Transit revival needs two rails: supply and demand
Those inclined to see each crisis as an opportunity might well cite, as evidence, two articles in fairly close succession in the New York Times.
Today's op-ed section includes a column by Robert Goodman, professor of environmental design at Hampshire College, that invokes that notion explicitly in arguing that proposals to bail automakers out of their financial woes represents a chance to nudge Detroit into the transportation-making business as producers of buses and trains. Goodman reaches back several decades, to a 1972 article by former interior secretary Stewart Udall in The Atlantic, as part of the inspiration for his suggestion that any loan package include incentives not only to build more fuel efficient cars but also light rail vehicles, high-speed trains, and buses.
Of course, for this to work, one has to assume there will be someone to buy these buses and trains, which is where a story in the Times business section earlier this week is apropos. A November 12 article by John Tagliabue notes growing American demand for European rail vehicles as U.S. cities rediscover the attractions of the streetcar and as states and multi-state regions pursue high-speed intercity rail. American contracts, the article maintains, have helped European transit technology companies weather slumping demand closer to home. But of course this fledgling U .S. demand also threatens to go into a slump, as the economic downturn makes it harder for American cities and states to contemplate major transit investments.
This seems like an excellent time to get two different aspects of any proposed economic stimulus program pulling in the same direction--or rather to reinforce any push for Detroit to build buses and trains with a federal program of infrastructure investment that includes drastically expanded funding to help cities and metropolitan regions, and states build bus and train systems. Sounds like the very sort of 21st century job-creation-through-green-industry-and-new-infrastructure President-Elect Obama touted during his campaign, with the opportunity to "end our dependence on foreign oil" thrown in for good measure.
Could this become a centerpiece of the Obama administration's early efforts at change we can believe in? Let's hope the answer is: yes it could.
TransitMadCitizen
Post a Comment
State Journal takes the wrong route in bus debate
Mayor Dave's proposed 50-cent Metro fare increase is a bad idea. But the most disappointing thing about Tuesday's Wisconsin State Journal editorial supporting it was not that support as such but the narrow and simplistic way the article pitted “bus users” against “taxpayers.”
Never mind that bus users are also taxpayers. The larger point is that Madison taxpayers are “users” of the bus system whether they ride the bus or not. They are transit users by virtue of having extra road and parking space courtesy of those who ride instead of driving. They are transit users by virtue of having the bus available as an emergency fallback, even if the need never arises. And ultimately, whether they live near a bus route or not, they are transit users by virtue of the business activity and economic development that low-cost city-wide mobility and access by workers and customers helps make possible—activity that keeps the tax base expanding, thereby reducing the tax burden for all.
A 2006 WisDOT study that identified $3 in economic return to the community for every $1 spent on transit, also found that this rate of return increases as transit spending rises. That suggests the folly of constant hand-wringing about “subsidies” to a Metro system that provides a vital public service and to Metro customers who are in fact doing all of us a favor by riding the bus.
Barack Obama for President
Neither of the two major candidates has had a lot to say about transportation or urban issues. But to the extent that either has, Barack Obama has clearly shown greater depth of thought and insight on these critical matters. In addition to highlighting infrastructure investments as a pressing national concern, he has specifically supported funding for Amtrak, investments in transit (and incentives for transit use), and smart growth as key points in his transportation agenda. It can't hurt to have a Vice President who commutes several times a week by train, either.
John McCain has almost made killing Amtrak, seemingly for the sheer thrill of watching it die, a touchstone of his political career. That, along with a pandering gas tax holiday proposal, cries of "drill. baby, drill!" and virtual silence on transit and urban issues suggest the kind of disaster that awaits American transportation policy if we elect McCain/Palin.
With rising gas prices generating new needs and demand for transit, with the fiscal crises facing federal and state transportation programs, and with global climate change lending a fierce urgency to finding alternatives to our auto-centric economy and culture, it's disappointing that Sen. Obama's transportation ideas have been relegated to "other issues." I hope that, if Sen. Obama wins on Tuesday, transportation issues will find their way up closer to the top of his new administration's agenda. Circumstances and events are likely to force that in any case, but the next administration will need to be aggressively proactive. Certainly the tone and tenor of Sen. Obama's campaign in general give reason to hope that that a President Obama will take a focused and intellectually serious approach to transportation for America.
Read a summary by the Brookings Institution of the two candidates' stands on transportation.