What’s so conservative about federal highways?

By William S. Lind

From The American Conservative:

Conservatives do not like public transportation—or so libertarians and Republican officeholders tell us. If that means we must spend hours stuck in congested traffic, so be it. Under no circumstances would conservatives ever ride public transit.

Except that we are riding it, in growing numbers......

 

http://amconmag.com/article/2010/aug/01/00023/

Tremendous. Could've used a little less of the "revisiting the 1890s" (night boats - really?). But a pretty good piece overall by Bill Lind who is a Cleveland native.

Fantastic article.  Forwarded to my uber-conservative, public transit hating father-in-law.  We go round and round on this stuff all the time so it'll be nice to hit him with this piece from the American Conservative Magazine!

The whole notion of individual travel modes being tied to political affiliation is something only highly manipulative individuals could dream up in the first place. "If we convince people that trains, ships, walking, bicycles, horses, roller skates etc. -- basically anything but a car, truck or bus -- is un-American then our sales will go through the roof"

Well in a few instances I can see why it would reasonable be politicized. For instance, most truckers live way outside of major cities in the exurbs or rural areas and tend to be conservative. They tend to feed into the whole notion (I've heard it from my dad himself - he owns a truck company) "What makes America so great is that we're so mobile and we have such a great interstate highway system". He believes trains are inefficient; they take weeks to deliver cross country and blah blah blah. I don't care if it's true or not, they obliterated and took away from inner cities when it wasn't necessary.

 

People in the inner city are more Democratic and inherently more enthusiastic about public transit because it's more viable in cities on different levels - streetcar, light rail; not just heavy rail.

 

    In the old days, presidential election results were displayed in red and blue on a map of the United States. Nebraska is a red state, and Massachusetts is a blue state.

 

  By the time of the 1992 election, GIS and digital technology had advanced to the point where the election results could be displayed by COUNTY. For the first time ever, nearly the entire country was red, and the democrates won the election!

 

  The reason of course was that the populated counties weighted the same as rural counties. By 2000, the counties were shown in shades between red and blue, and the number of votes in each county was shown in the third dimension, height. Thus, most of the country was low-rise red, leaning purple toward cities, and the urban counties were blue skyscrapers. Thus, the popular vote could be visualized by volume: the democratic vote concentrated in cities, and the republican vote spread rather thin over a much wider area.

 

    Clearly, urban voters trend democratic, and rural voters trend republican.

 

    The conclusion is that rural (and suburban) republicans own land, they drive automobiles, they own firearms and have room to use them, and they are more independent. Urban democrats are more likely to live in multi-family buildings, ride transit, do not own firearms and don't have a need for them, and are more social.  All of these conclusions are based on simple density.

 

   

I would also add that conservatives tend to favor the status quo while liberals tend to embrace change. Look back 100 years ago and see who was pushing for public highways to rein in the power of the robber baron railroads (liberals) and who was pushing to protect the railroads' position (conservatives).

 

Today it's the exact opposite, for the most part.

This is a great article - I read it a few times and have shared it with a number of friends.

 

While I think Eighth and State's comment about rural and suburban areas leaning conservative and urban areas leaning liberal is generally true, I also believe that a majority of Americans of all viewpoints hold those viewpoints based on ignorance.  This goes hand-in-hand with those conservatives who refuse at all costs the existence of global warming - simply because call themselves conservatives and that's what they're told to believe.  If everyone would apply some level of reason and perspective to each issue, instead of immediately rejecting or accepting them based upon a boilerplate conservative or boilerplate liberal filter, we'd get a hell of a lot more done.

In some regions highway funds or street-scape, road improvements benefit union construction labor heavily and from my personal experience the people most passionate about historic preservation and the environment tend to be conservatives so I think there is a lot of gray area. A lot of conservatives believe in "global warming" they just don't think it's a long term trend or that it will cause major unnatural harm to the environment.

While I think Eighth and State's comment about rural and suburban areas leaning conservative and urban areas leaning liberal is generally true, I also believe that a majority of Americans of all viewpoints hold those viewpoints based on ignorance. This goes hand-in-hand with those conservatives who refuse at all costs the existence of global warming - simply because call themselves conservatives and that's what they're told to believe. If everyone would apply some level of reason and perspective to each issue, instead of immediately rejecting or accepting them based upon a boilerplate conservative or boilerplate liberal filter, we'd get a hell of a lot more done.

 

Comments like this make me leery.  The speaker almost inevitably excludes himself from the list of those not "applying some level of reason and perspective to each issue," meaning that the message is really "why don't more people just agree with me instead of being so ignorant?"

 

In some regions highway funds or street-scape, road improvements benefit union construction labor heavily and from my personal experience the people most passionate about historic preservation and the environment tend to be conservatives so I think there is a lot of gray area. A lot of conservatives believe in "global warming" they just don't think it's a long term trend or that it will cause major unnatural harm to the environment.

 

I agree with you with respect to the elevated construction costs for union labor, and I do think that turns a lot of conservatives off, since by definition, the money is being spent inefficiently if you're paying $x million more for a project than you would have for the exact same project using market rate labor.

 

That said, most of the people I know who are passionate about historic preservation tend to be liberals, too, so I disagree with you on that point.  Historic preservation as a general rule is opposed to free market principles--it adds a layer of governmental approval (or quasi-governmental approval that in practice has official backing) requirements between an owner's desire to do something with his property and actually doing so.  It means getting permission from others who may not have your happiness or interests in mind when you want to make changes to your house, landscaping, etc.  While some conservatives may be fine with that, the trend I think is understandably more liberal than conservative.

 

That said, most of the people I know who are passionate about historic preservation tend to be liberals, too, so I disagree with you on that point.  Historic preservation as a general rule is opposed to free market principles--it adds a layer of governmental approval (or quasi-governmental approval that in practice has official backing) requirements between an owner's desire to do something with his property and actually doing so. 

 

The conservatives I know who are like that, are small-town paleoconservatives, btw. Definitely not from the suburbs and I think that makes a big difference. They also hate sprawl just as much as the urban liberal, if not more.

The historic preservation movement is an odd mix of bipartisanism.  Yes, there is a lot of wrangling from the libertarian types who scream bloody murder about property rights (while at the same time living in some rigidly planned gated subdivision).  However, the conservative types who are big backers of preservation see it as "protecting our heritage."  They're more onboard with the individual listings than neighborhood historic districts, especially for those properties protected because of their original occupants, which in most cases were rich and powerful white men.  Churches, schools, or office buildings may be examples of the power or philanthropy of such men as well.  Even in large districts with strict regulations, it's viewed in much the same way as HOA covenants, to keep out the "undesirables" and to "protect property values."  Just as many may think it hurts property values and fight a historic district designation on that basis, but that's the sort of mindset I see. 

While I think Eighth and State's comment about rural and suburban areas leaning conservative and urban areas leaning liberal is generally true, I also believe that a majority of Americans of all viewpoints hold those viewpoints based on ignorance. This goes hand-in-hand with those conservatives who refuse at all costs the existence of global warming - simply because call themselves conservatives and that's what they're told to believe. If everyone would apply some level of reason and perspective to each issue, instead of immediately rejecting or accepting them based upon a boilerplate conservative or boilerplate liberal filter, we'd get a hell of a lot more done.

 

Indeed, if the left and the right would talk about what they want to achieve, I think there is a lot more common ground than the press would lead you to believe. Since we're talking about transportation, I think a lot of people would agree that taxes should cover the cost of maintaining the highways.  But which taxes?  Tolls, vehicle registration fees, fuel surcharges -- that is where the left and right stop listening to each other or skewing the facts to please their particular agenda.  How do we get the politicians to talk to each other?  and listen, and respect opposing views, and attempt a compromise -- those are today's big problems.

The historic preservation movement is an odd mix of bipartisanism. Yes, there is a lot of wrangling from the libertarian types who scream bloody murder about property rights (while at the same time living in some rigidly planned gated subdivision).

 

Nice stereotype.  I'm one of those libertarians who screams bloody murder about property rights, and I live in the heart of a midsized city.  One of the reasons I get annoyed by the preservationists is that they encourage sprawl, due to a fairly consistent pattern of opposition to new, higher, vertical builds in "historic" districts, which are often the more desirable neighborhoods in urban cores.

 

However, the conservative types who are big backers of preservation see it as "protecting our heritage." They're more onboard with the individual listings than neighborhood historic districts, especially for those properties protected because of their original occupants, which in most cases were rich and powerful white men.

 

I guess there is some truth to this; I have less problem with a single residence or structure being designated as "historic" than entire census tracts.  That said, I'm not even sure myself if that intuition is simply because the single-structure designation obviously imposes an anti-market stricture on a much smaller area.

They're more onboard with the individual listings than neighborhood historic districts, especially for those properties protected because of their original occupants, which in most cases were rich and powerful white men.

 

Oh you mean like how every building in Society Hill has some plaque on it commemorating some rich white guy! lol

Even in urban historic districts they put the richer white history in aspic and erase the poor black/immigrant history that came after it. Even in Over-the-Rhine people want to restore it to to it's original German past. I see what you're saying but it does sound like you're stereotyping a bit much.

^In the old days, it was very hard for people other than whites to make much of an impact.

I'm not here to bash whitey, just saying that whenever I see fully-restored historic districts, there seems to be very little indication that non-whites ever lived there unless it's Harlem or something like that. Jjak singled out Libertarians for promoting single historic markers of prominent white men as opposed to census tracts and I don't think they're any more biased, personally. Maybe I'm wrong; I really don't feel like getting into an argument over it.

The American Conservative is the only publication that actually speaks for American conservatism rightly understood.

 

The Aug 1, 2010 issue has several other noteworthy urbanist articles but they are only available online if you pay.  Your nearest bookstore should have a copy though.

 

Here's a list of the articles:

 

The Case for Rail   

For half a century, Washington has subsidized road socialism and stranded us all.

 

William S. Lind: What’s so conservative about federal highways?

 

Glen Bottoms: Keeping costs under control

 

Christopher B. Leinberger: Private development can fund public infrastructure.

 

John Norquist: Why cities still matter

 

John Robert Smith: Saving downtowns

 

 

 

An added bonus, for those of us who are antiwar, is the cover which has little to do with urbanism:

As further proof that The American Conservative knows what is up, here's a thoughtful 2004 endorsement of John Kerry for president: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/nov/08/00008/

Or as Reid Buckley wrote in January 2009:

 

• When last did you hear a conservative spokesman deplore yet another six-lane highway, yet another fast-food alley, yet another graceless subdivision, yet another Super Wal-Mart or Lowe’s that sucks the life out of small village businesses, yet one more onslaught against neighborhood and nature that is masked under the name of progress? Unless it is a bridge in Alaska from nowhere to nowhere, you will not hear the deepest red-dyed congressman denounce the progressive uglification of our natural inheritance, as though beauty is of no concern. Have you flown recently from Newport News to Boston at 25,000 feet on a clear day and gazed down upon the horror of American civilization? What man hath wrought! What we have done to this beautiful land? Dear God, forgive us! But when last did you hear a conservative oppose a new mall because it is ugly, an affront to the eye, accustoming thousands of human beings to dehumanizing blows against the aesthetic sense until it is benumbed? The good, the true, and the beautiful are inseparably joined. One cannot damage one without doing harm to the others. Those who fail to comprehend this are morally in error on the dialectical front, though they may be personally virtuous.
   
  Not all development is bad, not all logging is reprehensible, and some eyesores cannot be avoided. Industrialization, which provides surcease from want, can neither be stopped nor should it be. But within the hysteria and exaggeration of political activists, mostly of the Left, too often supported by cooked science, there is often a kernel of legitimate concern, be it economical, sociological, aesthetic, or environmental. We conservatives have shut our ears.
  
• 
  

 

GAO Report: Taxpayers Foot More of Bill for Highway Maintenance

 

Full report at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11134.pdf

Posted that a couple weeks ago but I can't remember where. It resulted in this press release from All Aboard Ohio......

 

 

http://allaboardohio.org/2011/03/02/federal-report-transportation-free-market-is-side-tracked/

 

Federal report: transportation free-market is side-tracked

Private-sector tax credits for rails will create jobs, cut costs, restore efficiency

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — March 2, 2011

 

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

All Aboard Ohio Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

CLEVELAND – The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan research body, released an insightful report showing that greater use of fuel-efficient rail and water transportation modes is discouraged by government policies that favor less-fuel efficient trucking.

 

The report, “Surface Freight Transportation: A Comparison of the Costs of Road, Rail, and Waterways Freight Shipments That Are Not Passed on to Consumers” is timely because the U.S. Congress and the Ohio General Assembly are now debating their respective multi-year transportation budgets. The GAO report says:

 

“If government policy gives one mode a cost advantage over another, by, for example, not recouping all the costs of that mode's use of infrastructure, then shipping prices and customers’ use of freight modes can be distorted, reducing the overall efficiency of the nation’s economy.”

 

One fact was most troubling: “GAO estimates that freight trucking costs that were not passed on to consumers were at least 6 times greater than rail costs.”

 

The 67-page report, including a highlights page, is available at:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-134

 

GAO suggested “policy changes that align prices with marginal costs on a shipment-by-shipment basis would provide the greatest economic benefit” or “charging user fees based on average costs, subsidizing more efficient alternatives, or broadly applying safety or emissions regulations – can change the overall distribution of freight across modes.”

 

All Aboard Ohio testified Feb. 19 at a U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee field hearing in Columbus that the upcoming renewal of the federal surface transportation law should include tax credits for railroad capital investments (including federally mandated Positive Train Control installations on railroad-owned properties) and for right-of-way operating costs that their trucking competitors do not pay on government-owned highways:

• Dispatching and traffic management;

• Liability insurance;

• Policing and security;

• Public-benefit costs (eg: corridor preservation, hosting passenger rail).

 

Tax credits will accelerate transportation project delivery, reduce government bureaucracy and increase private-sector investment in transportation projects. All Aboard Ohio’s testimony and a summary is available at:

http://tinyurl.com/4tr83gt

 

“All Aboard Ohio is concerned about public policies that affect freight rail because a healthy freight rail system that is able to compete for high-value, time-sensitive cargo is more compatible with fast passenger rail services,” said All Aboard Ohio President Bill Hutchison. “Indeed, before all levels of government got involved in building, owning and subsidizing highways, time-sensitive freight and passenger services coexisted on the same tracks – sometimes on the same trains – to a far greater extent than today.

 

“It’s long overdue to reintroduce the free market to our nation’s transportation system for the benefit of consumers who are hurting from rising costs of food, fuel and finished goods. The federal surface transportation law renewal is a great time to do this,” Hutchison concluded.

 

END

Some interesting commentary re: inter city rail on the Ron Paul/Libertarian forums:

 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285290-Intercity-Passenger-Rail