As gas prices continue to soar, more and more people are turning to public transportation as an alternative to the gas-eating car.
Yet, in the House budget proposal, Republicans are targeting public transportation for major cuts and seeking to eliminate new high-speed rail funding. The liberal U.S. PIRG has condemned this strategy, arguing that "with gas prices shooting past $4 a gallon...we need to prioritize transportation projects that save oil, reduce traffic, and create jobs." Instead, according to the PIRG, Chairman Paul Ryan's FY 12 legislative budget proposal "goes after successful transit and rail programs with a meat ax."
While conservative think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, tend to take the Republican line and generally oppose mass transit funding, centrist policy organizations do seem to support this type of funding. Martin Wachs of the Rand Corp. has warned of the dangers of cost overruns in large mass transit projects,
but reportedly stated that the benefits of these projects outweigh the negatives.
Mark Muro of the centrist Brookings Institute has called for a "truly merit-based...federal transport program that put(s) transit and highway investments on the same footing."
The debate over public transporation, at least, doesn't appear to be a strictly Republican/Democrat one. Centrists appear to support public transit funding; but it's the Republicans who may be painting themselves into an ideological corner on this one.
Why we need CredoMatrix -- Please pledge now
David Kassel
Accountable Strategies Consulting
Dave,
ReplyDeleteNice post. It's interesting to me that cars vs. alts goes from the highest to lowest levels. In Brookline (MA) and Brooklyn (NY), the opposition to bike lanes and bike safe infrastructure is quite amazing. At the same time, of course, there are all sorts of complaints about auto traffic and a lack of parking, too.
I wonder to what extent the influence of the think tanks at the top is trickling down.