Conservatives and Mass Transit: all aboard !

[sunchaser]

How informative! Until this thread, I had no idea that train travel or public transportation was loved by liberals and scorned by conservatives! I didn't know it was a political thing.
And here I am, a God-loving, gun toting, train-loving, Libertarian Tea Partier. Where do I fit in?

I am just confused as how a libertarian got mixed in with the "tea partiers". I thought that was just for rabid republicans.

:lol: :lol: Oh boy! I'm finally a FOAMER!!!!!! :lol: :lol:

I've had my shots, have you? :lol: :lol:

Stereotypes, anyone?

 

[Trainmans daughter]

I just have to answer "guest". It is clear that he/she has never been close to a "Tea Party". They are not a republican, democrat, independent, libertarian, or whatever event. They are made up of just plain old Americans trying to get politicians on both sides of the aisle to listen to "We the People".

You should attend one. I can guarantee you will meet some of the nicest people there. (Admittedly, there are a few wierd people there, but if there weren't, what would MSNBC have to show!)

 

[Big Iron]

I wonder how many people who work on Wall Street and the Chicago Exchange ride mass transit to work daily. I don't see riders of mass transit as being conservative or liberal but as pragmatic. The politics come in when it comes to approving tax dollars to fund mass transit.

Conservatives should be fully supportive of mass transit efforts as it creates an affordable means of transportation for everyone to get to work, shop and create trickle down economics.

Some have mentioned Seattle's free zone where riders can ride for nothing. I've mentioned one of Vermon'ts free public transportation systems. This conservative sat his butt down in Vermont, arguably one of the more Liberal states, and enjoyed every minute of the "free ride" wondering why more localities don't have this wonderful service. Tax dollars spent on mass transportation are tax dollars well spent.

 

[sunchaser]

We have a 'free zone' for the bus in Downtown Salt Lake City.

We don't go downtown much-there's not much that interests us there, even though we are very close to downtown.

I have no problem with subsidies for buses or trains-the airlines are subsidized, so are the highways.

I only want to know how we can afford do it, considering the way money is currently being spent in Washington.

 

[WICT106]

I continue to tell others to read this book: "Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation," as it presents conservative arguments in favor of Passenger rail, and mass transit. I raise this because I suspect that our Congress will be taking a turn to the right, and candidates who are anti- rail service and anti- mass transit will run and get elected to office. Having just had the largest investment in passenger rail in decades get appropriated, I do not wish to have this progress stalled and even reversed. It is just that I feel frustrated when having to refute, again and again, some of the same themes and arguments that I have been refuting for the decade that I have been a rail passenger. I think this book will give ammunition for rail service advocates here as we try to see this expansion in service through to completion.

 

[saxman]

I'm about half way through the book. It's lots of good information, and takes a while to soak it in. His first main argument is how we once had privately run, for profit railroads, interurbans and street cars. Conservatives don't like big government, but the government started sending massive subsidies to building highways, while expecting the tax paying railroads to turn a profit. I wonder if when the highways were being built in the 20's to the 50's if the conservatives balked in protest because the government was getting bigger! I wonder what our country would look like if every interstate highway were privately funded and made as toll roads. Would the private railroads still be able to turn a profit? I like to think so.

But it was the massive government intervention that has caused us to get in our current situation. Many anti-transit folks, balk at bigger government controlling our transportation usually ignoring the fact that government runs the highways. But their argument to that is highways pay for themselves through user fees. I get in arguments here in Texas because think TxDOT makes a profit and gives a third of our state gas tax to education. (That part is true, 34% of our state gas tax goes toward public education)

Our railroads are unique in that they own their right of way. I wonder if perhaps all the rail lines in the US were nationalized. And different passenger companies ran their trains to compete for service. Just like privately run airlines compete for passengers but use the same airports and air traffic system. In other words, the aviation infrastructure is open to everyone. The highway system is publicly owned and is open to everyone. But our rail system is not. You have to build a railroad, and no private investor would ever dream of that!

 

[DesertRat]

Many of the conservatives I know won't use public transportation including Amtrak because they feel its below their station in life. They may have to rub shoulders with people that are different than they are. Its almost like its a class thing with them. Its just the opposite for me. I enjoy meeting people of all types and their status in life is of no concern to me.

Hey! I'm a conservative and I ride trains. <_<

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Our railroads are unique in that they own their right of way. I wonder if perhaps all the rail lines in the US were nationalized. And different passenger companies ran their trains to compete for service. Just like privately run airlines compete for passengers but use the same airports and air traffic system. In other words, the aviation infrastructure is open to everyone. The highway system is publicly owned and is open to everyone. But our rail system is not. You have to build a railroad, and no private investor would ever dream of that!

I believe I have heard that the Interstate highways are actually owned by the states, and not the federal government at this point.

And the entire NEC is owned by a combination of Amtrak and state governments.

I believe there are some state owned freight railroads in places like Maine and Vermont.

I would like to see railroads exempted from property taxes, just as highways and airports are. That would be a good step towards getting rid of the artificial distortions that make the highways look cheaper than the railroads in some cases where they actually aren't. It might be appropriate for any property tax exemption to require railroads to be more tolerant of Amtrak service running on their tracks than they might otherwise be if they want to take advantage of the property tax exemption, though.

 

[Cascadia]

Well I'm on this board and I ride trains and take public transportation, and if I have to have a label I definitely fall on the Libertarian end of things. I strongly support the 2nd Amendment, I believe that is the foundation of freedom. If I was going to "join" anything I would probably join the great gun rights group "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership". Who can argue with them, when they say "Never Again" they mean it. I won't put the link but their initials are JPFO and the suffix is .org

So you can put me where you want to in the stereotype department with that statement. I supported Ron Paul for President and have stayed in touch with the groups that formed after his bid for office, the Campaign for Liberty and the Young Americans for Liberty.

 

[WICT106]

: Grabbing the popcorn, and pulling up a chair ::

 

[gmcguire]

One quick little comment here: I'm kind of right-ward leaning myself, and purchased this book in order to better acquaint myself with pro-rail arguments that I could use in the event that I encounter those who are anti- rail, and anti-transit. This post was not intended as a criticism of those who are anti-transit. How can we best argue in favor of better service and additional service with those who are opposed to spending (except when it happens to benefit them) ?

I'm pretty liberal, a socialist, actually. However, I know a lot of conservatives and I know that anything I say in favor of public transport won't be taken entirely seriously by them. This is not because they are conservatives, but are people. I'm sure that there are conservative ideas that if presented to me by a fellow liberal I'd consider more fully than if they were presented by a conservative. I wish this wasn't true, but politics in the USA are pretty tribal and cultural, and consequently tend to be very, um, aggressive.

Therefore I fully condone any attempts from conservatives to convince other conservatives to agree with me

 

[Kramerica]

But it was the massive government intervention that has caused us to get in our current situation. Many anti-transit folks, balk at bigger government controlling our transportation usually ignoring the fact that government runs the highways. But their argument to that is highways pay for themselves through user fees. I get in arguments here in Texas because think TxDOT makes a profit and gives a third of our state gas tax to education. (That part is true, 34% of our state gas tax goes toward public education)

Generally speaking, our HIGHWAYS do pay for themselves via state and Federal gas taxes. HOWEVER, all other roads are generally not using gas tax money, but property or sales tax revenue. That's a lot of county highways, country roads, city arterials, and residential streets that are not paid for with user fees.

Our railroads are unique in that they own their right of way. I wonder if perhaps all the rail lines in the US were nationalized. And different passenger companies ran their trains to compete for service. Just like privately run airlines compete for passengers but use the same airports and air traffic system. In other words, the aviation infrastructure is open to everyone. The highway system is publicly owned and is open to everyone. But our rail system is not. You have to build a railroad, and no private investor would ever dream of that!

I've made that same argument on other forums. The government owns the infrastructure for roads, airports, and seaports. They then make rules for using those facilities and charge fees for use of those facilities. Then private companies or individuals can use that infrastructure for economic gain. But the railroads are totally different. The infrastructure is privately held and so are freight vehicles. But the government runs the passenger vehicles. But that is just the opposite of what makes sense. The government, in theory and for the most part in reality, is in a better position to determine the overall system-wide infrastructure needs and then allocate the resources appropriately. But the government, in theory and in reality, is much worse at customer service. So I say nationalize (or to the States) the railroad infrastructure, farm out the dispatching, and let the freight RRs focus on getting customers. You'd see quite a few private passenger RRs pop up too.

I believe I have heard that the Interstate highways are actually owned by the states, and not the federal government at this point.

The Interstate highways were never owned by the Federal government. The FHWA does have jurisdiction over their design, but the States construct and maintain all highways. (Interstate, U.S., and State) Typically the Federal government gives a 50/50 match to the States for highway construction. But they coerced the States to rapidly build the Interstate System by giving a 90/10 match. That match is not in place anymore.

The only roads that are Federally owned are those such as military base roads and National Parks roads.

 

[WICT106]

KraMerica has a good synopsis, here.

 

[birdy]

Well, house owning in the suburbs makes Republicans. Proletarians crowded into close quarters in big cities tend to be Demos.

Personally, I think the Republicans are missing a bet. I expect that they will take the knee-jerk position that the puny $8 billion HSR initiative is "budget-busting pork"

A more effective, thoughtful and factually based approach would be to attack the program as a characteristically half-baked approach by the feckless demos. The advantage is, it would be true.

 

[MikefromCrete]

I guess this discussion shows that members of this site come from all parts of the political spectrum. What we have is common is a love of trains I think the book lays out a plan for conservatives to convince other conservatives about the viability of passenger rail transportation. Good rail service doesn't have to be a political issue. In Illinois, mass transit gets a lot lot of support from Republicans because Metra (and Pace) offer good transportation alternatives for their constituents, so the battle over transit funds becomes downstate vs. Chicago area, rather than Democratic/Republican, although there is plenty of dispute over how the transit pie is sliced. Expanded Amtrak service seems to have well received in Illinois, because it spreads over a wide part of the state. The biggest is complaint is from those areas that don't have Amtrak service (such as Rockford-Galena), so I think the key is that once people see the value of train service, they will support it. Putting Amtrak or commuter or light rail service into areas that don't have service is always a battle. Once such service is established, it is usually well received and people want more. So, our jobs as rail backers, whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, is to support well thought out rail plans. That's all I'm going to say, since I'm already on some kind of pizza ban here, and I don't want to get into any more trouble!

 

[AlanB]

But it was the massive government intervention that has caused us to get in our current situation. Many anti-transit folks, balk at bigger government controlling our transportation usually ignoring the fact that government runs the highways. But their argument to that is highways pay for themselves through user fees. I get in arguments here in Texas because think TxDOT makes a profit and gives a third of our state gas tax to education. (That part is true, 34% of our state gas tax goes toward public education)

Generally speaking, our HIGHWAYS do pay for themselves via state and Federal gas taxes. HOWEVER, all other roads are generally not using gas tax money, but property or sales tax revenue. That's a lot of county highways, country roads, city arterials, and residential streets that are not paid for with user fees.

You need to find a new General to speak with, because the current one is giving you inaccurate info. :lol: :lol:

Last year the Fed doled out $69.116 billion on our Nation's highways. Of that amount, only $34.616B was paid via fuel taxes. The other 50% or $34.5 Billion came out of the General Fund. Darn, there's that general again. :lol: :lol:

Last year I admit was a bad year if you will, since the Stimulus affected the number majorly. But the Highway Trust Fund, which is where the Federal portion of the fuel tax goes, required a direct transfer of $7 Billion from the General Fund to remain solvent. In 2008 the HTF required an $8 Billion infusion to stay above water. See the notes under the first graph on this page.

This year's estimate is for $10 billion. Next year IIRC, it's estimated that $12B will be needed. That assumes that Congress doesn't increase the Fed's portion of the fuel tax. The DOT under President Bush warned the Republican controlled Congress at that time, that the 5 year plan they were passing would outspend the HTF's ability to pay. On the other hand, even though Congress spent too much, the DOT estimated that it needed about $90 Billion more than what Congress actually allocated in order to maintain the roads in a state of good repair. So Congress sort of compromised by spending more than the HTF could actually handle, but not spending what was really needed either.

I believe I have heard that the Interstate highways are actually owned by the states, and not the federal government at this point.

The Interstate highways were never owned by the Federal government. The FHWA does have jurisdiction over their design, but the States construct and maintain all highways. (Interstate, U.S., and State) Typically the Federal government gives a 50/50 match to the States for highway construction. But they coerced the States to rapidly build the Interstate System by giving a 90/10 match. That match is not in place anymore.

The only roads that are Federally owned are those such as military base roads and National Parks roads.

Agreed, the States have always owned the highways. That's why it's the "State Speed Limit" and not the Federal speed limit. In fact when President Nixon wanted the speed limit lowered to 55 during the gas crisis, he couldn't order the states to lower their speed limits. So he tied Federal funding to a 55 MPH limit. If a state didn't drop their limits to 55 MPH, then they didn't get Federal funding. Most states dropped their speed limits.

Next, the Fed's split with states for the Interstates is 80/20. This is why many pro-railers are upset that the Federal match for passenger rail is only 50/50. Once again they feel that the Fed is favoring the highway lobbies over the trains.

 

[PRR 60]

...Next, the Fed's split with states for the Interstates is 80/20. This is why many pro-railers are upset that the Federal match for passenger rail is only 50/50. Once again they feel that the Fed is favoring the highway lobbies over the trains.

As a clarification, the Federal Transit Administration funding for passenger rail projects is 80% Federal, 20% local. The Interstate Highway split from the Federal Highway Administration is 90% Federal, 10% local.

 

[National Limited]

I'm another conservative who often chafes at the stereotype that conservatives hate Amtrak. Most of the time those who paint conservatives with such a broad stroke have hidden agendas rather than pure observation in mind. Some of the strongest supporters of Amtrak have Republicans: Trent Lott, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Steve LaTourette (you'll remember him from his efficient and fair handling of the House hearing on the firing of David Gunn).

 

[AlanB]

I'm another conservative who often chafes at the stereotype that conservatives hate Amtrak. Most of the time those who paint conservatives with such a broad stroke have hidden agendas rather than pure observation in mind. Some of the strongest supporters of Amtrak have Republicans: Trent Lott, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Steve LaTourette (you'll remember him from his efficient and fair handling of the House hearing on the firing of David Gunn).

I'm always reminding people when they say that conservatives hate Amtrak, that there is only one engine at Amtrak that has ever been named after a living person. In fact, AFAIK its the only engine in the current fleet that bears the name of anyone living or dead.

And that engine is P42 - #182, which was named in honor of Former Republican Governor of Wisconsin, former HHS secretary Tommy Thompson. Mr. Thompson served several years on the Amtrak board while Governor and was for at least two years IIRC, chairman of the board. He was IMHO quite possible the most vocal and visible Chairman of the Board in probably the last 20 years. He was always out stumping for Amtrak when he could do so.

In fact, many hoped that Mr. Bush would choose Tommy as Sec DOT. However speculation holds that other forces within the Bush White House didn't want that because of his views on Amtrak. And please note that I said "speculation".

But regardless, Tommy was an important cheerleader for Amtrak during some of its most difficult years.

I only wish that someone would re-appoint him to the Board. Don't know if he'd accept, but it would be worth a shot.

 

[Kramerica]

I'm always reminding people when they say that conservatives hate Amtrak, that there is only one engine at Amtrak that has ever been named after a living person. In fact, AFAIK its the only engine in the current fleet that bears the name of anyone living or dead.
And that engine is P42 - #182, which was named in honor of Former Republican Governor of Wisconsin, former HHS secretary Tommy Thompson. Mr. Thompson served several years on the Amtrak board while Governor and was for at least two years IIRC, chairman of the board. He was IMHO quite possible the most vocal and visible Chairman of the Board in probably the last 20 years. He was always out stumping for Amtrak when he could do so.

In fact, many hoped that Mr. Bush would choose Tommy as Sec DOT. However speculation holds that other forces within the Bush White House didn't want that because of his views on Amtrak. And please note that I said "speculation".

But regardless, Tommy was an important cheerleader for Amtrak during some of its most difficult years.

I only wish that someone would re-appoint him to the Board. Don't know if he'd accept, but it would be worth a shot.

Thompson's two biggest "achievements" as Governor of Wisconsin were welfare reform and as a cheerleader for transportation. Our highway program was expanded greatly and he also pushed for passenger rail. So when Bush was elected and Thompson was going to the cabinet, the two natural fits for him were Health & Human Services and Transportation. He ended up being appointed to HHS but after he left the administration he all but said he really wanted the DOT post instead. I think he would have been GREAT as DOT secretary. He has a much more holistic view of transportation than the typical mentality of highways OR rail.

Currently Thompson is mulling a run for the US Senate against ultra-liberal Russ Feingold this year. I think he'd win because of the likely liberal backlash we'll see in this year's elections and the fact that Thompson has always been very popular in Wisconsin. But I also don't think he'll run because he's a natural leader and not someone who wants be 1 of 100.

 

[AmtrakPDX]

But it was the massive government intervention that has caused us to get in our current situation. Many anti-transit folks, balk at bigger government controlling our transportation usually ignoring the fact that government runs the highways. But their argument to that is highways pay for themselves through user fees. I get in arguments here in Texas because think TxDOT makes a profit and gives a third of our state gas tax to education. (That part is true, 34% of our state gas tax goes toward public education)

Generally speaking, our HIGHWAYS do pay for themselves via state and Federal gas taxes. HOWEVER, all other roads are generally not using gas tax money, but property or sales tax revenue. That's a lot of county highways, country roads, city arterials, and residential streets that are not paid for with user fees.

You need to find a new General to speak with, because the current one is giving you inaccurate info. :lol: :lol:

Last year the Fed doled out $69.116 billion on our Nation's highways. Of that amount, only $34.616B was paid via fuel taxes. The other 50% or $34.5 Billion came out of the General Fund. Darn, there's that general again. :lol: :lol:

Last year I admit was a bad year if you will, since the Stimulus affected the number majorly. But the Highway Trust Fund, which is where the Federal portion of the fuel tax goes, required a direct transfer of $7 Billion from the General Fund to remain solvent. In 2008 the HTF required an $8 Billion infusion to stay above water. See the notes under the first graph on this page.

This year's estimate is for $10 billion. Next year IIRC, it's estimated that $12B will be needed. That assumes that Congress doesn't increase the Fed's portion of the fuel tax. The DOT under President Bush warned the Republican controlled Congress at that time, that the 5 year plan they were passing would outspend the HTF's ability to pay. On the other hand, even though Congress spent too much, the DOT estimated that it needed about $90 Billion more than what Congress actually allocated in order to maintain the roads in a state of good repair. So Congress sort of compromised by spending more than the HTF could actually handle, but not spending what was really needed either.

I believe I have heard that the Interstate highways are actually owned by the states, and not the federal government at this point.

The Interstate highways were never owned by the Federal government. The FHWA does have jurisdiction over their design, but the States construct and maintain all highways. (Interstate, U.S., and State) Typically the Federal government gives a 50/50 match to the States for highway construction. But they coerced the States to rapidly build the Interstate System by giving a 90/10 match. That match is not in place anymore.

The only roads that are Federally owned are those such as military base roads and National Parks roads.

Agreed, the States have always owned the highways. That's why it's the "State Speed Limit" and not the Federal speed limit. In fact when President Nixon wanted the speed limit lowered to 55 during the gas crisis, he couldn't order the states to lower their speed limits. So he tied Federal funding to a 55 MPH limit. If a state didn't drop their limits to 55 MPH, then they didn't get Federal funding. Most states dropped their speed limits.

Next, the Fed's split with states for the Interstates is 80/20. This is why many pro-railers are upset that the Federal match for passenger rail is only 50/50. Once again they feel that the Fed is favoring the highway lobbies over the trains.

Strong work Alan! Hope you've had the opportunity to read "Waiting on a Train". Lot of good points & politics in there...

 

[AlanB]

Strong work Alan! Hope you've had the opportunity to read "Waiting on a Train". Lot of good points & politics in there...

Actually, no, I haven't read that.

 

[George Harris]

How about, even the most rabid pro-highway person should strongly support urban rail transit because highways in urban areas are so extemely expensive.

Don't recall the exact numbers, but the "big dig" cost over a billion dollars for just over or about one mile of multiple lane road. That road can never cover itself from the gas tax if all lanes ran bumper to bumper 24 hours a day. That should be enough of an example.

 

[jis]

Don't recall the exact numbers, but the "big dig" cost over a billion dollars for just over or about one mile of multiple lane road. That road can never cover itself from the gas tax if all lanes ran bumper to bumper 24 hours a day. That should be enough of an example.

My my! Today we are students of gross understatements aren't we?

By the time all the dust settled the Big Dig came in at a whopping $22 Billion!

 

[RailFanLNK]

"Waiting On A Train" has been one of the best rail reads I have ever encountered. I'm almost done with it and want to give that book as a Christmas present to every member of the House and Senate! :lol: