Friends Like These
Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor
Last week I railed against George Will’s column taking a slanted view of secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s plan for increasing public transportation in the United States. Sadly, the secretary didn’t hold up his end of the bargain and stop himself from proving Will right.
It wasn’t 24 hours after I wrote last week’s blog that I read an article touting, “Transportation Secretary Endorses Anti-Car Agenda.” The deck claiming the secretary said coercion and government intrusion would be used to force people out of their cars made me think this was just another slanted article. Of course, the secretary did say those things.
Secretary LaHood was speaking at a National Press Club event last week about the DOT’s stimulus initiatives and to be honest he got off on the right foot by noting that transit agencies need operating funds to go with the new buses and trains they are getting with stimulus dollars. But then it kind of went wrong when he admitted that making driving less attractive was the intent behind new fees and regulations.
Hold up there a sec. We just listened to Will rant last week about how LaHood was the “Secretary of Behavior Modification” and just like that the secretary practically admitted to it. Of course, taking the choice quotes out of context is an old trick. LaHood was discussing how creating opportunities for people to get out of their cars through livable communities, which is a good thing. And he should have stopped there.
“It is a way to coerce people out of their cars, yeah,” LaHood admits at one point. Taken out of context or not, using the word coerce in this statement just gives George Will every right to sit back, fold his arms, nod his head and smile. You’ve proven his point. The government is using coercion to get people out of their cars. They are taking away freedoms through underhanded means. Game. Set. Match.
If this were Vice President Biden, people would be proclaiming this as a gaff. Is it? To be honest, no it’s not. I think the secretary was being brutally honest as he seems to have a penchant for. You want a better environment? You want less congestion? You want lower gas prices? Then there just simply has to be fewer cars on the road. It’s a part of the solution – not the whole solution, mind you – but a significant part. And if it takes government legislation to get it done, then the government needs to step in and do that.
Here’s the thing that neither Will nor LaHood nor anybody else is talking about – this has happened before, there was just a lot less complaining about it. We didn’t have the 24/7 Un-media (to coin my own Orwellian phrase) endlessly examining and discussing every nuance of the government during the last depression. Think about what Eisenhower would have to go through to create the interstate highway system today had he had to deal with all the “pundits” discussing his plan and how it was going to affect your life.
LaHood didn’t say anything wrong and he said the worst thing he possibly could have. In today’s day and age it’s politically incorrect to be honest because somehow even the truth can (and Will) be used against you.
Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,
Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Check out our LinkedIn page!
May 29th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Eisenhower? How about Nixon and the gasoline rationing system of 1973, instituting a national 55 mph speed limit, and all the other items associated with the oil embargo of the early 1970s? That was far more behavior-modifying than anything else we’ve seen in recent memory.
However, the best way to get people on transit is to increase average speed, as has been done in Europe for the past several decades. Portland Streetcar averages about 5-6 miles per hour, while a similar line in Strasbourg, France averages 16-17 miles per hour. Adding an express bus route paralleling a certain line here in the Portland area increased overall ridership in that area about 20%.
There really needs to be a change of thinking about the way transit is done in this country. For far too long, the concept among most regions in North America was that transit was primarily for those who couldn’t afford cars or otherwise couldn’t drive, and funding and planning was done accordingly. Changing that whole philosophy is going to be difficult, but it’s going to be an important transition to make.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
My reply to last week’s entry has been vindicated. Enough Said. Thank you and good night!
June 1st, 2009 at 10:58 am
If speaking the truth is not popular, don’t quit speaking the truth. Learn how to say it in a more acceptable vernacular.
Can we make public transportation a better solution with out making using a car a punishable offence? It is always easy to make one thing worse to seem to make another better.
I know some will never give up their car. But the majority will always take the route that meets their end goal the best. Meet the needs of the riders and they will come.