Understanding the Republican Party’s Reluctance to Invest in Transit Infrastructure

[marmar]

from the Transport Politic blog:





Understanding the Republican Party’s Reluctance to Invest in Transit Infrastructure
Yonah Freemark

January 25th, 2011 |


» Conservatives in Congress threaten to shut down funding for transit construction projects and investments in intercity rail. One doesn’t have to look far to see why these programs aren’t priorities for them.

Late last week, a group of more than 165 of the most conservative members of the House of Representatives, the Republican Study Committee, released a report that detailed an agenda to reduce federal spending by $2.5 trillion over ten years. Spurred on by increasing public concern about the mounting national debt, the group argues that the only choice is to make huge, painful cuts in government programs. With the House now in the hands of the Republican Party, these suggestions are likely to be seriously considered.

Transportation policy is prominent on the group’s list, no matter President Obama’s call for investments in the nation’s transportation infrastructure, expected to be put forward in tonight’s state of the union address. Not only would all funding for Amtrak be cut, representing about $1.5 billion a year, but the Obama Administration’s nascent high-speed rail program would be stopped in its tracks. A $150 million commitment to Washington’s Metro system would evaporate. Even more dramatically, the New Starts program, which funds new rail and bus capital projects at a cost of $2 billion a year, would simply disappear. In other words, the Republican group suggests that all national government aid for the construction of new rail or bus lines, intercity and intra-city, be eliminated.

These cuts are extreme, and they’re not likely to make it to the President’s desk, not only because of the Democratic Party’s continued control over the Senate but also because some powerful Republicans in the House remain committed to supporting public transportation and rail programs. But how can we explain the open hostility of so many members of the GOP to any federal spending at all for non-automobile transportation? Why does a transfer of power from the Democratic Party to the Republicans engender such political problems for urban transit?

We can find clues in considering the districts from which members of the House of Representatives of each party are elected. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/01/25/understanding-the-republican-partys-reluctance-to-invest-in-transit-infrastructure/

[nxylas]

1. I can think of other reasons

Namely the Republican obsessions with race and class. To Goopers, investment in city transit takes money out of the wallets of hard working, SUV-driving white Americans and gives it to the n*****rs who ride the bus. But I can see why a non-partisan blog like The Transport Politic would want to steer clear of that particular hot potato.

It's very short-sighted, because very often, rural and exurban communities, which traditionally lean Republican, are the places that could benefit the most from improved (or indeed any) public tranportation to the nearest cities, where the jobs are.

[Vogon_Glory]

2. A Lot Of Truth To Your Remarks

There's a lot of truth to your remarks. Republican politicos have done very well in exurban and rural districts, particularly in the Sun Belt, and most of them had their attitudes formed in the days of red-lining and code-word minority-bashing. That most of the exurban politicos haven't bothered to see what changes "light rail" transit has made even in sprawling cities like Dallas shows not only their continuing bias, but their inability to observe reality.

I had a long-running on-line argument with a ultra-rightist concerning mass transit and inner cities. He claimed to be a realtor/developer specializing in suburban and resort development, and claimed that almost every inner-city neighborhood short of a Highland Park here, a Beverly Hills there, or a River Oaks over yonder was a slum. That's right, he called them slums--even the neighborhoods which have been gentrified and have become middle and upper middle class neighborhoods. I fear that whack jobs like him have the ear of right-wing TEA-publican politicians, but sane people, even sane Republicans (There are still a few, even if I think they're in massive denial about the nature of their party and where there party has headed) DON'T.

That this country is slowly but surely reverting to urban patterns of the 1920's and 1930's, when many people live in inner cities and commute to work by subway and trolley (read light rail) is beyond their comprehension.

Wing-nuts are also in denial about the fact that gas prices will continue to go up, road maintenance WILL have to be paid for, and that the cost of buying cars--and the cost for parking--is hammering the middle and working classes.