THE STUMP APRIL 30, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
My apologies for the lack of posts today – spent the day at a terrific policy seminar far from the madding crowd (did Obama say something about Romney and bin Laden?) Posting may also be light in the next few days as I dig into reporting a feature piece. But seeing that as I am now riding good old Amtrak, I figured that would be a good occasion to …announce a run for president! No, just kidding, I will leave that for this guy (and in fact, this actual possible candidate is also on this train.) Rather, I am inspired by the relative celerity of the Acela to raise a point I’ve been mulling over the past week or so: why aren’t more Democratic candidates making an issue of transportation and infrastructure?
Think about it: Republican elected officials around the country have been making a sport of canceling or imperiling transportation projects, and most specifically mass transit ones, that could do a great deal of good for their constituents. First it was the governors of Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida rejecting federal funding for passenger rail projects in their states (for the record, the argument for the Ohio and Wisconsin projects was, as far as I can tell, stronger than for the Tampa-Orlando high speed line that Gov. Rick Scott rejected. But I know plenty of Floridians would disagree.) Then it was New Jersey’s Chris Christie pulling the plug on the new rail tunnel under the Hudson to relieve severe overcrowding on the existing ones – a move that, it has recently emerged, was premised on distorted data. More recently, there is Virginia’s Bob McDonnell, who has shown a distinct lack of interest in providing the money needed to see home the Washington Metro line to Dulles Airport, a 23-mile extension that is also being threatened by the new, all-Republican board of Loudoun County, Virginia, where the line is supposed to terminate. The board is upset not only about Loudoun’s share of the costs but about union-friendly terms in the bidding process. At the very least, the completion of the $5.6 billion project, the first half of which is to be done next year, will be seriously delayed as a result.
Finally, there's Mitt Romney, who was a major smart-growth advocate in Massachusetts, but is now saying, as part of his presidential stump speech, that he is going to eliminate federal funding for Amtrak.
The three governors who rejected the rail funding for their states in 2011 were making plain during their runs for office that they were none too keen on the projects. But as far as I can recall, McDonnell was not making the possible demise of Dulles rail part of his package when he ran in 2009, nor was Christie making it clear he would axe the tunnel. Nor can I recall their Democratic opponents, Jon Corzine and Creigh Deeds, warning New Jersey and Northern Virginia voters that electing a tax-slashing Republican was going to threaten the completion of long-in-the-works projects that could be transformative for their region. The question, is why haven’t Democrats been making an issue out of these things? Granted, mass transit is way down on the list of most voters’ priorities – way down there around climate change. And many transit and smart-growth advocates are reluctant to make these sorts of projects into a political issue – they still pine for the day when intelligent planning and solid infrastructure were seen as nonpartisan, Eisenhowerian things that sensible people could agree on. But those days are past. The more Republicans are making a political issue of these projects, the more people who believe in them will need to do the same – to reach out to the voters who do care about these investments and make clear to them that if they elect the other guy, odds are the projects won’t happen.
And interestingly enough, at least one candidate now seems to be taking this tack: Tim Kaine, the former Virginia governor and DNC chairman, is talking up the survival of Dulles Rail in his Senate run against George Allen. At a recent gathering of the Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce, he praised Allen for helping secure funding for the project during his previous stint in the Senate, before rail became anathema, while decrying the “anti-investment, anti-infrastructure mentality that has crept into politics.”
Now, if he or anyone else could just do something about the dead patches on the Amtrak’s wireless connection. I’m with ya on that one, Tom. Though, to be fair, I’m in a good enough patch right now that I apparently can put up this post. So credit where it’s due.
6 comments
If we are going back to the 18th and early 19th century, as the teabaggers appear to have as their longer-term objective, isn't all this modern "infrastructure" stuff just a big government boondoggle that started with Teddy Roosevelt? Typical of Democrat big spenders to want something ridiculous like a metro rail connection between the nation's capital and its largest international airport. Where do these guys think they are -- London?
- ironyroad
April 30, 2012 at 9:13pm
As far as I can tell, it's because Obama's cabinet has a fair sprinkling of Supply-Side economic thinkers. And to them, balancing the budget has priority over any "pie-in-the-sky" Keynesian Socialist Transportation projects. Therefore their support for these sorts of things are luke-warm. It's hard to crow about Conservatives shooting themselves in the foot over refusing Transportation projects, when you're luke-warm about them yourself. Not to mention, Transportation has already gotten a lot of emphasis. There's road projects all over the place, putting people to work. And we really don't need high-speed rail, we've got airplanes for that. Having said that, for local people, that their Governors refused all these Federal dollars, then turned around and cut taxes for Corporation, then cut services to pay for it all, would be excellent issues for state elections, and House and Senate runs. But the President has bigger fish to fry in terms of the economy taxes and health-care and education support.
- AllanL5
April 30, 2012 at 10:50pm
I hope this isn't too off topic, but this also bears on the taxation issue, in this case, Apple's impact on education (not good) - trying to avoid taxation is essentially gutting the public education system in California; this is combined with the exploitation of rich states which have (through taxation) developed infrastructure and human capital, by poor states which have no infrastructure or human capital but also have low taxes - cf California/Nevada - and, don't we see this also with states like Texas bragging about job creation? But it all comes at the expense of other states! Nothing new is really being created. Lack of focus on transportation strikes me as being similar in that avoidance of taxes and investment in public infrastructure and of course, people, is also going to backfire - apparently The Job Creators can't see the dire effects their policies will have on the average person, the environment and people in the future - what surprises me is that they don't apparently factor in the probability that their own profits will suffer down the line: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-newfield/apples-attack-on-the-knowledge-economy_b_1463821.html?ref=san-francisco&ir=San%20Francisco
- Sophia
April 30, 2012 at 11:10pm
Aaron, the difference between rail and airplanes is that trains can leave from the downtown area and they can stop along the way. I concede that it needs a certain density of population but there's no reason the Acela couldn't be faster and more efficient than it is, and there are some obvious plusses to rail connections for similar clusters of cities less than 300 mil apart. If you factor in delays, fuel, getting to and from the airport, and other costs of air travel, then rail can be more efficient in certain contexts.
- ironyroad
May 1, 2012 at 1:39am
Sorry, not Aaron, Allan.
- ironyroad
May 1, 2012 at 1:40am
Irony correctly argues that rail encourages density, which has so many benefits. It is amazing how our politics has become so small-bore. There's little vision, little optimism about the future. The Republicans, originally the captives of the railroad interests, today fanatically defends suburban sprawl. We used to aim for the Moon!
- amidut
May 1, 2012 at 9:52am