Does Public Rail Transit In Lower Density Cities Fall along a Left/Right political divide? (metro, suburban)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everyone in NYC or Chicago can agree the subway and L there is a good thing, because they're dense.
But what about in sprawling, suburban areas and lower density metros? For example, light rail in Austin, Orange County California, Phoenix, DFW, Atlanta, Nashville?
Would you say that in these cities, the conservatives strongly oppose public rail transit while progressives support it?
I'd say that support for public rail transit strongly falls on a left right divide. It's almost always the Republicans who oppose said rail transit and almost always the Democrats who support the project. It's almost always the Republicans and some conservative independents and Libertarians who are the NIMBYs.
Public transit undermines the logic of suburban flight as it undermines the carefully built dividing line between 'the city' which people fled from and the 'safe suburbs' to which people fled. In many ways, the public transit debate is a suburban debate and more about what type of suburban landscape you want. People who want to live in SFHs and want to ideally minimize contacts with strangers will be hostile to public transit, those who like higher density building and have more desire to enjoy 'out and about' amenities will be pro public transit. I think the former *trend* Republican just like the latter *trend* Democratic, but it's not a 100% correlation by any means.
Everyone in NYC or Chicago can agree the subway and L there is a good thing, because they're dense.
But what about in sprawling, suburban areas and lower density metros? For example, light rail in Austin, Orange County California, Phoenix, DFW, Atlanta, Nashville?
Would you say that in these cities, the conservatives strongly oppose public rail transit while progressives support it?
I'd say that support for public rail transit strongly falls on a left right divide. It's almost always the Republicans who oppose said rail transit and almost always the Democrats who support the project. It's almost always the Republicans and some conservative independents and Libertarians who are the NIMBYs.
I think mass transit support generally falls on a left/right divide (it’s essentially a subsidized public service), but not entirely. There are plenty of conservative transit supporters. Specific projects are a different story. I don’t think they fall on a left/right divide. Like most local politics, national party tropes take a back seat to very specific local issues. I’ve seen plenty of liberals in full NIMBY mode if a station is too close to them and will bring “undesirables” and “too much noise.” I’ve also seen plenty of conservatives in full support of a rail project that enables them to get to work faster. So nationally, yes, there’s a divide. Locally, individual interests often have people breaking from national trends.
Every single NIMBY in Boston Ive seen at meetings to protest public transportation projects and building proposals are extremely conservative. Usually chant the traditional "Its my god given right to _____ in ______!"
In Houston the rail fell into a "special interest" divide between the suburbs and the city. The Congressman at the time (John Culberson) was a far right representative, and his district included both urban and suburban areas, but primarily suburban along the I-10 corridor to Katy TX. He opposed the rail in the urban portion of his district (Houston, Richmond avenue rail) because of what he called "strong public opposition" to its effects and "loss of business" along the corridor even though there was nearly unanimous agreement of support among the homeowners and neighborhood associations along the line. He opposed it so strongly that he had a Bill passed in Congress to expressly forbid any federal money going to any rail along Richmond Avenue (just Richmond). And, in public he continually lied or denied that there was actually overwhelming neighborhood support in the city FOR the rail (a single neighborhood opposed, even though the rail only affected the median strip on Richmond as it passed through). After redistricting, the new R representative had initially opposed the rail (due to Culberson's prior opposition) but quickly changed it to support once he realized that Culberson had been lying about scale of the opposition.
Yet, Culberson wasn't opposed to spending federal money and highly supported the multi-billion dollar expansion of I-10 to Katy, or concerned that it displaced over 1000 existing businesses, ran billions over budget, added millions of cars without reducing commuter time in rush hour - mainly because it also fueled an explosive growth of Katy (which had been protected wetlands, but was where he lived and did business) without substantially changing or improving the urban part of his district (Houston).
The rail funding, had it occurred, would have impacted only a few storefronts, no major businesses, would not have displaced more than a handful of homes, and would have cost about less than 10% of the cost of I-10 expansion. If Culbersons opposition had been ideological, he would have opposed all rail funding but he did not - only funding on the part of Richmond Avenue in his district, which essentially killed what was proposed to be the 2nd most important rail corridor in the system.
Last edited by RocketSci; 06-13-2020 at 08:16 AM..
I should recast my vote after reading lrfox's comment, with which I agree.
The line of cleavage over rail transit depends more on one's views on what the American urban landscape should look like than on one's political leanings or ideology.
Those who prefer (or defend) the highly autocentric, not-terribly-walkable, SFR-and-strip-mall-dominated suburban development pattern that has largely reigned since the end of the Second World War tend to be rail transit skeptics or critics, whether left or right. Those who prefer the more walkable, small-townish/railroad-suburb model that ruled before this era tend to support rail transit, again, whether left or right.
The defenders tend to skew conservative and the urbanophiles tend to skew liberal, but you can find (and I know) liberal defenders and conservative urbanophiles, and their views on rail transit match their views on what the suburban built environment look like.
NIMBYism is a completely separate phenomenon that cuts across partisan and ideological lines. It's highly personal and local.
Like a couple have said, it is a very local thing dependent on how you view city vs suburb. But there is also an access and economic aspect to it. Quite simply in any spread out region you can't put in enough transit that goes from the right places to the right places at the right times to be practical. Businesses and homes are now no longer grouped the way they were in the 1920s. The same rail system that worked then won't work now.
The thing is, I'm a huge fan of rail travel. I can see the value of high speed rail between major urban centers. But I can't get the "last mile" to borrow a term, to work economically.
People here are saying that there are plenty of conservatives for rail transit in sprawling metros. Give me an example, because from my personal knowledge it is extremely rare that a Republican except some RINO type like Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to support rail transit outside a legacy city like NYC, Chicago, DC, or SF.
We all know that Nashville almost got a light rail plan passed until a group (overwhelmingly conservative) fought against the plan. I think the Nashville story is played over again and again across sprawling metros in the US. Sure, you can probably find cases in which some progressive NIMBYs stopped the rail transit plan, but you'd be very hard pressed to find a single case in which conservatives supported the rail transit plan. I'm talking about light rail and subway, not privatized high speed rail like Texas Central.
Like a couple have said, it is a very local thing dependent on how you view city vs suburb. But there is also an access and economic aspect to it. Quite simply in any spread out region you can't put in enough transit that goes from the right places to the right places at the right times to be practical. Businesses and homes are now no longer grouped the way they were in the 1920s. The same rail system that worked then won't work now.
The thing is, I'm a huge fan of rail travel. I can see the value of high speed rail between major urban centers. But I can't get the "last mile" to borrow a term, to work economically.
Exactly. And as a right leaning guy myself, I agree that sprawling cities in the US are too low density and spread out to actually have effective urban rail transit. Private high speed rail between Houston and Dallas or Victorville and Vegas? That's a different story, and could actually work.
It is the conservatives, not the progressives, who are realistic and point out that rail transit is ill suited for sprawling areas.
Exactly. And as a right leaning guy myself, I agree that sprawling cities in the US are too low density and spread out to actually have effective urban rail transit. Private high speed rail between Houston and Dallas or Victorville and Vegas? That's a different story, and could actually work.
It is the conservatives, not the progressives, who are realistic and point out that rail transit is ill suited for sprawling areas.
One reason the urbanophiles support it anyway is because they believe it can be used to reshape our existing suburbs along more walkable, small-town/railroad-suburbish lines.
That's the whole point behind "transit-oriented development."
The funny thing is, a lot of the suburban TOD I'm familiar with has no rail transit near it either.
I happen to live in a city whose suburbs were shaped by the railroads. The further away from the rail lines you get, the less densely built they become. Most of the chatter I see both here and elsewhere seems to agree with me that Philadelphia's suburbs are among the loveliest in the country, and I can't help but think that the fact that many of them grew with the railroads is one of the big reasons why.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
