billion in funding for Amtrak. (Los Angeles Times — Steve Hymon)
-
- Transit grants out the federal door, but what about the cuts?
March 8, 2010 - Transit riders in Atlanta face massive cuts, “wholesale restructuring” of service
March 5, 2010 - Opposition to Senate extension results in looming shutdown of federal transportation programs
February 26, 2010 - T4 jobs proposal would create nearly half a million jobs, according to Economic Policy Institute
February 17, 2010 - Obama’s 2011 budget gives a lift to livability and transportation
February 2, 2010
- Transit grants out the federal door, but what about the cuts?
The United States of Transit Cutbacks
Driving is down and transit ridership is at record highs. Yet transit agencies across the country are considering layoffs, service cuts and fare hikes. Find out more and learn what you can do to help at t4america.org/transitcuts
Transportation: In your eyes
Send us your transportation-related photos.
