START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
2,098,382 people care about Politics

4 Reasons Conservatives Hate Public Transit

4 Reasons Conservatives Hate Public Transit
  • 1 of 4


Written by Jason Mark

Once upon a time — in a political environment that seems otherwordly compared to what we have in the United States today — the federal transportation bill was a bi-partisan endeavor. Now things are different. Congress went into spring recess last week and once again left hanging a reauthorization of the transportation bill, which expired two and a half years ago. Congress was just barely able to approve a temporary, 90-day extension of the lapsed law so that current infrastructure projects can keep moving along.

Why the impasse on something that usually wins consensus? It comes down, in part, to a disagreement over how (or even whether) the federal government should fund mass transit programs.

The transportation bill moving through the House eliminates the provision that dedicates to mass transit 20 percent of monies from the gas-tax supported Highway Trust Fund — an arrangement that has been in place since Ronald Reagan was president. It also slashes support for high-speed rail projects, cuts subsidies to Amtrak, and eliminates designated funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure as well as the “Safe Routes to School” program. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (a former Republican Congressman) called the House measure “the worst transportation bill I’ve ever seen during 35 years of public service.”

Compare that with the Senate version, which passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support (74-22). The Senate’s two-year bill, crafted by odd bedfellows Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe, would largely maintain the status quo. The easiest thing would be for the House to take up the Senate version, pass it with bi-partisan numbers, and send the law to the president.

But that would rankle Speaker John Boehner’s hard-right base. Here’s how Congressman Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon, summed up the situation:

“[The House leadership’s] problem is they have about 80 or 90 people who want to kill off the federal transportation program in their caucus. Then they’re hamstrung because they’ve got 20 or 25 [who] are still rational and say, ‘Hey, if you’re going to kill off transit funding, we won’t vote for the bill.’ So if they do what the flat earth people want, then they lose the moderates, and if they do what the moderates want they lose the flat earth people.”

This legislative train wreck (sorry for the pun) raises a question that’s been nagging me for a while: Why exactly are conservative representatives so antagonistic to public transit?

Here a couple of thoughts.

It’s an urban-rural thing.

Republicans overwhelming come from rural areas. Democrats usually represent cities. (Leaving the two parties to battle it out for the swing votes in the suburbs.) Transport Politic writer Yonah Freemark sums it up: “Republicans in the House of Representatives know that very few of their constituents would benefit directly from increased spending on transit, for instance, so they propose gutting the nation’s commitment to new public transportation lines when they enter office. Starting two years ago, Democrats pushed the opposite agenda, devoting billions to urban-level projects that would have been impossible under the Bush Administration.”

I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with this. Representatives are elected to serve their constituents as well as the national interest. If their constituents live in areas with low population densities that wouldn’t be well served by buses or bike lanes, then it makes sense to prioritize spending on roads. One basic reason Republicans are against making investments in mass transit is that those projects don’t meet the needs of the people who elected them. Not surprisingly, Congressman DeFazio’s whip count of GOP supporters of the Senate legislation mostly includes Republicans who represent suburban areas that benefit from mass transit.

  • 1 of 4

Read more: , , , ,

Photo from cliff1066 via flickr

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
6:37AM PDT on Aug 8, 2012

If we all rode around on public transportation, we wouldn't have the automotive industry!. America was built on the automotive industry. Not buying/driving cars is just plain un-American! Oh My!

5:58AM PDT on Jun 19, 2012

To summarize: 1) Conservatives are rural and mass transit works much better in urban areas than in rural areas, 2) Mass transit workers tend to be union members and conservatives hate unions, 3) Transportation is always government organized and conservatives are against government, 4) Conservatives oppose the very idea of the "public good".

5:41AM PDT on Jun 19, 2012

Roads, whether driven on by private cars and commercial trucks or marched on by armies on foot, have been a product of government at least as far back as the Roman Empire. We ought to favor whatever is most cost-effective in each area, which depends largely on the population density.

1:15PM PDT on Jun 2, 2012

I forgot to mention, I'm a conservative that loves public transit.

1:14PM PDT on Jun 2, 2012

It seems to me that public transportation is a GREAT idea for cities and a POOR idea rural areas. Getting people from LA to Vegas doesn't seem like a worthy use of public funds to me, even in the form of loan guarantees. Mass transit in cities benefit all and are particularly beneficial for low income citizens, and illegals for that matter. Mass transit is one of the few subsidies I can think of that I'd support. Cities would have to spend less on additional roadways as a result. It's also a convenient form of travel for commuters.

12:46PM PDT on Jun 2, 2012

BTW, Pego, welcome to the fracas.

12:43PM PDT on Jun 2, 2012

Ctrl-F on a PC.

12:42PM PDT on Jun 2, 2012

If you'd like to HONESTLY discern my intent, Pego, hit Command-F, type in "michael a" and click on the up arrow. Care2 threads progress from the bottom up.

8:51AM PDT on Jun 2, 2012

Shut up, Pego.

9:01PM PDT on Jun 1, 2012

Thank you, Kevin.

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

Oh, and by the way, David F., how come you didn't squawk when Bush committed his 35 crimes against the…

She's right, up to a point. I would say our obligation to care for the animals we have well is also…

ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK


Civil Rights


Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights


Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!