Good times, bad times for public transit

These are good and bad times for public transportation. More and more people are taking public transit, but budgets, which include revenue from sales taxes, are actually shrinking, according to the LA Times. On a personal note, I liked this article because it quotes a friend of mine:

"You're only postponing the day of reckoning in terms of generating more revenue for these programs," said Deron Lovaas, federal transportation policy director for the National Resources Defense Council.

Note to the LA Times: it's the NATURAL Resources Defense Council, not NATIONAL Resources Defense Council. It's an easy mistake, but come on, you're an allegedly world-class newspaper. I know Deron from living in DC back in the early '90's. I am also eternally in his debt because he once got me a free ticket to see the Rolling Stones, which was extraordinarily cool.

OTOH, TPM reports that there is good news for public transportation in the stimulus package. One of the drivers of this in the House is Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). I always note his success because he used to be my representative. He's a good guy.

I expect public transportation to do well under Obama. It's one of those things that Republicans love to attack, because they like to pretend that it benefits urban populations, i.e. people who don't vote Republican, while it doesn't do much for voters in rural areas. Of course, more and more people are living in urban areas, so it's not a great argument in terms of future demographics.

One reason I expect public transportation to do well under Obama is that there are lots of state and local governments who have been pushing for more investment and innovation in public transporation for a long time, and I think a fair amount of that is going to start paying off in the next four to eight year. Two light rail lines are set to open in LA in the next two years.

Optimism about light rail in LA

The MTA, aka the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the primary transporation agency for LA County (but far from the only one) is in the middle of some serious long-range planning. I've been following this with half an ear; I know it's going on, but I haven't followed in great detail. The one part that I am very aware of is plans for building a subway under Wilshire, continuing the purple line from downtown out to Santa Monica. I live about 4 blocks from the purple line, but I live near the second-to-last stop. It really needs to be built out all the way to Santa Monica. That would alleviate a lot of traffic. Unfortunately, it will probably cost at least $5 billion.

One problem is that there is no shortage of worthwhile public transportation projects in LA. If someone dropped $100 billion on LA for light rail, I'm sure we could find good uses for it immediately. One of the very worthwhile projects is extending the Gold Line out to Azusa. This isn't quite as economically worthwhile as the Purple Line, but it's also much less expensive; supposedly $80 million will get it started.

The LA Times has an excellent Op-Ed about this dilemma. It looks like a straightforward, traditional zero-sum issue: if one part of LA will gets the money, the other part won't get any. But the Times suggests that perhaps such pessimism is unwarranted; a bond issue is coming up in November, and hopefully there will be enough money for both projects.

I completely agree. What the Times doesn't mention is that public transportation is one of those issues where success breeds success. The more light rail there is in LA, the more people depend on it, the more people will vote to support it.

Thank goodness we have a great mayor here who believes in public transportation.

We are so desperate for more intercity rail here in CA

Calitics has a good summary of the state of intercity rail here in California. Suffice to say that we are bursting at the seams, and the immediate future doesn't look great. Also, there isn't all that much hope, as long as we have the current administrations in Sacramento and Washington.

It's a little odd that Arnold has not been better on this issue, because he has pushed hard to improve California's infrastructure. I think Arnold is the right kind of Republican at the wrong time. On social issues, he's great, but on fiscal issues like this, he is hamstrung by being part of the Republican party in this day and age. Putting money into something like intercity rail should be a no-brainer for Republicans, because it's about efficiency. Moving people by rail is by far the most efficient means of doing so. And every businessperson understands that you have to invest in your business, you have to make capital investments, to stay competitive. In the current environment, tho, Republicans simply assume that government is bad, and, if liberals are in favor of it, then that makes it even worse.

I don't like writing in those kinds of stereotypes. I don't like reducing my political opponents to caricatures. But that seems to be how the GOP is working these days.

There's an old saying in politics that people don't rebel unless they have some kind of hope. That's why Obama's message of hope is not just empty rhetoric. He won't be able to change the game until he's actually in office, but if he can get those people riding on a standing-room only train to think that maybe there is a possibility of making this all work better, then they might mobilize and act in concert with him, and with one another.

Obama on mass transit policy

I live in a city and take public transportation to work. It works well for me. It's amazing to me that mass transit actually works in a city so famous for cars, but it does. I'm fairly confident that Obama will make funding mass transit a priority. Doing more than Bush, of course, would be absurdly easy. I haven't seen specifics, but Matt Yglesias quotes Obama at length on making metro areas (as opposed to just cities) more livable, and offers a nice summation of Obama's stance on light rail etc.:

Nevertheless, the country's actually seen quite a lot in terms of light rail projects undertaken and cities trying to make themselves more bike friendly. It's at least conceivable that a relatively small change in federal policy could have a pretty big impact on decision-making at the state and local level -- as with education policy, the feds aren't really the key drivers, but they sometimes have the ability to leverage big changes with relatively small sums of money.

I also have a feeling that this is one of those areas where the public is quietly ahead of politicians, but no one knows it. The stereotype of the person who takes mass transit is someone who has no other choice, but lots of people, particularly in a city as large as LA, would love to take a bus or train, especially with gas above $4 a gallon.

This also speaks to another underappreciated advantage that Obama has. There are lots and lots and lots of groups out there dedicated to improving public transportation. They are ready and willing to jump up and get to work, making proposals, generating publicity, convincing the public that there are solutions out there. They just need the kind of attention only a President can provide.