Why Does The Right Hate Rail and All Public Transit?

For years, advocates in the metro Milwaukee and the metro Madison areas pushed for commuter rail. While there may be some disagreements between the advocates over routes, light versus heavy rail, and the frequency of the service, the message is clear: rail is cheaper, more efficient, and greener than passenger automobiles.

There are enough commentaries by Madison's Dick Wagner, Milwaukee's Jim Rowen, and others that it is not necessary to repeat all of the arguments.

Even though it is well documented that public subsidies for public transportation are far less than the subsidies for automobiles and trucks, the right continues to wail about the 'outrageous cost' associated with public transit systems.

I looked for logical connections in their arguments. There are two consistent themes I see in their opposition to public transit, public airports, public roads, public water systems, public parks, and public everything:

• A public operation prevents someone in the private sector from making money. The hell with the fact that it means the public may get ripped off by privatizing everything from wars to water systems by the businesses that get the contracts, often no-bid. 
• A public operation means there will be public employee unions and that means more union influence in the political process.

Comments

[buckyblue]

This is one of those philosophical points of departure, which in the end leaves the conservative point of view lacking. Belling, in his drive-time blather, has said that we need to widen I94 heading into and out of Milwaukee from Waukesha County. Instead of three lanes make it five or six. But in the smaller government, lower taxes mind set, why should we do this? In fact, why have freeways at all. It is, after all, public money creating those monoliths of concrete.

Why make it a war between right and left? You would accomplish a lot more just by addressing both sides of the issue.

[Donald Pay]

Kind of a shallow posting, don't you think? I'm not a righty, and I have serious questions about the costs and benefits of rail. I'm particularly concerned that rail in this town is being sold as a choo-choo for the elite to get to their ball games and concerts, rather than a means to move poor and middle class people to jobs and schools. And the way the elitists are going about shoving this down our throats reminds me that the left can be as arrogant, corrupt and duplicitous as the right.

[Dan Sebald]

Donald,

Paul's comments on this in the past has been that rail should connect things, which I agree with. If you are concerned about proper implementation of rail--which you should be--the best thing is to go to meetings, ensure the city has assigned adequate staff for studying, visit cities like Charlotte (LYNX):

http://www.charmeck.org/NR/exeres/811BE505-0DAE-4CB0-8685-C601E738A03C.htm

and Salt Lake City (TRAX):

http://www.rideuta.com/aboutTransit/transitStudies.aspx

I'm not sure what city you are referring to, but a light rail line to Milwaukee baseball stadium would be a good idea.

Anyway, the majority of those interested in rail want to see it done correctly, to spur non-sprawl, mixed-use development. If it is for joy-ride purposes, there's no point.

[Joe Klein]

Phoenix and Salt Lake City are not bastions of the left, yet they have gone with light rail. Given the correct route, light rail results in lower operating and maintenance costs. The high capital cost when amortized over the life of the system can result in a net lower cost than a bus line. The difference in total cost between the bus v. light rail will increase in favor of light rail as oil prices rise. Of course I may be wrong, because I get my data from peer review journals and not Cato Institute fellows hired by conservative think tanks.

Electrified commuter rail has lower operating and maintenance cost over a diesel system. Again, the cost difference is related to the cost of oil. In addition, electric trains accelerate faster than diesel and have close to zero start up time, thus they can provide the same level of service with a lower number of units. Electrification of routes offers possibilities for high speed rail.

The anti rail crowd seems to be married to three weak assumptions.

1. 90% of the scientist are wrong about global warming.
2. Oil prices are caused by a bubble, not global market forces. They will return to lower levels soon.
3. The USGS estimates of off shore and ANWR oil mean if we dill our energy problems are over, thus ignoring the history of prior USGS estimates, the markets, and the fact that US oil production peaked in 1970.

If you want a state ill prepared for the future - keep doing what what we have been doing. Stick your head in the sand and ignore reality.

Choo-choo is defined as in my dictionary as a child's word for a railroad train or locomotive, esp. a steam engine. This accepted definition speaks volumes about the people who use the word when trying to engage in a "serious" debate about transportation policy.

[John]

Speaking of the right hating anything public, this editorial blames liberals for pushing people (conservatives) out of their cars and into mass transit.

http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/06/after-reading-terry-jeffreys-pointless.html

[xjm]

The linked editorial is pretty rich, John. I had no idea there were so many ideological implications to my desire for quick, cheap transportation to Milwaukee.