Conservatives should embrace transit (and bicycling), but don't!

[FayeforCure]

Conservatives should embrace transit (and bicycling), but don't

Photo by Jeb Ro.Public transit enables the close-knit neighborhoods that social conservatives desire, argues David Schaengold. Yet most Republicans oppose public transit expansion (as do many conservative Democrats), with few prominent exceptions like Florida Rep. John Mica and the late Paul Weyrich. Why is this? Schaengold writes,
Sadly, American conservatives have come to be associated with support for transportation decisions that promote dependence on automobiles, while American liberals are more likely to be associated with public transportation, city life, and pro-pedestrian policies. This association can be traced to the '70s, when cities became associated with social dysfunction and suburbs remained bastions of 'normalcy.' This dynamic was fueled by headlines mocking ill-conceived transit projects that conservatives loved to point out as examples of wasteful government spending.
Of course, just because there is a historic explanation for why Democrats are "pro-transit" and Republicans are "pro-car" does not mean that these associations make any sense.

Support for government-subsidized highway projects and contempt for efficient mass transit does not follow from any of the core principles of social conservatism.

Schaengold goes on to refute the canard that highway-oriented development is the free market at work. In fact, highways are one of the largest big government spending programs, and American's choice to build them instead of transit was almost entirely a governmental decision.

Furthermore, argues Schaengold, "Pro-highway, anti-transit, anti-pedestrian policies work against the core beliefs of American conservatives in another and even more important way: they create social environments that are hostile to real community."

They promote impersonal big-box retail over community-building small business, prevent communities from sharing the work of raising children by forcing parents to spend most of their time driving children from place to place, and turn neighbors into strangers.

These arguments apply equally to bicycle transportation as to transit. Cyclists, like pedestrians, move at speeds conducive to seeing the window displays in small shops and are more likely to treat other people as human beings instead of as obstacles to speed around, and represent a free market of people making individual transportation choices. Yet cycling has become even more a Republican symbol of liberal yuppiedom than transit.

As Stephen Miller points out, in this week's Republican response to the President's radio address, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) repeats Eric Cantor's inaccurate month-old claim citing "new bike racks in Washington, DC" as an example of wasteful stimulus spending. Promoting the idea that real conservatives drive big muscle cars and mow down liberal walkers, bikers and subway riders may play well with a shrinking segment of the Republican base, but if conservatives were really serious about recapturing a sense of community engagement lost in the last century, they'd rethink this knee-jerk reaction against any form of transportation with less than 250 horsepower per person.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=2108

Maybe they should stop chanting "Drill Here, Drill Now" too

Replace it with the more sensible "Rail Here, Rail Now!"

[BridgeTroll]

I fully endorse mass transit and rail in particular.  I am also a realist and "drill here drill now makes equal sense.

[Joe]

Yup, I'm also a conservative that generally supports mass transit. When I read the title of your post, I immediately thought of John Mica and Paul Weyrich, so I'm glad the article mentioned them.

(As for bike racks paid for by the federal stimulus ... um, yeah ... that does in fact seem pretty wasteful. I would think that regardless of conservative/liberal or pro/anti transit, that bike racks sound like a really shameless pet project that has next-to-nothing to do with the supposed justification for recent federal spending.)

[FayeforCure]

(As for bike racks paid for by the federal stimulus ... um, yeah ... that does in fact seem pretty wasteful. I would think that regardless of conservative/liberal or pro/anti transit, that bike racks sound like a really shameless pet project that has next-to-nothing to do with the supposed justification for recent federal spending.)

Did you read the article? Apparently that claim is inaccurate.

Just like the claim that Harry Reid had put money into the stimulus package for rail from LA to Las Vegas. It's real easy to rile up Republicans with false claims.

Interesting that vulcano studies are wasteful according to Jindal, but studying beach erosion ( Mica's earmark) is laudable.

BTW, Jindal of all people should understand the need to prevent disaster.

[NotNow]

Agreed, as a conservative, I do support PRIVATE and locally operated mass transit.   I strongly believe that solar panels should be subsidized by our local government operated utility and the State of Florida.  And I support advanced battery research with the goal of total electric private transportation.  I also support immediate drilling here in America to reduce our dependance on foreign oil.  And I support immediate expansion of atomic power.  I DO NOT support the expansion of federal control or funding of these areas without the consent of the states.   And I feel inadequate, since I only have 200 horsepower.

[FayeforCure]

I fully endorse mass transit and rail in particular.  I am also a realist and "drill here drill now makes equal sense.

I'm a realist too, and examine common knee jerk responses when I see them. Here is some background:

Can We Drill Our Way to Energy Security?  
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross    
03/05/2009  
Although oil prices have receded from their all-time high of $145 per barrel, the U.S.’s energy security situation remains disturbing. Oil is still the sole strategic commodity in the U.S.’s transportation sector, and I have previously addressed the looming problems related to our exclusive reliance on oil. It is no secret that prices will rise again, although the U.S.’s fledgling alternative energy industry may be destroyed before they do. Nor is it a secret that our oil dependence means that we are “paying for both sides in the War on Terror.” And while the U.S. suffers through its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, terrorists are aware that a successful catastrophic attack on one of Saudi Arabia’s major production hubs could be a virtual knock-out punch in their war against the West.

Against this backdrop, a large number of commentators advocate increasing our domestic drilling--for example, exploiting offshore oil resources or those in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This policy briefing examines whether we can drill our way to energy security, and concludes that commentators should not overstate the benefits: exploitation of conventional fossil fuel resources within the U.S. will neither end nor seriously ameliorate our strategic vulnerability. Domestic drilling is not necessarily a bad idea, but we should not lose sight of the need to diminish oil’s importance as a strategic commodity. Contrary to the claims of some skeptics, we can do so.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and Other Domestic Resources

Many drilling proponents point to the U.S.’s failure to exploit energy resources in ANWR as one of the clearest failures of our current energy policy. While the amount of oil recoverable from ANWR is not known, an objective look at the research done on its resources makes clear that drilling there will not change our current strategic weakness.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has provided the best, mean, and worst-case estimates for ANWR’s resources. Under its “high resource” case, ANWR will allow for cumulative oil production of 4.3 billion barrels; its mean estimate is 2.6 billion barrels, while its “low resource” case projects 1.9 billion barrels. Some more optimistic observers have claimed that around 10 billion barrels of oil can be extracted from ANWR. But even if that high estimate were accurate, ANWR drilling would not translate into energy security.

More here: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11784811&Itemid=102

[Sigma]

Your post lends itself to what "Drill Here - Drill Now" proponents are trying to do.

While increased domestic drilling may well be a laudable policy, it is important not to lose sight of the bigger picture: rather than just increasing the supply of oil, we need to actively foster alternatives.

I'm a conservative who agrees with privately owned mass transit, but also with an integrated energy policy that utilizes our current resources while planning for future energy sources.

[NotNow]

Alright, lets go between the upper and lower and say that there is 6 billion barrels there.  That is $300 billion dollars that we do not send to the middle east.  At $100 oil it becomes $600 billion.  That ain't knee jerk money.  ANWR is just one of the answers to our current problem.  We must utilize what we have to MINIMIZE our dependence.  Research and technology will help us develop non oil resources.  The answer is not Dem or Rep, or conservative or liberal, it is American.

[FayeforCure]

I'm a conservative who agrees with privately owned mass transit.

Why privately owned? Don't you think ticket prices would be higher so as to incorporate profit?

[Sigma]

Yes, ticket prices would most likely be higher whether privately owned, or government owned (but not subsidized by tax payer dollars). 

I think that's why a lot of people "thumbs down" to mass transit.  They know that it will be subsidized by the taxpayer - most of which do not use it.  They also want to see a return on their investment, which government has shown it can not do as well as private ownership.

[samiam]

I'm just a little confused, if the asteroid that caused the mass extinction 65 million years ago landed in Yucatan and oid is a fossil fuel. logic would dictate that the gulf of Mexico would be the largest oil field in the world. With an explosion of that magnitude you first have an explosion killing anything in its path and then an implosion depositing all that organic matter in the gulf.

[Ocklawaha]

Your post lends itself to what "Drill Here - Drill Now" proponents are trying to do.

While increased domestic drilling may well be a laudable policy, it is important not to lose sight of the bigger picture: rather than just increasing the supply of oil, we need to actively foster alternatives.

I'm a conservative who agrees with privately owned mass transit, but also with an integrated energy policy that utilizes our current resources while planning for future energy sources.

My son is the Supervisor for a major driller for a district that covers the TX/OK panhandles, NE NM, CO, KS region. He, nor anyone else is working at this moment. I have quized him about this and his simple answer... "Before the recent bust, we were hitting gushers of TX-OK sweet oil, then the price fell through the floor. We have all the oil we need... like forever, BUT, it's too deep, too mucked up and too damn expensive to get at it. Now when your ready to pay $500 - 1,000 dollars a barrel, we'll be the big dog on the block again, but we all know that isn't going to happen." There is nothing my kid would rather do then whip a field or two back into action but he doesn't see it coming.

Yes, ticket prices would most likely be higher whether privately owned, or government owned (but not subsidized by tax payer dollars). 

I think that's why a lot of people "thumbs down" to mass transit.  They know that it will be subsidized by the taxpayer - most of which do not use it.  They also want to see a return on their investment, which government has shown it can not do as well as private ownership.

Higher fares are a self defeating cycle. Look at the Skyway, we finally hit 3,000 a day at .25 cents, so last year, JTA doubles the fare. Whoops now we get 1,500 a day. Not worth the effort. You want real payback from mass transit?

MAKE IT FARE FREE CITY WIDE!

Consider it an alternative to constant investment in highways, and watch ridership soar from 10 Million a year locally to 30 Million + . Americans love a freebee, just check out Memorial Park or the riverwalk on a sunny weekend afternoon. My blog supports FARE FREE TRANSIT. SEE ALSO: http://frepubtra.blogspot.com/

OCKLAWAHA

[BridgeTroll]

Can We Drill Our Way to Energy Security?

Stop right there.  No need to read any further.  Drill here, drill now has nothing to do with the above statement.  Exploiting our own oil and gass resources is about reducing our dependence on foriegn oil.  Wind, solar, and bio do the same.  Additionally... I invite you to visit the oil fields in the mideast or venezuela, or nigeria... I have.  Drilling in the states is a clean and regulated process... it is not in the areas I listed.

[tufsu1]

Yes...and opening up the area just off Florida's coast (inside the Federal 10 mile limit) for drilling is a great idea too...just ask the Republicans in the Florida House!

[Sigma]

Please don't use the Skyway as an example of mass transit. It is a joke. 

And some people do not want to subsidize others' "freebies".  More people would ride if there was an efficient, quick system.  Ock, I think you are the expert here and have given some good examples.  I just think that the system should cover it's costs and initial investment.  Government spending is wasteful because there is no skin in the game. Private investment would be better planned, and better spent $$.  You would never see a private enterprise invest into a useless Skyway.