Conservative Arguments for Rail Transit

Anybody who knows me knows that I am an advocate of mass-transit over vehicle traffic. Many though think that this is a liberal-conservative issue. A smart interview with William Lind should end that notion. Among many interesting points, Lind suggests that the conservative-liberal divide has more to do with geographic placement than relative transit choices. Rural and suburban areas tend to be more conservative, and they also have almost no access to transit, nor are those areas well served by the same mass transit that is advocated for cities. Meanwhile, city dwellers can see an immediate need, and/or already experience mass-transit and usually want more of it.

I have always been surprised that my conservative friends actually like rail transit when the option is competitive with cars, and people these days are getting hooked on any form of transit that allows one to take his eyes off the road.

Many have argued that with the advent of the automobile, rail transportation became obsolete; the changes in our infrastructure grew out of conscious consumer choice. Lind has the money quote to allay any misconceptions:

Another idea that’s pervasive is that public transportation is subsidized but the gas tax fully pays for highways.
That’s a powerful argument the libertarians make to conservatives, and it’s bunk. The current dominance of roads is due to massive subsidization by government which through most of the twentieth century competed with privately owned, privately operated railways including streetcar systems that had to pay taxes. Every conservative understands very quickly what happens when you tax one mode and subsidize the other. The taxed mode disappears and the subsidized mode becomes dominant. Nothing about our current imbalance in transportation is a free market outcome. Not in the slightest.

The notion that the gas tax covers all highway expenses is a notion that will send any state Governor into fits of laughter. The highways require enormous support, local state and federal, that goes well beyond what gas taxes bring in. So it’s not a question of a subsidized mode versus an unsubsidized mode.

Government subsidies for the auto industry were and continue to be the problem. Lind even goes so far as to suggest that the gas tax can be raised. He points out that gasoline and our automobile dependence is a national security issue; one that the previous administration paid little attention to, and one that our current administration is not paying enough attention to.

Some other things to keep in mind. Electric cars are not going to save us either. It will take a huge amount of money and continued subsidies to get electric cars out there, and we are still going to have to generate the electricity for them. So far, there are almost no electric cars, and we've been told for the last 15 years that the electric car is just around the corner. Electric cars still don't address the other costs of roads, and the traffic problems that are never solved by adding lanes.

Lind discusses high-speed rail as, "icing on the cake." It supplements a good passenger rail system, but can't substitute for one. It's most important for people to have a competitive alternative to cars, which means a robust network in urban areas, and inter-city trains that run at the 79-90 mph range. HSR is not economical, and will take a lot to compete with airlines for medium and long-hauls.

Transit systems are inherently social. You can meet people on the train. And you don't have to pay attention to the road. Plus, people will always be more attracted to rail transit than for buses. Rail makes sense, the train has to follow the lines and stop at the stops. It's predictable and comfortable. And it usually has it's own right of way.