Go To:
Contact:
Polls:
Other Notable Sites
Transportation policy and the party platforms
How should the Republican platform address transportation policy in the 2008 party platform?
Image via Wikipedia
Surprisingly, both the 2004 Republican and Democratic platforms included sections on transportation. Unfortunately they were full of empty rhetoric and light on details.
The Democrats had the most ambiguous position. Here is everything they had to say on the topic:
Our nation's transportation network is an integral part of our economy and an engine for economic expansion that must be strengthened. We are committed to vigorous federal highway and transit initiatives that put Americans to work, relieve traffic congestion, and foster long-term projects at state and local levels.
Not exactly the most substantial framework.
The Republicans were simultaneously more verbose and misguided. They offered a similar preambulatory that affirmed the importance of transportation to the lives of all Americans. What interests me the most is what followed:
Republicans support, where economically viable, the development of a high-speed passenger railroad system as an instrument of economic development and enhanced mobility. Republicans support a healthy intercity passenger rail system. Amtrak provides a valuable service to passengers, especially in the Northeast corridor. But we recognize that the goal of establishing a national passenger rail system with modest federal support has failed to materialize. Clearly the financial problems plaguing Amtrak cannot be solved simply by continued infusions of taxpayer dollars. Fundamental reforms should be enacted to transition Amtrak into operational self-sufficiency.
That reads more like an attempt to axe Amtrak's long-term train service than an attempt at formulating a cohesive strategy. In case you are wondering why the Northeast Corridor is explicitly referenced, it is by far Amtrak's most profitable line. Amtrak would turn a profit if that were it's only area of operations.
The only support of transit was a feeble affirmation of the value of high speed rail. In the 4 years since the document was drafted, new high speed rail lines have opened in Argentina but not anywhere near the United States.
With this bleak precedent, I'm not holding my breath for anything major out of either camp's convention. The only hope is that rising energy prices and the looming insolvency of the highway maintenance fund will give the issue more importance.
Was this article informative?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Transportation policy and the party platforms.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://poliwatch.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/8893
3:09 PM, 08 18 2008 | Permalink
Andrew, as I see it, and as volumes of evidence will demonstrate, the RNC has no interest in government sponsored projects, unless they improve Republican investor profits, or, (nearly synonymously,) the Defense Industry.
National railway is one of those projects, like the Interstate Highway System, that is just simply beyond the scope of the individual states to accomplish either logistically or economically. Hence, if it is to be, it must be a federal government project which receives pro-rata support and tax dollars from the individual states which benefit from it.
Clearly, if there is to be a national mass transit rail system, it will be the Democrats who will birth it, not the Republicans.
But, at the heart of this issue, is the question of whether the United States can afford ANY new national infrastructure initiatives given the gross imbalances of our economy and mountain of national debt which Republicans have wrought upon our society these last 7 years? I think the answer is clear, NO!, we can't.
Like so many other aspects of our society, we are entering a period of decline of American growth and prosperity which will continue to plague our nation for at least the next 5 decades.
The confluence of the national debt and trade deficits, the continued growth of population in general and senior citizen sub-population and the demands they will place on government spending, prohibit new elective options for spending in our future.
This is the opportunity cost I have been writing about for many years now. We spent our capital wastefully over the last several decades, and in doing so, we have lost the opportunity to invest in our future needs as we would now like to.
It is sad. Sad for our children whose work lives will be spent fighting a contracting economic future. Sad, but, oh so real. For those Americans who learn fluent Spanish, bright opportunities will be rising in Brazil as they diminish in the U.S. The same can be said of China and India, but, not many American born citizens will be learning Mandarin, Hindi, or Sanskrit.
Reply to this comment
d.a.n said at :
4:11 PM, 08 18 2008 | Permalink
When history books are written, they should include this artice.
Texas will be hit hard, due to the more urban sprawl and very little mass transit.
d.a.n | August 18, 2008 4:11 PM
Reply to this comment
David R. Remer replied to d.a.n at :
1:34 PM, 08 24 2008 | Permalink
This is the problem with history. We are doomed to repeat its failures when we fail to teach each successive generation its lessons.
Reply to this comment
1:09 PM, 09 01 2008 | Permalink
Too bad we repeatedly have to learn the hard way.
Short-sighted self-gain and selfishness too often trumps long-term vision . . . at least until the consequences become too painful to ignore the lesson and reality.
We have built our society around cheap oil, we have been warned for over 30 years, and there will be painful consequences for that negligence.
Unfortunately, as with many things, Americans most likely will not get serious about alternative energy sources (and there are alternatives) until it is too late to avoid much pain.
And How long will all of the oil in ANWR and offshore last?
Most experts believe that there may be about 14-to-18 billion barrels of oil in ANWR alone.
The Bakken formation discovered not too long ago in North Dakota has about 167 Billion barrels of oil, but only about 2.1 Billion of easily extractable oil.
Most experts also believe that offshore in the continental shelf and American deepwater may have up to 18-to-36 Billion barrels of oil.
The current total oil production in the U.S. is about 6 Million barrels per day (about 2.2 billion barrels per year).
At the highest estimate, that is a total of about 58.3 billion barrels of oil.
At the lowest estimate, that is a total of about 36.3 billion barrels of oil.
But the U.S. is currently using 28 million barrels of oil per day (10.22 billion barrels per year)!
How long will that last, when the U.S. is using 28 Million barrels per day (10.22 billion barrels per year) of oil?
The problem is, we can not produce the additional 22 Million barrels of oil per day (28 million needed per day - 6 million already produced in the U.S. daily) needed to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil (which is likely, on average, to get more expensive).
Some experts say it will be 4 years before there was a significant increase in production (provided there is no resistance or hindrances) from ANWR, offshore, and the Bakken formation.
And will U.S. corporations want to do it, when oil companies can make more profits from less supply and higher demand?
The fact is, if the U.S. wanted this oil and wanted to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil, we should have been drilling ANWR and offshore 4+ years ago, and even then, it wouldn't last long.
Thus, our days of being addicted to oil are numbered, no matter what happens.
And at the moment, and for several years to come, we will remain dependent on foreing oil (if available and affordable).
There are other alternatives, but those too will take several years to put a dent in our energy consumption.
We can not rely on oil alone much longer.
Since the development of all energy source are going to take years, we'd better do BOTH as soon as possible.
It must be BOTH, because IF we only drill for OIL without developing alternatives, we will be in a worse position when the oil from ANWR, offshore, and other U.S. locations runs out in about 3.6 to 5.7 years (and that does not even account for increased consumption due to the U.S. population growth of over 5 Million per year).
We must start NOW developing alternative energy sources, because we are already years late in beginning.
However, that brings us to one our most serious problems.
We have no leadership, and Congress is dysfunctional.
We can't rely solely on corporations, since some owners of the oil companies would it if the U.S. remained addicted to oil.
In fact, we might as well have an anchor tied around our neck while we try to swim upstream.
Therefore, this year, on 4-NOV-2008, voters would be wise to stop repeatedly rewarding corrupt, irresponsible, incompetent, FOR-SALE, do-nothing incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Reply to this comment