Republican Presidential Candidates' Views on Transit
I profiled the Democratic Candidates and their opinions on mass transit yesterday; here's a take on what Republicans running for the nation's Presidency think.
Fred Thompson
Thompson, actor, and former Senator from Tennessee, may or may not be at the top of the field - depends on who you ask. Nonetheless, he hasn't shown himself to be one of mass transit's major supporters. Or, at least, he hasn't shown any interest. Pretty much all I can find is that he helped support funding for studying improved transit in the Great Smoky Mountains, not exactly the place that really needs public transportation.
Mitt Romney
Though Romney was the governor of a state that relies extensively on mass transit, his website never mentions public transportation. We do know that when he was governor he never took the T and didn't know much about it, either. Some, though, say that he actually does have a good record in promoting public transit and smart growth, it's just that he's kept it hidden from the rest of us.
Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani was mayor of New York from 1993 to 2001, when he was replaced by (also-maybe-running-for-president) Michael Bloomberg. One would think, then, that he would with pride suggest that he's a support of transit. That said, he doens't mention on his website, like the others. But while mayor, Giuliani cut the budget for transit several times. Even so, after September 11, he did ask people to use public transportation, though New York City would be in crisis condition if the majority of people didn't use transit, of course.
The Democratic Presidential Candidates and Transit
Though transportation - let alone transit - is hardly the stuff that makes the major policy papers of presidential candidates, a few of the candidates have pointed out how they feel about public transport. Here's a summary:
Hillary Clinton
Senator Clinton describes how she might go about improving the country's energy situation, and she does write in a press release that "Public transit systems are under-funded and insufficiently integrated into local land use policy." Her campaign has also been endorsed by the United Transportation Workers, showing that they think that she'll be good to labor in the industry. Specifically, the candidate proposes to add $1.5 billion dollars every year for public transportation funding. While I certainly don't think this is a big enough number, it's a lot better than nothing, right? As one of New York's senators, it's perhaps unsurprising that Clinton has a positive view of transportation, and she's felt that way at least since she was running for Senate in 2000. Her husband's administration, from 1993 to 2001, by the way, was not perfect on transit, but it did provide a lot more funding for programs like the FTA's New Start than the Bush administration is now. We can assume that a second Clinton presidency would mean more money for trains and busses, at least in New York.
Barack Obama
Senator Obama has voiced his support in the past for transit improvements for his neighbors on the South Side of Chicago. And his wife was on the citizen's transit board there, too. In Washington, Obama's been a supporter of developing new fuels for automobiles, but his focus hasn't been affixed to mass transit. He hasn't written any bills that would specifically address the problems of mass transit. On his campaign webpage, he talks a lot about improving the environment and meeting energy needs, but he only mentions public transportation as a device to deal with poverty. I think most readers of this site agree that while public transportation is clearly important for the poor, it should be improved for everyone's benefit.
Like other transit systems aroundthe country, New York's is facing some budget difficulties, and it's considering raising fares. The Metropolitan Transit Authority feels that it's necessary to increase costs by between 6 and 8 percent, for bus, rail, and subway riders, in order to avert future budget problems even though the authority expects to receive a $1 billion surplus this year alone.
Of course, we've discussed the issue of fares on this site before, though in the past, we've considered whether or not free fares might make more sense than ones that actually cost money. The MTA thinks that New Yorkers need to pay up to $2.25 cents for the ride (though it looks like that increase, from $2, is more a consequence of deficiencies in the authority's machines than anything else). Lee Sander, Chairman, says the hike is necessary if we want to avoid the kind of crisis the New York Subway went through in the 70s and 80s, when basically all maintenance was simply ignored.
And of course, he's right. Most New Yorkers don't want to see their subway rot again, that's why they're so excited about the prospect for a new Second Avenue Subway and the extension of the 7 Line. And the authority isn't exactly doing a poor job in managing its existing money; the worst an auditor could come up when it investigated the spending of the agency with that the authority's museum train was losing about $10,000 a year; that's almost nothing for a huge operation like the MTA.
Nevertheless, the question we must ask ourselves is whether customers should be paying more to make sure the MTA stays healthy. Shouldn't the state and city, which benefit economically from a good transit network, be willing to pitch in more? And isn't the idea of increasing transit fees by 6-8% clearly regressive, targeting the poor rather than the rich? Considering the whole point of transit is to equalize the mobility playing field by making it cheap for everyone to get around, this cost increase seems anti-transit.
Have you ever looked closely at the beautiful Petworth Metrorail station mural? The one celebrating the morning rush hour in Washington DC?
It spans the entire street escalator landing with scenes of commuters rushing to work via public transport.
This morning I took a minute to check it out and found an interesting little detail: a red symbol on a coffee cup.
Does the mark signify a ban on all coffee, or all open coffee, or just spilled coffee in WMATA transportation facilities? There is already a ban on drinking or eating on Metrorail and Metrobus.
Or does this mean Metrorail is against coffee even in metro art?
...it's a bad idea, but it's even worse when playing it with 8 percent of all the bus service in Chicago. Unless the Illinois legislature finds more money for the CTA and RTA by Sunday, fares will rise from $2 to $2.50-3 and several bus lines will be eliminated. Can the Second City survive with a mass transit system that costs the average rider more than superior service in New York, Boston or Washington?
Observers say it won't be an issue because one side (the transit agencies or the legislature) will back down at some point this week.
After a week of the Global Social Benefit Incubator, I needed a break. I needed an escape from thinking about sustainable international development and the trains of the San Francisco Bay Area called me. A calling perfect for my transit foamer fetish.
All Aboard CalTrain
My first commuter train ride was the CalTrain from Santa Clara University to the 22nd Street Station in San Francisco, a ninety-minute ride north.
This little trip started at the Santa Clara railroad station, a cute little building run by the South Bay Historical Railroad Society as a well stocked railroad museum. Complete with a full display of signals (the museum's specialty) and a room of model railroads, I was almost sad when the train came.
But not once I was on the train itself. There I found a joe-cool two tiered seating system, with wide benches and tables on the bottom floor and single seats on a second floor. And the seats were surprisingly comfortable, plush and soft, perfect for a siesta after a six-mile run earlier.
The only downside to my journey was its length. While Caltrain was cheap ($7.50) it was not fast. We stopped at every suburb between Santa Clara and San Francisco to pick up or drop off a few plebeians, and by the outskits of San Francisco, I was ready to exit.
Still, CalTrain is way better than driving Highway 101 up the coast.
There's a nine mile subway line being constructed in Santo Domingo, D.R., as described in the NY Times article. Seems like a pretty forward looking investment for relatively poor nation, but one that due to immigration to the US seems to have a predilection for a subway line. It's an interesting contrast, although it can't quite be directly compared to, the problems the the Congo national railway system is having, at least in monetary terms. At least $470M to build the Santo Domingo subway at 9 miles. Then think about the needs of at least $600M to repair possibly 11,500 miles of the Congolese SNCC (whatever 'repair' means) along with locomotives and such...
All Site Information and Content Copyright by Live from the Third Rail and the Entry Author
Site Design by BinarySpark
Graphics A member of the Smorgasblog family of blogs.
Though transportation - let alone transit - is hardly the stuff that makes the major policy papers of presidential candidates, a few of the candidates have pointed out how they feel about public transport. Here's a summary:
Like other transit systems 
