How Not to Talk About Transit - Environment and Energy

02.07.2008

How Not to Talk About Transit

I consider myself a fairly strong supporter of investments in public transportation, yet I often feel a vague sense of discomfort at the way some on the left frame the conversation. A good example is this recent interview that Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland gave to Grist's Kate Sheppard:

I'm a big, big supporter of dramatic change in public transportation. It includes more than just the bus and rail systems in our urban areas. It includes a commuter rail and inner-city rail--the whole gamut of services that get people out of their personal vehicles. I don't want people driving their personal vehicles the way they are today. (emphasis added)

My reaction to this is what I suspect most people's reaction would be: Who the hell is Ben Cardin to tell me he doesn't want me driving? What does it matter to him? Now, look, obviously the problem here is that under current policy automobile travel is subsidized in all kinds of ways, and that eliminating these distortionary subsidies--or, if we're going to keep subsidizing transportation, finding a more neutral balance between cars and other forms of transportation--would cause some unspecified number of people to switch to public transit, or biking, or whatever. So it's literally true that under the course of action I favor, people would not be "driving their personal vehicles the way they are today."

But I think there's a big difference, both rhetorically and philosophically, between saying, "Driving is bad; we want fewer people to drive" and saying "Current policy incentives produce an amount of driving that's greater than the social optimum; we should eliminate these distortionary policies." It's not the government's job to tell you how to travel--it's the government's job to make sure the choices available to you reflect the externalities and social costs associated with them (and carbon emissions are part of the equation here, obviously). But beyond that, government ought to stay out of the way--and I think liberals would have more success if they framed the conversation this way, rather than in terms of "We want you to drive less."

--Josh Patashnik

Posted: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:25 PM with 3 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

I think there's a big difference, both rhetorically and philosophically, between saying, "Driving is bad; we want fewer people to drive" and saying "Current policy incentives produce an amount of driving that's greater than the social optimum; we should eliminate these distortionary policies."

How about saying-- to "progressives", mainly-- "Stop pissing on working families who cannot get by without driving long distances. Don't crucify them on your cross of green"?

July 3, 2008 2:39 AM

sdemuth said:

Guys - we should drive less. Cardin's choice of phrasing - starting the sentence with what he wants, rather than what we should do - is self-centered and weakens his case, but that case is right on. Let me repeat - we should drive less.

Saying this is not "pissing on working families who cannot get by without driving long distances." Yes, the adjustments required in our transportations system will hit them harder than it will the well compensated elite. That's true of any issue that gets within picking distance of your pocket book. But the notion that transportation fuel can and should be inexpensive enough to make it economically viable for a low to middle-wage earner to live 40 miles or more from their place of work, and then commute daily at 20 mpg, is a fantasy. We've enjoyed the fantasy against all reason for the last 30 years, but it's time to start talking seriously about how to build a workable system that does not rely on ever more more personal automobile mileage and roads. I'll say it again: we need to drive less.

July 3, 2008 8:54 AM

dhauck said:

Ok, so after the last conversation we had on public transportation (how more ridership is pushing PT systems further into, rather than out of, the red ink) I looked up how much tax money is supporting my local RTA. It turns out that 67% of Cleveland RTA's operating costs are paid out of a county sales tax. To put it another way, only 1/3 (!!!) of the cost of this service is being paid directly by those who actually use it. The rest is covered by the general public, many of whom are, like myself, too far outside RTA's main service area for it to be a viable transportation option. That sounds like a pretty hefty subsidy to me. And also from that previous discussion, I understand that this ratio is not outrageous for big cities.

Now, most of Cleveland's PT is via buses, which use the same roads as cars (and sometimes have their own lanes), so it's not like we're starving the PT infrastructure budget by building roads. So what, just exactly are these "distortionary subsidies" that are forcing us all away from "a more neutral balance between cars and other forms of transportation"?

I'm not against public transportation. (I am currently blowing $8.50 a day in gas for my commute, so if a bus would get me to work for less than that, and maybe 2x my car commute time, I'd take it. The real numbers, though, are 40 min vs. about 2.5 hours, each way.) But if we really want a more neutral balance, we need to remove the subsidies from *both* sides of the equation, starting by making the fares reflect the actual operating costs of the service. If you're worried about disproportionally affecting the poor, take some of that 67% and buy them bus passes. But there is no reason why increased ridership should lead to decreasing solvency, period. Nor, since this is apparently the case for PT systems nationwide, is there reason to talk about unfair subsidies for automotive travel.

July 3, 2008 1:07 PM