Hello bikies:
I posted this item to a few other places and thought perhaps bikies would
enjoy.
The author of the web site thetransportpolitic.com, speaks of the differing
approaches to urbanization by the Democratic and Republican parties. The
Republican party takes an anti-urban, pro-highway approach which is
consistent with the fact that its voting base lies in that demographic
area. The author notably states that "There is nothing less likely to win
a candidate a vote than stating a policy that his or her opponent agrees
with."
Note, too, that the author of this web site posted an item about our
transit possibilities after I sent him a note letting him know what we are
up to. You can find it if you scroll down his page.
Al Matano
Building Cities, It Turns Out, Is a Partisan Issue
While livable cities advocates might suggest that their cause is a
nonpartisan one, reality suggests otherwise.
American politics are quite unique compared to those in other countries
because of the practical obsession on the part of members of both parties
of achieving bipartisan or nonpartisan policy objectives. In most
countries, when a party wins a landslide election, the winning group
pursues its objectives, with little or no consideration of losing parties
not taking part in a governing coalition. In the next election, policy
differences are clarified and voters can make a choice. In the United
States, on the other hand, the winning party immediately turns to the
other side of the aisle in order to work together to find solutions that
can be amenable to all. That, at least, is how Democrats responded when
President Bush asked for bipartisan cooperation; President Obama and
Senator Max Baucus repeated efforts to involve Republicans in the health
debate worked on a similar vein. Yet these attempts at bipartisanship do
not actually mean that legislators of opposing parties agree; rather, the
failure of House Democrats to convince any Republican to vote for the
stimulus earlier this year is suggestive of the problem.
It is in this context that advocates of livable communities claim that
their side is right and therefore that their ideas should be acceptable to
all. As Jeff Wood wrote on The Overhead Wire, Ultimately building cities
shouldnt be a partisan issue. The road towards transit and walkability is
a sustainable one from a fiscal and environmental standpoint. In other
words, Republicans and Democrats should come together and design places
that encourage transit and density.
There is no question in my mind that transit and livability should be top
priorities for politicians and that policy at the local, state, and
federal levels should be transformed to support it. Yet reality suggests
that building cities is, in fact, a partisan issue. There are significant
gains to be made on both sides by defending differences in policy, and
then reaching for the center; that fact goes for both issues like abortion
and issues like funding for alternative transportation. Voters have to be
able to make a choice.
Indeed, the American public has already been segmented quite clearly in a
way that relates directly to questions about transportation and housing
stock. The denser the community, the more likely to vote Democratic, as
demonstrated below.
2008 Presidential Election Results by Density Quartile
Density Total Votes # of Obama McCain
Counties Share Share
0-141 ppl/sq mi 31 million 2,503 43 % 56 %
142-497 ppl/sq mi 31 million 401 48 % 51 %
498-1,467 ppl/sq mi 31 million 151 55 % 44 %
1,468-57,173 ppl/sq mi 31 million 86 66 % 33
The contrast is even more remarkable in the counties on the limits of
typical density; those that are most urban went overwhelmingly for Mr.
Obama, while those that are the most rural went to Mr. McCain with a large
majority.
2008 Presidential Election Results in Extreme Low and High Density
Counties
Density Total Votes # of Counties Obama Share McCain Share
0-14 ppl/sq mi 2.5 million 667 38 % 60 %
10,002-57,173 ppl/sq mi 3.7 million 8 81 % 18 %
Both the Democratic and Republican Parties understand this segmentation
and have attempt to angle their policies towards solidifying their bases.
In its 2008 political platform, the Democratic Party included the
following statements:
Right now, we are spending less than at any time in recent history and
far less than our international competitors on this critical component of
our nations strength. We will start a National Infrastructure
Reinvestment Bank that can leverage private investment in infrastructure
improvements, and create nearly two million new good jobs
We need a
national transportation policy, including high-speed rail and light rail.
We can invest in our bridges, roads, and public transportation so that
people have choices in how they get to work
We believe that strong cities are the building blocks of strong regions,
and strong regions are essential for a strong America. To build vibrant
and diverse cities and regions, we support equitable development
strategies that create opportunities for those traditionally left behind
by economic development efforts. For the past eight years, the current
Administration has ignored urban areas. We look forward to greater
partnership with urban America
Since businesses can only function when
workers can get to their place of employment, we will invest in public
transportation including rail, expand transportation options for
low-income communities, and strengthen core infrastructure like our roads
and bridges
Finally, we will work to make cities greener and more livable
by training employees to work in skilled clean technologies industries,
improving the environmental efficiency of city buildings, and taking smart
growth principles into account when designing transportation.
These ideas, to be expected, hue rather closely to those expressed by
livable neighborhood advocates people who live in the urban communities
that are the Democrats base. The Republicans, on the other hand, suggest
a far more minimal involvement in relevant issues in their own platform:
We pledge a business-like, cost-effective approach for infrastructure
spending, always mindful of the special needs of both rural and urban
communities
We support a level of investment in the nations
transportation system that will promote a healthy economy, sustain jobs,
and keep America globally competitive. We need to improve the systems
performance and capacity to deal with congestion, move a massive amount of
freight, reduce traffic fatalities, and ensure mobility across both rural
and urban areas. We urgently need to preserve the highway, transit, and
air facilities built over the last century so they can serve generations
to come. At the same time, we are committed to minimizing transportations
impact on climate change, our local environments, and the nations energy
use. Careful reforms of environmental reviews and the permitting process
should speed projects to completion.
Unlike the Democrats, Republicans do not suggest investing in high-speed
rail, they dont argue for investment in new transit capacity, and they
dont argue for designing with smart growth in mind. On the other hand,
unlike the GOP, the Democrats are unafraid of pushing increased government
spending on transportation projects that can only realistically be funded
by the government. There are clear differences, and the reason is that the
two groups are attempting to stake out different political ground with the
goal of attracting votes. There is nothing less likely to win a candidate
a vote than stating a policy that his or her opponent agrees with.
As Jarrett Walker argues at Human Transit, the Republicans have lost the
cities, and they know they wont get them back anytime soon, so they have
an incentive to promote anti-urban sentiment. This is especially true
because the pro-local, pro-rural arguments the GOP often makes to defend
under-investment in alternative transportation and dense neighborhoods are
exactly what appeals to tens of millions of people living in the often
ubiquitous landscape of suburban single-family homes. Though those people
would likely benefit from policy that promotes livable communities
theres no argument on that here they are attracted to rhetoric that
suggests doing just the opposite. From a political standpoint, it then
becomes desirable to advocate that point of view.
As transportation and other related issues rise to the forefront, in other
words, partisan division seems likely to be exposed, rather than quashed
by bipartisan agreement. In many ways, this isnt a bad thing: it allows
voters to understand quite clearly what theyre voting for. Thats the
best part of democracy: it allows people to pick which society they want
to live in. If Democrats want to represent their inner-city and close
suburban constituencies well, and if Republicans want to attract the votes
of the exurban and rural electorate, this contrast in policy proposals on
urbanism seems inevitable.
Postscript: There is plenty of evidence that Republicans are often
supportive of good policy and that Democrats are often willing to promote
what livable streets advocates see as the bad, just as some Democrats are
pro-life and some Republicans pro-choice. In the recent election for Mayor
of New York City, Republican-endorsed Mike Bloomberg was considerably more
pro-transit and pro-bicyclists than rival Democrat Bill Thompson. But the
overall goals of the two parties will continue to diverge as long as
matters like density play a role in determining voting patterns.
Statistics quoted above from the New York Times
November 16, 2009
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
