National Security Issues:

The Need For More Public Transportation

I know many of your are probably falling off of your chairs in disbelief that a conservative would be calling for more public transportation. After all, aren't we conservatives in bed with big business, especially the evil oil companies and their "collusion" with the auto manufacturers in their quest to gouge the public to benefit Bush, Cheney, and their evil Capitalist big business cronies? How many times have I heard that delusional rant from the spoiled brat (thanks to Capitalism) wealthy and upper middle class Socialist elite pseudo hippies while they suck down endless $4 lattes at Starbucks. Do they all walk home afterward or ride the bus? Hell no. They get into their cars and drive away. Not all of them are driving "socially responsible" little cars or hybrids either. I've seen many of them drive away in the big SUVs that they claim they so despise. I guess it's ok for them, but not us. That's typical of Socialists anyway: Concern and compassion for all mankind funded by spending other peoples' money.

To set the record straight, I have no problem with Big Oil and Big Auto making a profit. In fact, the more the merrier. Stockholders invest good money into those companies, and they are entitled to a return on their investment. Profit also means more money to invest in technology that will lead to more and more energy efficiency (hear that hippies?), which will result in finding ways to use less fuel while we are able to continue to move people and goods from town to town, state to state, and nation to nation. Hybrid technology and Biodiesel come to mind. They were not developed by Sociology and Philosophy professors wearing hemp shirts. They also didn't come about because of a granola fart. They were developed by engineers working for those evil big corporations, and the most evil corporation of them all...The United States Military. New fuel technologies are very important, and are pieces of the puzzle that lead to a reasonable amount of energy independence. At the same time, however, affordable and convenient public transportation is long overdue, and most of it should be rail based for a variety of reasons. The number one reason, however, is national security.

There is a big obstacle standing in the way of better public transportation...America's love affair with the automobile. As a result, we made a big mistake following World War II, when we let our railroad infrastructure collapse in order to establish a national highway system. President Eisenhower wanted the Interstate Highway System in order to facilitate troop movements during the Cold War, and it was the right thing to do at the time. Before the Interstate Highway System was completed, it could take up to a month to drive from coast to coast. Our highway infrastructure is a wonderful thing, and should be preserved at all cost, but we need to think seriously about how we manage and fund that system, while at the same time, start restoring our system of railroads to what they were before the 1950s. In addition, inter-urban and intra-urban light rail (we used to call them trolleys) public transportation systems need to be expanded and connected with longer distance rail systems that will allow people to get from place to place efficiently, safely, and cost effectively.

Fortunately, most of the former rail infrastructure right of way is still intact. Much of it has been paved over to make hiker/biker trails, but it's still there. There are going to be some pretty upset people, but as the "enlightened ones" whine, "We all have to make sacrifices for the common good." Guess what Greenies? You are just going to have to give up your nature walk for the "common good" in order to move people and goods around in a much more efficient manner "for the common good."

If you go to many small towns in America, you will see abandoned rail lines, or those that have been converted to trails. You will see the old depots where people waited for the trains in days gone by. You will occasionally see trolley tracks peeking out from under asphalt pavement when the pavement becomes worn down and needs to be replaced. We need to start replacing this infrastructure.

We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for national security reasons. America is dangerously close to being held hostage by Islamofascists and Marxists like Hugo Chavez, because of our need for their oil. We will always need their oil, but the idea is to need less of it, which will mean less money going to fund terrorism worldwide, and less money paying for the expansion of Communism in the Western Hemisphere. I can hear the Left seething right now. Not only will they lose their nature trails for the "common good," there will also be less American money going to fund their idols, our Communist neighbors, "for the common good. " Increasing public transportation will also mean cleaner air without succumbing to the Left's Marxist state planning mindset of energy rationing and forcing people into smaller cars for the "common good."

Light rail runs by electrical motors. So does a lot of heavy rail. I have also read that more and more rail systems are now using hybrid locomotives in areas where trains can not be powered by electricity alone. I've seen many Metro busses here in the Washington, DC area touting the fact that they are energy efficient hybrids or running on "clean natural gas." Metro, I salute you.

Rail systems are the most efficient way of moving around large numbers of people. A car usually only holds up to five people. An inter-urban bus holds only 40 give or take a few in fairly crowded surroundings. Airplanes vary from about 100 to about 400 passengers depending on the size of the plane. A twenty car passenger train could hold up to sixteen hundred people if every seat was filled assuming their are eighty seats per car. This is presuming that every seat is a coach seat. It will be a little less that that on most trains, because of dining cars, lounge cars, and sleepers, but you get the idea. I don't know if Americans can be coaxed back into trains for cross country travel in our modern age of wanting everything yesterday. Air travel as a result, will probably remain the first choice for long distances. Cross country rail travel is going to have a hard time competing with the time saving factor of jumping on an airplane and flying from Los Angeles to Baltimore in a little over five hours. It can be done, but it's going to have to be a viable alternative for people to be willing to ride a train for four days as opposed to five hours. Rail service has to be convenient and affordable. This means that trains have to go everywhere they used to, and the cost has to be what people are willing to pay. Currently, cross country rail service is not convenient or affordable. It's marginally affordable if you sit in a coach seat from New York to LA, but who wants to sit and sleep in a coach seat for four days? I know I don't. If you add bed room accommodations to the price, it is now cost prohibitive for most of us. You no longer see the old style sleeper cars where the coach seats converted into berths. Sleepers are now private compartments, and command a first class price.

It's the same scenario for steam ships. The days of the ocean liners are long past. People are not going to be willing to ride a ship across the Atlantic for seven days instead of seven hours on a jet. There will have to be a very good reason for wanting to spend seven days on a boat with many leisure activities, eating good food, and having a comfortable place to sleep rather than spending seven hours crammed onto a jet with airline food and a fat person who smells bad sitting in the seat next to you.

Public transportation systems cost money. It is unrealistic to think that any public transportation system can be financially self-sufficient. It's impossible if you are going to have it be affordable and convenient. This means it has to be subsidized by federal state and local governments. I'm not usually a fan of large government subsidies for domestic social programs, but I make an exception when it comes to public transportation systems. The benefits are just too great. Money for transportation projects comes from a variety of sources. It comes from government subsidies, which means that it comes from tax revenues and from the sale of government bonds earmarked for transportation projects. It also comes from private individuals who invest in shares of a transportation company's stocks. There is going to have to be venture capital in order to begin rebuilding the infrastructure. The government needs to sell bonds for the purpose of doing just that. They do it for highway construction, and they can do more of it for rail. You are also going to need tax revenue in order to subsidize a good public transportation system. However, you can not raise taxes to the point where they become punitive. My solution is this: The Interstate Highway System is complete. Semi-privatize the entire interstate highway system like you have with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and turn the entire interstate highway system into a network of toll roads.

Having toll roads serve two purposes. First the highways can become more self efficient and require less tax revenue subsidies to keep them in good shape. More of the tax revenue derived from fuel and income taxes can then be diverted to the public transportation infrastructure without having to raise those taxes.

There is another strong reason for toll booths. People don't notice that a large part of the cost of a gallon of gas is taxes because it's hidden in the price of a gallon of fuel. They just grumble and and pay it. The physical act of paying a toll makes you more aware of the actual cost of transportation. If you don't want to pay the toll, you can take back roads and have it take you forever to get there, but that's your choice. Most people won't. In addition, people will not change habits if all that is involved is an increase in cost, unless it becomes cost prohibitive like $10 per gallon gasoline. Therefore, you have to throw in the inconvenience factor. People hate to wait. If you have to sit in a bumper to bumper traffic jam at a toll booth for two hours when you are running late for work, you are going to start looking for another way to get to your job. When you see that six or eight car metro train going by at sixty miles per hour (run a circle line around the Capital Beltway connecting the outlying Metro stations, and make sure it's visible from the cars on the Beltway), while you are standing still in 99 degree weather on the Beltway waiting to get to the toll booth, you'll probably start questioning your sanity for insisting on the "convenience" driving. Then you get to throw your hard earned money into the hopper for the privilege of driving ten miles in two hours. This is so you can have the convenience of driving your own car. That car, of course, will be put to good use while it is sitting in a parking garage for fifteen dollars a day while you are at work in downtown Washington, DC.

There are rural parts of the country where public transportation is not feasible. A town of fifteen hundred people has little need for a public transportation system. Years ago, however, many of those towns had reliable rail service. That rail service needs to be restored to those areas.

Eastport, Maine (population 1200) had passenger rail service until the 1960s. The right of way is still there. Calais, Maine, which is right up the road, had passenger rail service until the 1970s. The last train through the area was the Bicentennial train in 1976. Most of the tracks are still there. I remember going into an antique shop in Robinston, Maine a few years ago, and they had some old rail time tables. I bought them and studied them. I found it amazing that up until the early 1960s, you could still get a passenger train from Washington, DC all the way to Calais, Maine.

There was a rail line that ran from Southwick, MA to New Haven, CT. It served passengers until the 1950s. It was the same thing with a spur line that ran from Winsted, CT through New Hartford, CT, Collinsville, CT and Unionville, CT. This connected with the other line in Farmington. There was a depot in Farmington where the lines converged. I understand that it burned down sometime in the late 1950s, and was never rebuilt for obvious reasons. The depots are still standing in Unionville, Avon, Collinsville, Granby, and Simsbury. When I was young, the lines were still used for freight. Service past Collinsville was wiped out when the Great Flood Of 1955 washed out the railroad bridges in New Hartford and Collinsville. They were never rebuilt. Those old rail lines are now hiker/biker trails, but the right of way is still there. These lines need to be restored and used once again for both freight and passengers.

In addition, light rail, or trolleys, need to be brought back. They are preferable to busses for a couple of reasons: They can run when weather conditions prevent busses from running. You can also connect several trolley cars together and form a train, which you can't do with busses. In addition they do not run on fossil fuels, because they are powered by electricity.

I can now hear some people saying, "The American oil companies will never let this happen." First of all, American oil companies are subsidiaries of big international oil companies. They are not going to lose money if we don't use as much oil. When an oil company sells a gallon of gasoline, it's going to make about the same profit whether gas goes for six dollars per gallon, three dollars per gallon, or one dollar per gallon. Less oil usage means increased supply, which means lower prices, and if that gasoline is not sold in America, it will be sold elsewhere. Who gets hurt? The countries that have nationalized oil industries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela They either have to flood the market or cut back production. . Either way, they lose money...less Saudi money for Islamic Terrorism, and less money to fund Communist expansion in the Western Hemisphere. It will also mean less tax revenue for Congress to fund pork projects like a $600,000 grant to a certain university, that will remain unnamed, to study whether fish drunk on tequilla are more agressive than fish drunk on vodka. It won't substantially affect the bottom line of the oil companies at all.

There are large emerging middle classes in both China and India. These middle classes in the two most populated nations in the world are now buying automobiles. Automobiles use gasoline. This is one reason why China is working on trade agreements with Venezuela, Peru, and Iran. The other reason is a goal of crippling the US economy. We are a country driven (literally) by oil. If fuel gets too expensive, we will collapse. Then we are ripe for a Communist takeover.

The Islamists are also banking on the fact that China will eventually invade and conquer the US. They will, however, try to find ways to use attacks like 9-11 or worse to soften us up. Islamic terrorists are funded by oil money. Less oil money means less terrorism. We need a good transportation system that uses a lot less oil in order to help keep us safe.