This article in Salon looks at the Tea Parties attempts to defund mass transit as a new front in the culture wars:

 

The Tea Parties War on Mass Transit

 

 

"Defunding transit is how you smack down urbanites, environmentalists, and people of color, all in one fell swoop. It’s how you telegraph a disdain for all things European. It’s how you show solidarity with swing-state suburbanites who don’t understand why their taxes are going toward subways they don’t even use. And it’s how you subtly reassure your base that you’re not concerned about the very poor."

 

 

Sad, but there's a least a good deal of truth to it.

 

If they were cutting funding for mass transit and highways alike in the name of cutting into the deficit, I could understand, though it would make me uneasy.

 

The continued lavishness on economically-inefficient highways coupled with the widescale defunding of transit projects, though, tells a different story.

Already posted the Salon article in two threads -- Cincinnati streetcar and Rethinking Transport in the USA.

 

Salon -- isn't that a suburb on the east side of Cleveland?

4 Reasons Conservatives Hate Public Transit

by Earth Island Journal

April 8, 2012

3:00 pm

 

Written by Jason Mark

 

Once upon a time — in a political environment that seems otherwordly compared to what we have in the United States today — the federal transportation bill was a bi-partisan endeavor. Now things are different. Congress went into spring recess last week and once again left hanging a reauthorization of the transportation bill, which expired two and a half years ago. Congress was just barely able to approve a temporary, 90-day extension of the lapsed law so that current infrastructure projects can keep moving along.

 

Why the impasse on something that usually wins consensus? It comes down, in part, to a disagreement over how (or even whether) the federal government should fund mass transit programs.

 

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.care2.com/causes/4-reasons-conservatives-hate-public-transit.html?page=4

It’s a trade union thing.

 

The transportation bill has been popular in the past because it’s a surefire way of creating jobs. There’s just one hitch — when it comes to mass transit, many of those jobs are unionized. And of course Republicans don’t like unions.

 

In an editorial last year, the conservative Investor’s Business Daily slammed the Obama administration’s high speed rail plan as just a payoff for its union backers — and therefore something to oppose. “So who could possibly benefit from such a boondoggle? Unions, along with the politicians they vote for — in this case Obama and California Democrats, who’ll be able to trade construction jobs and other union sop for votes.”

 

Republican opposition to mass transit, then, is just old-fashioned power politics: The friend of my enemy is my enemy. I can’t say this is as innocent as the rural-urban constituent divide. Not when high speed rail investment is so clearly in the nation’s interest — a way to boost the economy, decrease our reliance on oil imports, and keep America competitive in the twenty-first century.

 

But, all Heavy-Highway projects are constructed by unionized contractors....

Most of 'em probably don't know that since they refuse to learn how the government works because it is "bad".

 

Well, the Tea Party phenomenon is dying off anyway. They're all going to vote Republican anyway, so the Republicans have just absorbed them back in. Fox News has backed off on the Tea Party stuff too since it wasn't good for ratings. Republicans, as politicians, love to spend money just as much as the Dems and have a lot more money as an organization than the Tea Party did.

It’s a trade union thing.

 

The transportation bill has been popular in the past because it’s a surefire way of creating jobs. There’s just one hitch — when it comes to mass transit, many of those jobs are unionized. And of course Republicans don’t like unions.

 

In an editorial last year, the conservative Investor’s Business Daily slammed the Obama administration’s high speed rail plan as just a payoff for its union backers — and therefore something to oppose. “So who could possibly benefit from such a boondoggle? Unions, along with the politicians they vote for — in this case Obama and California Democrats, who’ll be able to trade construction jobs and other union sop for votes.”

 

Republican opposition to mass transit, then, is just old-fashioned power politics: The friend of my enemy is my enemy. I can’t say this is as innocent as the rural-urban constituent divide. Not when high speed rail investment is so clearly in the nation’s interest — a way to boost the economy, decrease our reliance on oil imports, and keep America competitive in the twenty-first century.

 

But, all Heavy-Highway projects are constructed by unionized contractors....

 

I don't think the actual union construction is the target so much as the union transit workers who's long term salary & benefits crush the budgets of state & local municipalities

State Highway Patrolmen

 

traffic cops

 

snowplow drivers

 

highway maintenance crews

 

paid EMS

 

all union

Fox News has backed off on the Tea Party stuff too since it wasn't good for ratings.

 

I don't think it was an issue of ratings. I think it was an issue of political influence. Fox realized it had created an uncontrollable monster. If they had pushed the movement further, they ran the risk of a third-party movement, effectively fracturing the Republican party in two. A fractured Republican party would result in a massive weakening of Fox's influence over government policy.

Ratings is the reason Fox themselves cited, but I'm sure there were other factors at play as you state.

State Highway Patrolmen

 

traffic cops

 

snowplow drivers

 

highway maintenance crews

 

paid EMS

 

all union

 

What's your point?  Are you arguing that these would somehow go away or be reduced if Ohio & others created new state jobs for transit?

 

Can't speak for him, but it seems that if conservatives are worried about "crushing" obligations caused by transit workers, they would be attacking the road/highway-related workers who are unionized and no doubt outnumber mass transit workers by a significant factor. 

^Actually the push for "public-private partnerships" is partly to avoid high union wages, but then excess toll revenues go to shareholders. Those shares will not be public, but rather in the hands of Republican cronies. 

Can't speak for him, but it seems that if conservatives are worried about "crushing" obligations caused by transit workers, they would be attacking the road/highway-related workers who are unionized and no doubt outnumber mass transit workers by a significant factor. 

 

Union construction workers pay for their own pension & benefits through dues, they aren't subsidized by the government.  Public employee unions, like transit workers, police, firemen, etc have their pension & benefits paid in part or in full by the local/state government.

 

Run the numbers sometime when you have a moment: local AFSCME worker pays 10% toward pension, govt contributes at least 14%.  Worker puts in 25-30 yrs & gets benefits & pension payments, adjusted for inflation, for another 25-30 yrs.  The difference in real dollar value between this scenario and a union construction laborer/equipment operator pension is enormous.

^but none of the examples given by GCrites were construction workers...they were all public employees supporting roadways to one extent or another.

exactly.  And that goes back to my original comment in reply #7 about the unsustainability of crushing pension/benefit obligations to public employee unions

^I guess that means we then go back to jdm00's post (who was trying to interpret GCrites post that you were questioning (boy this is getting complicated))....if conservative are worried about the "crushing" obligations caused by transit workers they should also attack the "roadway" public workers (listed by GCrites) who are unionized and "allegedly" (I personally have no idea) out number transit workers by a significant factor.  WOW....that was like algebra.

The tea party has no real issue with public transport but rather with President Obama and everything he supports. A fringe, hate-inspired group no better than the Klan or Black Panthers, though with a bit more political sway. When Obama's no longer president in 2016, they too will slink away, with the occasional harder liner here and there. And their various wars will also disappear since the target of their venom will no longer be in office.

 

 

^nice history lesson...  you get that straight from Obama himself?

 

Let me try: Tea Party factions sprang up as a result of the bank bailouts, stimulus & healthcare mandate.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

^nice history lesson...  you get that straight from Obama himself?

 

Let me try: Tea Party factions sprang up as a result of the bank bailouts, stimulus & healthcare mandate.

The Tea Party didn't spring up till after the bank bailouts and Obama's stimulus package (a follow up to Bush's stimulus) were already passed. So you're mostly correct, but I have a feeling they'd have sprung up no matter what the president did, they're more upset about the president being elected then they are about anything he did.

 

In reality, the Tea Party will die down significantly if Obama loses the election, it's hard to get people riled up when your guy is in office (Hence the reason Occupy took so long to get off the ground and to rile up liberals.) On the other hand if Obama is reelected, that might hurt the tea party a little bit too, because the loss will make some of the less dedicated feel hopeless.

 

As far as mass transit, I'm still reminded of the tea party rally in DC a couple years ago where the tea partiers were complaining about the overcrowding on the metro on the way to the rally. Delicious Irony.

As far as mass transit, I'm still reminded of the tea party rally in DC a couple years ago where the tea partiers were complaining about the overcrowding on the metro on the way to the rally.

 

There ya go, proof from Keith that Tea Partiers don't hate mass transit

The tea party has no real issue with public transport but rather with President Obama and everything he supports.

 

This has more truth than what a lot of people want to believe.  The President needs to learn the art of reverse psychology.  If he comes out tomorrow and declares HSR to be a 'boondoggle' and announces a plan to build mass highways, then maybe those who oppose HSR would have reason to learn of its benefits.

There ya go, proof from Keith that Tea Partiers don't hate mass transit

 

They just hate having to pay for things whether they use it or not.

The tea party has no real issue with public transport but rather with President Obama and everything he supports.

 

This has more truth than what a lot of people want to believe.  The President needs to learn the art of reverse psychology.  If he comes out tomorrow and declares HSR to be a 'boondoggle' and announces a plan to build mass highways, then maybe those who oppose HSR would have reason to learn of its benefits.

 

BRILLIANT!!!  :-D

There ya go, proof from Keith that Tea Partiers don't hate mass transit

 

They just hate having to pay for things whether they use it or not.

 

That's right! Keep your stinking government hands off my public transit! Errr...what??

While I agree that funding transit should be a priority, the article was so one-sided and short on facts, I'm surprised KJP bothered to link it. 

 

What percentage of Americans even have access to mass transit?

Frankly Hts, that's actually an interesting theory. I wonder if it could play out realistically. 

 

I guess the closest (and it's not a great one) example to that is with Obama's military intervention in Libya, and the tea baggers moaning every step of the way, resulting in a relatively quick and painless mission.....

 

Eh, as i'm writing this i see the example doesn't work. But still, consisting how simple minded so many of these tea baggers behave,  i could see some political manipulation with encouraging highway transport resulting in their changing their tune.

 

 

Frankly Hts, that's actually an interesting theory. I wonder if it could play out realistically. 

 

Exhibit A - the individual mandate.  I rest my case.

>What percentage of Americans even have access to mass transit?

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the small portion of the federal gasoline tax that goes to public transportation in part pays for rural point-to-point taxi service for the handicapped and old people.  In Cincinnati it's Metro's "Access" service. 

While I agree that funding transit should be a priority, the article was so one-sided and short on facts, I'm surprised KJP bothered to link it. 

 

Sure it's one-sided. Did you see the source of the article? Published by the Tree-Hugger Times. But it sure created some discussion, and probably caused some to think about the issue.

 

What percentage of Americans even have access to mass transit?

 

Fewer than 50 percent of U.S. households have a transit route within 1,000 feet, according to "Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal" by Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/weyrich_does_transit_work.pdf

 

The authors (Lind lives in Greater Cleveland, Weyrich passed away a few years ago) point out that this is a deceiving figure as far fewer people have "transit competitive" service available such as a very frequent and fast bus service or rail transit line. So if there is a cosmetic route with hourly service (or less) whose limited purpose is to serve the transit-dependent, that is not a service capable of competing with the car for travelers of choice.

 

Now what kind of transit systems would we have if people paid $6,000 to $8,000 a year (the same as what Americans pay to own and drive cars)? Of course that's a false choice, but what if you could split up your transportation costs among driving (such as making them a variable cost with a car-sharing service) and transit (such as increasing the amount we invest in our transit systems)? Consider that the average Cuyahoga County resident spends no less than $125 per year on public transit ($150 million from RTA's countywide sales tax/1.2 million residents). For those who are regular riders, add in one year's worth of monthly RTA passes for $1,020, or $1,145 total.

 

Imagine how extensive the transit system would be if we increased the average Cuyahoga County resident's contribution to the transit system to $3,500 per year. What would the system look like? How would Cuyahoga County change? Would enough people use the system so they could reduce their annual car use costs by at least half?

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/steve-hiniker-mass-transit-a-partisan-topic-but-it-shouldn/article_84c6a06b-fa78-557e-9698-a4c22961de40.html

>What percentage of Americans even have access to mass transit?

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the small portion of the federal gasoline tax that goes to public transportation in part pays for rural point-to-point taxi service for the handicapped and old people.  In Cincinnati it's Metro's "Access" service. 

 

In the semi-rural area where I attended high school, there's a van that picks up disabled kids from the trailer park across the road from our farm and takes them back and forth to school. They can't access a regular school bus. Elderly people can call the bus and have it take them to the store. Tea Partiers probably love it since it keeps the exurbs moving, has tires and shows up when you call it. They probably don't know or care that it's very expensive per rider since it uses "paid for" roads. Nonetheless, it's quite necessary for the built landscape we've created.

In transit parlance, that van is called a demand-response service. Ultra-conservatives tend to love it because it doesn't require much infrastructure more than what already exists for private cars. It has the perception of being cost-effective. But it's not......

 

This Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority data is a bit dated, but probably hasn't changed dramatically since 2004. Keep in mind GCRTA's rail system is used much less than other comparable rail systems around the nation.

 

Operating expense per passenger-mile (the travel industry standard for measuring vehicular usage):

 

Heavy Rail (Red Line) -- $0.42

Light Rail (Blue/Green lines) -- $0.72

Fixed route bus -- $0.92

Demand response -- $8.68

 

Operating expense per unlinked passenger trip (ie: if you take the cost of operating a given bus or train and divided it among the average number of people riding that bus or train each day, this is what you get):

 

Heavy Rail (Red Line) -- $3.18

Fixed route bus -- $3.48

Light Rail (Blue/Green lines) -- $4.26

Demand response -- $47.20

 

So even a lightly used rail system performs better than buses, according to most indicators. But the real financial killer is demand response.