German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseLet’s talk politics!
I’m thrilled about the thread on Prop 91. I think it’s one of the best things we can do on this blog: discuss political matters as they relate to transit.
So I propose we take the opportunity to discuss the upcoming February election.
As mentioned, Prop 91 has direct implications on public transit. Prop 92 (which mandates spending on community colleges and restricts fees) has indirect implications (by tying up funding that might be used on other things, including transit). And Props 94-96 may generate revenues by expanding gambling, although most of these funds aren’t restricted to any programs (as far as I know).
I’m not aware of other issues on the ballot. Perhaps there are local issues someone can bring up?
And of course, there’s the little matter of the president! Does any candidate (in any party) have a very strong pro- or anti-transit platform? This issue isn’t covered much in the popular media, that’s for sure!
Last, but not least, I’d like to nag you all to register to vote by Jan 22. You can start the process online here.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
Oh this is gonna be a can of worms.
Yes, so let’s keep it civil, folks!
I guess an easy first question would be: Which Republican and which Democrat would do most for public transit, and for transportation in general? Would anyone be especially harmful?
No doubt Ron Paul would be anti-transit. Let me modify; Ron Paul would be anti-transit as currently practiced. Hillybilly or Barack would probably use transit as economic stimulus packages but be careful. Stimulus tends towards concrete pouring rather than service. Light rail replacing the Orange Line comes to mind. Lots of spending on transit but very little transit benefit.
Okay, raise your hand if a monorail to Thousand Oaks or high speed rail tunnels through the Tehachapi Mountains is going to make a difference.
I basically think that any Democrat would be generally friendly to transit due to their natural urban and lower-to-middle-class constituency. I’m supporting Obama personally because he’s an urban liberal and has a firsthand understanding of Chicago’s workings. Having said that, I’m not particularly concerned that Clinton or Edwards would be in a hurry to return to the bad old days of the 1980s.
Republicans are generally hostile to cities, seeing them as being recipients of big-ticket budget items without recognizing (or caring, really) that it’s urban centers that drive the economy. Their natural base is the far suburbs and exurbs, and they’re often beholden to their representatives from those areas who would really rather build that new highway in the cornfields rather than the Wilshire/2nd Avenue/Geary/East Cambridge rail line.
Having said that, a Democratic Congress is much more important than a Democratic president in terms of individual items of transit funding. Without the line item veto (which has been clearly held unconstitutional), it’s up to the Congressional Committees to put together a budget - they rise and fall on horse trading amidst the big ticket items, not individual “pork.” So if you really want to see things move, invite Waxman to retire to Kauai and replace him with an urban progressive.
Rob Dawg said:
I agree. I know this goes with a question I asked you in November that we never got back to (we’ll get back to it I promise), but do you think, in a city like Los Angeles, where traffic congestion and pollution are routinely cited as the biggest problems, there is a free-market incentive for a great transit system? I for one think there is, but obviously in such a hypothetical system Gold Lines to Ontario would be lost. Of course, I don’t believe a Gold Line to Ontario is necessary for a great transit system, or even a good one for that matter.
unfortunately i don’t believe any of them really have much of a big stance for public transit initiatives for it’s the last of any general person’s worries. obviously they’re not going to run on a campaign involving public transit because in all actuality it really should be state and local issue rather than a federal one. certainly it’d be nice to have a president with a strong initiative that america needs to go in the direction of new mass transit modes but if our own state holds it at such a low standard i see little hope in convincing washington to take care of us. especially since i don’t necessarily see it as their duty nor the nation’s taxpayers duty to make LA a better transit city (see boston’s “big dig”).
as for obama (disclaimer-i dont know how much he could or could not effect such things and those who can, def correct me) the CTA is on its last leg every single year with lines on and off the chopping block, rail and bus alike. meanwhile the city’s and state’s taxes increase every calendar year–bottled water being the latest to join up.
as for ron paul, i’d love to see a free market model for transit. i think it’s plausible though don’t have much hope that voters or city planners would ever allow such a thing.
I think it’s clear that tranist is not a priority for any candidate, near as I can figure. I haven’t even heard it come up in some green-grandtanding hullaballoo from either party.
I agree with Rob’s prediction that we may get lots of funding for relatively useless projects. I predict that the Tehachapi Monorail will be fully funded if it runs on ethanol.
It’s a shame that urban issues rarely get national attention, esp. when you consider the fact that this has been a majority-urban country for many years now.
Re-read the Year in Transit.
I made a recommendation to vote “schadenfreude,” in other words to elect the person you most hate in order to see them fail.
The next president is going to inherit a perfect storm, and our political systems and mechanisms are unwilling or unable to stop it. No candidate will extricate the military from the Middle East, since neither party wants to call the loss. Next, our economy will suffer anything from a prolonged stagnation (the best case scenario) to a complete collapse that reverberates throughout the world (the worst case). The political solution to this would be to direct funds to favored contributors, which only prolongs the problem. Third, Americans as a society are unprepared and unfit to deal with the impending situation. Fourth are the unknowns, what happens as a result of oil peaking and the environment degrading.
So then why would anybody want to bet on the losing horse to win? The beauty of politics, as opposed to gambling, is that you don’t have to bet on the longshot to appreciate the upside. If the next president can avoid calamity, benefits don’t just accrue to people who voted for him or her. Instead, vote on the likely outcome, a “bear market” society, and have the party in charge be disgraced by failure.
Wrote that in 2000 and saved it for 8 years?
In 2000 I hoped Bush would have understood his own limited capabilities and accepted a mediocre (at best) presidency.
An imbecile leader delegated responsibility to the most craven factions of his ideology and party, and the world has paid and will pay for generations to come.
Personally, I can’t support adding even more cynicism to politics. Nor mischief (voting for a guy you think is likely to lose against your favored candidate).
That aside, Wad, who is going to drive your Schdenfreude? (sounds like the newest model from Volkswagen!)
Back in November, in the days leading up to GRIST/NRDC’s Greenhouse Gas debates I spent some time going through all the (leading) candidate’s websites to see what they said about transportation/transit. In short, it’s not pretty.
Edwards had a lot of flowery language and no real specifics. Obama had even more flowery language and the only specific he had was fixing the inequity in how much one can write off for transit versus parking, and Clinton’s specific was spending an extra 1.5 billion a year on “urban transit.”
Don’t even get me started on the R’s.
If you want to read all of what I wrote:
My coverage of the Greenhouse Gas debate (Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich)
http://streetheatla.blogspot.com/2007/11/car-culture-not-mentioned-as-dems-talk.html
The R’s on Greenhouse Gases and Transportation
http://streetheatla.blogspot.com/2007/11/if-you-thought-ds-were-bad.html
Edwards/Obama’s plans
http://streetheatla.blogspot.com/2007/11/look-at-edwardsobama-greenhouse-gas.html
Hillary’s Plan
http://streetheatla.blogspot.com/2007/11/hillarys-gg-plan-alternative.html
Lemme guess, Huckabee will institute a tax on bicycles to subsidize gasoline? Rudy will put a highway through every national park? Ron Paul will make every road a privately owned toll road?
The president proposes a transportation plan and a budget. Congress then goes through logrolling and earmarking to make an appropriations bill. The president can then pass or veto the bill.
You know, standard operating procedure.