A Special Symposium on Transit
Next month, The American Conservative’s nonprofit parent, The American Ideas Institute, will launch a new center on transportation made possible by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The center will work to showcase conservative arguments for a balanced transportation system in which rail and roads complement one another. As a preview of this new program, we present this symposium on the conservative case for rail:
Rail Against the Machine
William S. Lind on Federal Highway Funding
Engine of Prosperity
Christopher B. Leinberger on how private development can fund transit
Urban Outfitters
John Norquist explains why the right can’t give up on cities
The Real Costs
Glen Bottoms does the numbers
Bringing Back Downtown
John Robert Smith says there is life left in America’s Main Streets
About TAC’s Transit Center Project
The new center’s director is William S. Lind, a contributing editor at The American Conservative. Lind co-authored Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation with the late Paul M. Weyrich, a well-known conservative supporter of rail transportation. The executive director is Glen D. Bottoms, who recently retired from a 25-year career with the Federal Transit Administration and who has written on a variety of rail transit topics.
Lind and Weyrich co-authored a book, The Next Conservatism, which includes support for public transportation, especially rail, as a central element in the new conservative agenda. The Moving Minds book collects all of the previous Weyrich/Lind transit studies into one volume. As Lind writes,
The American Ideas Institute’s new project on conservatives and transit alternatives will be a strong and effective advocate for robust public transportation component in our nation’s cities. The center will work to ensure a strong conservative voice for improved public transit, including both urban and intercity rail. Conservatives have long supported a strong national defense, and nothing is more essential to America’s security than reducing our dependence on automobiles fueled largely with imported oil. Improved public transportation can be a particularly effective partner in this process, with technologies, especially electric railways, that have been tested and proven in more than a century of service.
For more information, please contact Glen Bottoms at gbottoms@amconmag.com .
Several things to keep in mind concerning rail transportation.
With respect to high speed intercity rail, it will be necessary to construct new dedicated rail lines as France has done with their TGV service because existing rail lines are crowded with freight trains and the curves are banked for freight train speeds, which limit how fast passenger trains can travel. The Acela Express Trains’ tilting mechanism is a compromise but it still must slow down to 130 MPH or less on certain curves.
There is not one American owned designer and manufacturer of subway cars, light rail vehicles, passenger cars or integrated train sets. The last truly American manufacturer, The Budd Co. of Philadelphia, ceased operations in the mid 1980s. Foreign companies like Bombardier, Alstom, CAF, Siemens, Hitachi and Ansaldo-Breda have assembly operations in the USA and others like Skoda or Nippon Sarjo use American sub-contractors for assembly. Hyundai of Korea just received a large order for commuter rail cars from SEPTA, which will be built entirely in South Korea.
I’d like to receive updates on this program, and if possible I’d like to lend my advice as an architect, urban planner and rail advocate.
Here are some additional thoughts-historical, national security-related and economic-as to why Conservatives-especially-should support high speed rail!!
US TRANSPORTATION HISTORY:
Historically, the C&O Canal and the National Road were yesteryear’s Industrial Age attempts at overcoming the transportation isolation in the United States due to America’s Mountain majesties. When President Eisenhower established the Interstate Highway system in the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, he did so foremost to enable the quick movement of troops in an emergency and then secondarily but just as importantly to move large numbers of people easily among cities for commerce.
US TRANSPORTATION TODAY:
Accordingly, today, the most important Information Age reason to have Maglev and other high speed rail transportation in the United States is to enable the even quicker movement of troops in an emergency and then secondarily but just as importantly to move large numbers of people easily among cities for commerce. Maglev and other high speed rail transportation will finally—finally–break the back of transportation isolation America’s Mountain majesties have naturally foisted upon American citizens as they migrated westward-as well as relieving Northeast corridor congestion-and reducing greenhouse emissions.
US TRANSPORTATION TOMORROW:
Today, in 2010, and in years to come, Maglev and other high speed rail transportation can be the first small but vital step of the United States finally overcoming geographical isolation as part of a greater National Defense and Transportation Initiative (NDTI).
The Chinese-our ultimate world competitor—already have Maglev in Shanghai—and are aggressively planning and building Maglev in other parts of China. Can the United States afford not to? While we currently lead the Chinese in healthcare, higher universities, computers and the airline industry, how long can the United States maintain that lead? I do not know, but I do know though that extensive development of Maglev and other high speed rail transportation in the United States can only help protect our lead as the only world Superpower!
US TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS:
The specific issue here is the property tax offset with people moving from higher tax areas to lower tax areas. that is, will the property taxes just follow them-like squeezing one end of a balloon and making the other stick out and vice versa-or whether people moving to a rural area will still save property tax money by moving-assuming that property taxes are ultimately less in their new rural location than they currently are in their present urban location. Remember though-this hurts teachers unions the most becuase they benefit most from property taxes-and also lower property taxes is the main reason for conservatives to support high speed rail-in addition to people not giving away as much of their time to the leviathian state. Professor Edward Glaeser of Harvard has done some excellent research in this area-I would love to talk to him about it.
Hope all of the above helps!! Good luck and keep up the good work!!
This is a welcome effort, but I would like to suggest that you not limit your mode choices to rail and road, and I’d particularly like to suggest you explore the possible applications of cable-propelled transit. See The Gondola Project, a blog devoted to the subject, for background information and various discussions.
By “conservative” they mean liberal Rockefeller establishment conservative. This is nothing more than an attempt to nudge the public to have government spend big money on boondoggle construction projects for mega-conglomerates and developers.
Lets see what rationales they can come up with to get conservatives supporting big-money government-selected and funded projects for urban areas. The only free market part about this is the editors of American Conservative taking whatever money they can from whatever organization comes in the door “what do you liberals at Rockefeller want us to do? Ok.” We all need to hunker down in urban tunnels to get off that dang foreign oil. Right.
Art R,
While I was browsing Mr. Bootsma’s interesting blog, I found that there actually is a US company that is in the streetcar business. I was surprised, too. Hopefully they get enough customers to stay in business.
http://beatusest.blogspot.com/2009/07/streetcars-made-in-usa.html
Media research,
Big money will be spent on construction projects no matter what we do. The idea behind rail is that some of them ought to have a long shelf life. If planning ahead is conservative, then rail is conservative, and besides, it isn’t as though highway construction is exactly “free market.”
Also, you might enjoy the article above about keeping prices low. Not everyone who thinks we overspend on asphalt and underspend on rail is a Rockefeller Republican, a lot of us are just tired of the way governments subsidize sprawl.
Another note to mention – how pro transit are some liberals? A look at Boston shows that under basic liberal control light rail lines have been abandoned in recent years.
The best example a half century ago with the Highland Branch opening was followed by the era of Tom McLernon which nearly led to the loss of the system. Among those oppossing him at the time was young state representative Mike Dukakis who stood up against it as early as 1963. McLernon was ousted with a change of authority in 1964 but all his ideas didn’t leave with him. In 1969 after several failed attempts the Watertown line was pulled. Dukakis supported retaining service and the same year came out against further highway construction within Route 128 – this ultimately led to the cancellation of several major projects.
The Watertown line remained intact for shop movements and several track projects at Oak Square, Brighton Center, and Union Square took place. There were plans drawn up to use TOPICS money to restore the Brighton Avenue reservation which had been removed in 1949. Between 1976 and 1980 the entire Arborway line was relaid with new track. So when Dukakis became governor in 1975 and especially with the appointment of Frederick Salvucci (transit rep for Mayor Kevin White of Boston on the T board) a Watertown commuter with a record of supporting these services things should have looked up.
But no effort was made to restore Watertown and Arborway service was halted in 1985 during the Dukakis administration. Liberal institutions led by the Boston Globe began an all out campaign to get rid of the “terrible tracks” on the Watertown line and promises were made on Arborway but never fulfilled. Many of the yuppies in Brighton sounded as bad as the NCL days when hearings took place on the Watertown line and one would have thought it was a time when nobody had ever heard of light rail – this at the very time when it was exploding across the nation and the world. The line was ultimately destroyed when the local politicians added a rider to the state budget specificially written to evade environmental laws. Interestingly enough when representatives from Jamacia Plain did the same thing to restore Arborway liberal Republican governor William Weld vetoed it.
So what was the transportation priority of these people. Suburban commuter rail did receive attention but the big project was the Big Dig – started under the guidance of Fred Salvucci under Dukakis – the most bloated road project in world history. Urban transit took a short shift. When the Roxbury community was promised a light rail replacement when the Orange Line came down they were given a bus. Being called the ‘Silver Line” was supposed to be the make a rail equivalent which it most certainly is not. They even want to spend billions for a downtown bus tunnel which nearly every major institution in the city opposses. It is ironic when light rail is exploding in the the most conservative cities the city which pioneered much of the concept has abandoned two subway surface lines, made no extensions in over half a century, and given the minority community a second class system all led by the liberal establishment.
There has never been an American conservative consensus against government spending on transportation infrastructure. Nor should there be.
To be blunt, I think the key phrase in Media research’s post is “for urban areas”. There is an unfortunate notion in certain circles that public spending for the benefit of urban areas, whether on transportation infrastructure or anything else, is inherently “liberal”. But there is really nothing conservative about that notion.
[...] at the American Conservative Magazine, William Lind makes a powerful conservative case for renewed investment in public transit: “For cities, conservatives’ banner should be read, [...]
@MattSwartz
If you read a bit further into the blog, you would find that United Streetcar of Portland, Oregon is in reality a subcontractor for the Skoda Works of the Czech Republic. The critical propulsion and control systems are made by Skoda and the overall design and engineering of the trolley cars are also theirs.
Glad to see this dialogue shifting even if “conservatives” in Wisconsin have not caught the breeze (yet). It’s hard to imagine a more subsidized commerce than what we do to make sure gasoline is kept at a low price – property taxes, income taxes are used for maintaining roads and a supply of gasoline. The clear choice should be the lowest cost per mile, including the subsidies, I might add.
In Wisconsin operating a 76 mile link – what could be high speed rail, eventually, will come to one tenth of one percent of our state Department of Transportation budget, majorly invested in roads, some subsidies (declining) to local buses.
Scrutinizing subsides should be a conservative mission.
I found a link to these articles via Planetizen and I can’t tell you how glad I am that I did. I was beginning to think I was the only Republican who believed in mass transit and improving our downtowns and urban areas.
Again, as I mentioned on August 27th, remember state property taxes and time. Let me ask other Conservatives-do you want to giave away more of your property taxes to higher property tax states-or do you want to keep more of your own money? Also, do you want to keep more of your own time-or give it away to the Leviathian state-these two themes need to be the twin rallying cries for Conservatives to trally behind high speed rail-now let’s raise the Flag and Carry the Torch!!!
I’m from sidney mt, and if you’ve heard of McNutt’ then you can figure what kind of place it is here, plenty of folks are normal, but then you’ve got the far right bible thumpers…