Conservatives and mass transit
Matthew Schmitz thinks conservatives should abandon their hostility to mass transit. I agree. While I can certainly understand many of the concerns that transit opponents express, I think that building a reasonable transit architecture will be extremely important in the future of scarce fossil fuels. Besides, transit – like walkable communities – can bring people closer together, strengthen communities, and make people more neighborly. These are all good things, and things which conservatives should embrace. Then again, I’ve been saying for some time that the usefulness of individualism only goes so far. As a matter of liberty and rights, individualism is key. But as a matter of societal and social stability, we must return to a more communal sense of who we are as Americans, as families, as workers and students and citizens. There is a very short distance between individualism and entitlement after all.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“I think that building a reasonable transit architecture will be extremely important in the future of scarce fossil fuels.”
I think this logic is lost in the energy shuffle quite often. Barring an unexpected sea change in energy generation (basically, solar energy at little to no cost and batteries that charge quickly and efficiently), fossil fuels will always be the cheapest, most portable form of energy and will become increasingly valuable into the future. I don’t buy that we’re necessarily at peak oil (and even if we are, we’re nowhere near peak coal or peak natural gas, both of which can be converted to liquid fuel), but we will run out of fossil fuels at some point. Large fossil fuel reserves will be very useful in a future of fossil fuel scarcity. For example, a carbon-free energy supply is possible, but would inevitably be very difficult to expand on short notice. In the event of war, it would be a substantial advantage to be able to ramp up manufacturing, power machines with fossil fuels, etc.
By that logic, I suppose, the call shouldn’t be “no foreign oil,” but rather, “only foreign oil, and as much of it as possible.”
Unfortunately, there’s zero incentive for any US policy to look beyond the 6-year horizon, and cost/benefit analysis of Congressional proposals is generally considered out to 10 years at most. No one’s going to get kicked out of office because the effects of global warm are perceptibly worse in 2014 than they were in 2008, because the energy supply is dramatically different, etc. Yet, 6 years is at the upper limit of the amount of time left to mitigate warming in a relatively manageable way.
As always, Zach – great comment, lots to chew on.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Kain,
Mr. Hensel has hit the key point, fossil fuels are by far the cheapest and most profitable form of energy, and always will be. The capital and operational costs for extraction and processing are very low compared to both the amount of energy that can be generated (and sold) and compared to alternatives. Drill an oil well and you get profits almost right away. All other forms have high capital costs and/ or operating cost so that there is less profit for each BTU sold. Further, it takes longer begin making a profit, put in a wind farm and it won’t generate any returns for a few years.
This is true for transportation systems as well. It is simply far more profitable to sell millions of cars as compared to thousands of buses or trains. The math is really simple.
Conservatives are at the end of the day about defending the status quo (that is what they are “conserving”). This generally means the interests of big business. There are simply more profits to be had, right now, for really big corporations in the current system of individual transit run on fossil fuels. Mass transit run on any fuel but certainly on alternative fuels, might be profitable, eventually, but certainly not now and not compared to the status quo.
Conservatives are doing what they do best, looking out for the best interests of their biggest supporters. Yes, it may be short term (and short sighted) but that is where we live.
“fossil fuels are by far the cheapest and most profitable form of energy, and always will be”
Um…
“we will run out of fossil fuels at some point”
I should clarify that by “cheapest” I mean cheapest to use assuming we don’t exhaust our supply and substantially raise the cost of extraction. Without changing the energy balance, we will run out of fossil fuels entirely within a few hundred years.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello Zach Hensel,
You are of course correct, in regards to petroleum. If world peak oil production has not already occurred, it will soon. However there are still hundreds of years of coal left to mined in the world.
That being said, even as world petroleum supplies begin to dwindle, that does not change my main point about profitability. Digging up and selling fossil fuels is much more profitable than making and selling say bio-diesel or ethanol. The return rates on each dollar invested in a fossil fuel extracted is much higher than on an equivalent amount of some other fuel.
Actually the profitability increases as the supply decreases since the price will rise but product costs will not. Obviously at some point in the future there will just simply be too little petroleum left to effectively sell other than as a specialty product. However that is a long time off and there plenty profits to be made in the meantime. Moreover, coal can be made into engine fuels, the Germans did during WW II. Coal based fuels are not as cheap or profitable as oil based (One of Hitlers main goals in attacking the Soviet Union was to get to their huge oil serves) but it is still possible.
So I will still stand behind the main points I was making.
In response to another comment. See in context »This article cites a study that revealed the talking point that density creates better communities is simply untrue:
“One recent University of California at Irvine study found that density does not, as is often assumed, increase social contact between neighbors or raise overall social involvement. For every 10 percent reduction in density, the chances of people talking to their neighbors increases by 10 percent, and their likelihood of belonging to a local club by 15 percent.”
Also, Portland’s urban growth authority has cited LA as its model. This should give one pause.
People drive cars and live in suburbs for a simple reason: they like driving cars and living in suburbs. Human nature might not be sustainable ad infinitum. But we owe the fruits of our energies to ourselves, not to some distant unknown generation. The world is for us the living. This is the part of conservatism that harbors hostility to mass transit, or, more generally, to the desire of an elite group of planners that would subvert and limit our choices so that their own view of humanity might be fulfilled.
Hello Tim Kowal,
You wrote: “This is the part of conservatism that harbors hostility to mass transit, or, more generally, to the desire of an elite group of planners that would subvert and limit our choices so that their own view of humanity might be fulfilled.”
The job of urban planners is to – wait for it – plan, i.e. make preparations for the future. That is what they are paid to do by cities, counties, state, and even the Federal governments. People have discovered that they can lead better lives if they have *planned* ahead. This applies to individuals and well as to communities. Urban planners have studied what has happened in the past to cities, large and small, and attempt to apply those lessons to the present to avoid mistake of the past and for a better future.
For example, if you build a housing tract on a flood plain, it will eventually get flooded. This is generally regarded as a bad thing for everyone, except the builder who made million of dollars in profits building and selling the houses and since he or she probably does not actually in that tract, he or she gets all of the benefits but none of the problems.
To avoid this problem “an elite group of planners”, working for some local government, will try to prevent housing developments on flood plains through zoning ordiences. Does this “subvert and limit our choices”? Yes it does but I would argue that that is a good thing, at least for the people who are going to live in the houses and the city officials who are going to have to manage the tract as a whole. However you are correct, it would be bad for the developer and his or her ability to make a profit.
It is this that conservatives seek to conserve, the ability to make a profit.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t think density is the only component needed, Tim. But thanks for the study. Very interesting.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] reduced commerce as people will have a harder time getting to stores–E.D. Kain offers this great perspective on why we should all support mass transit with our tax dollars: But as a matter of societal and [...]