I've meant for quite some time to compile some thoughts about the myth that rail transit violates conservative principles. The general thread of the argument is that riders should pay the total cost of transit, that transit doesn't pay for itself, and so on. Such statements totally ignore the fact that almost all highway and road construction is done at taxpayer expense. For those roads that are tolled and the user does pay, many contend that such roads are just for the rich. The arguments run in a big circle.
 
Studies have shown that one line of transit can offset the need for two additional traffic lanes. Consider the cost of acquiring right of way and the construction of more and more traffic lanes and suddenly transit starts to make sense and look good. Taxes toward transit are taxes toward transportation. The real fiscal question becomes what methods are most economical when multiple factors are weighed. Those factors have to include the cost of right of way acquisition, construction, air quality, congestion, area development, the movement of all goods and services, and the list goes on.
 
Oddly, as you will note in the blog post below and at the links, it is more often the libertarians that challenge transit while conservatives from many quarters are very supportive.
 
I may still write that post but an article a few weeks ago in the Dallas Morning News addressed the issue very directly. It originated on the Dallas Morning News Transportation Blog and has the added depth of comments being attached. It has been updated since I first noticed it so I thought I'd bring renewed attention to this debate and capture the updates. [I will also note that I like Mr Jones blogging style: concise and lots of links to support his references.]
 

"Conservative myths" about rail transit

2:09 PM Wed, Apr 29, 2009 Rodger Jones/Editorial Writer

 
The most dedicated critics of North Texas' goal of expanding rail transit have been conservatives in Collin County, notably County Judge Keith Self and state Reps. Ken Paxton and Jodie Laubenberg. Self testified against proposed local option funding in both Senate and House committees, and he has posted his Senate testimony on his own website (scroll down to March 20). An excerpt:
 

And at the end of the day, transit estimates are that, compared to the number of cars on US 75 daily, only an infinitesimal number of people will ride transit between Plano and McKinney. (Update comment: Estimated 5440 daily transit riders versus approximately 200,000 cars.)

 
Hyperactive on a national scale in taking shots at transit is the free-market, libertarian group Reason Foundation, which dedicates a portion of its website to picking apart transit proposals and projects.
 
Closer to home, VP Justin Keener with the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation has been busy with attacks on the local-option funding legislation in Austin, which would let voters raise money for rail and roads.
 
You may be more interested, however, in the counter-intuitive — conservatives who have been even more active in promoting transit and active longer.
 
The late Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, is one. He wrote extensively on the merits of mass transit, specifically rail. He pointedly took on what he called "conservative myths" about rail transit.
 
Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation, which describes itself as "culturally conservative," has a running online journal that promotes rail transit.
 
More recently, a researcher with the Witherspoon Institute, David Schaengold, put out a column last week titled "Why Conservatives Should Care About Transit." An excerpt:
 

Pro-highway, anti-transit, anti-pedestrian policies work against the core beliefs of American conservatives in another and even more important way: they create social environments that are hostile to real community.

 
And this:
 

Car-dependency also requires the nuclear family to become a primary transportation resource. Parents must shuttle their children to school, soccer practice, and even their friends' houses until the children can shuttle themselves (at peril to their lives) in late adolescence. Not only does this overburden families themselves, it prevents the participation of community members in sharing the burdens of child-rearing.
 
Conservatives sometimes mock Hillary Clinton's infamous aphorism that "it takes a village to raise a child," but surely this is in fact what conservatives actually believe.

 
Note to Self (Keith) and others: Please know that some consequential people who share your core small-government, socially conservatives philosophy don't even begin to agree with you on rail transit.
 
UPDATE: I've heard from Justin Keener about my characterization of his position. He takes issue and has posted a response on the comments section below this post. Thanks, Justin.
 
SECOND UPDATE: Mr. Keener also asked that I give readers a chance to read a further analysis from his group. Here it is.
 

 
Last year, I posted on a similar vein: conservatives and the new urbanism, where Mr Weyrich and William S Lind express their support for (most) new urbanist principles.