Political Parties, Three Axes and Public Transport: A Summary (Part 6 of 6)

David Levinson and I conclude our six part series on politics and support for buses at The Transportationist. All previous entries are available there as well.

Why Greens Should Like Buses (Part 5 of 6)

My series with David Levinson continues at The Transportationist. Part five--Why Greens Should Like Buses.

Why Libertarians Should Like Buses (Part 4 of 6)

My series with David Levinson continues at The Transportationist. Today, part four.

Why Republicans Should Like Buses (Part 3 of 6)

Part three of David Levinson's and my series about politics and buses is here.

Part one. Part two.

Why Democrats Should Like Buses (Part 2 of 6)

David Levinson's and my series on politics and transit continues at The Transportationist. Here is part two, why Democrats should like buses.

Here is a link to part one.

POLITICAL PARTIES, THREE-AXES, AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT (Part 1 of 6)

I contributed to a series of posts about the politics of transport with David Levinson at The Transportationist. Here is part one. (Link fixed)

Will Hurricane Sandy Change the Political Calculus of Adaptation?

The Huffington Post asked me about the future of the NY region transit system is the wake of the hurricane. The article is here. I am skeptical that this tragic event will change investment priorities. Here is what made it into the story:

“MTA can barely get the funding they need for existing capital projects and to avoid cuts in service,” King said. “Can you imagine what would happen, what would be said if these guys said, ‘OK we also need money to seal the tunnels in case of a storm. That won’t make anybody’s life better most days, but we need it.’ That’s just impossible.”
King is unsure that Hurricane Sandy will serve as a catalyst for that kind of forward thinking. Devastation and casualties have not always been enough to change the current of spending.
“When the [Interstate] 35 W Bridge collapsed in Minnesota, that was supposed to be a watershed moment that made us understand that we need to start investing in bridges and other parts of our crumbling and aged infrastructure," he said. "That didn’t happen.”

We know that frogs will not actually sit in a heated pot of water until it boils. The frogs will jump out once they sense danger (unless their brains have been removed). Humans may not be so quick to react to a perceived threat. Rather than investing wisely in future cities (which may involve letting some cities decline), we will likely continue our current investment strategy and priorities. Mayor Bloomberg has already reasserted his support for lots of new housing development in areas that were devastated by the storm, and the Governor is thinking about giant storm locks in the harbor.

The shift to adaptation discussions in policy circles is also new, so these things take time. From a Capital New York piece a couple of days ago:

"I would say three or four years ago there was—and this a general statement, not specific to New York—the emphasis was on mitigation; in other words, reducing our contribution to climate change," said David Bragdon, then the head of the city's Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. "It's only more recently that policy makers are acknowledging what scientists have known, which is that even if we magically stop emissions tomorrow—if we were successful in all these mitigation efforts, there's still effects that are happening already."

And from the same article, Rich Barone of the RPA said:

The less-dreamy alternative is even more difficult, politically: to discourage residential development in the city's low-lying coastal areas.
"The perfect use of the Rockaways is the way it used to be used, for summer and seasonal housing, what Jones Beach is used for," said Barone. "It's a barrier island. That's what it is. it's the first natural line of defense for storms."
Pirani said the city should consider "buying people out" who live in particularly flood-prone areas, as New Jersey does with its Blue Acre program.
"I think all these things need to be laid out and considered in light of the damage that we suffered over the last couple of days," said Barone.

New Jersey does  have a program for moving people called Blue Acres. Here are some details.

Overall, we just don't know what the politics of climate change will be. Mitigation is a loser politically. Can adaptation be a political winner? My guess is eventually as people will respond to threats they experience. No one experiences the future, so mitigation is hard. Present threats can gain political support, but the winning solutions may not be optimal.

NO TAV: Anarchists Debate the Merits of High Speed Rail

This past weekend I was in Milan, Italy and I saw lots of the this image:

It is the work of the NO TAV movement, which is a social movement opposed to the proposed high speed rail line between Turin and Lyon. I saw similar images in Lyon, France last summer. Here is a summary of the movement. This is the crux of the opposition:

The simple principle behind the movement is that a new high speed railway line in the Valley is completely useless and not needed, its only purpose being the profit of the many private companies that have shares in it. The NO TAV think that the current railway line between Piedmont and France is more than sufficient, considering that traffic in the area has never been incredibly high. More importantly, the construction of the line would utterly and irreversibly destroy a huge part of the Susa Valley, causing not only an environmental but also an economic and social disaster, with businesses closing down and villages being completely disfigured or disappearing.

High speed railway lines in Italy are considered to be of “strategic interest”, which translated from political bullshit language means that the law allows this type of works WITHOUT consulting the local population and institutions whatsoever. At a time of economic collapse such as Italy is going through, the works require billions of Italian taxpayers’ money, at the expense of primary services like education and health. It would mainly be construction and other private companies profiting from it, but when finished and in use, the low demand for the line would end up making it a loss-making burden on the taxpayers. Like in Rossport, Ireland, the locals’ concerns and proposals are being completely ignored in the name of the only Modern God: money. 

The NO TAV came up with their own plan for the area which would include:
- changing the production and distribution processes to decrease transport of people and goods, especially on long distances
- supporting local sustainable trades instead of big industries
- creating or improving local means of sustainable and green transport for workers and students
- supporting and incrementing the use of the already existing local railway line

This is where thinking about political spectrum as a circle rather than a line is useful. NO TAV is opposition of high speed rail from the left, but they recently were joined in protest by neo-fascists. Then, of course, some anarchists started having a debate about the relative merits of high speed rail. I am not trying to send trolls their way. I want to highlight the odd politics of property rights, high speed rail, opportunity costs and other factors that are rife across all political persuasions when it comes to high speed rail. Support for and opposition of HSR is not because of one's politics, but rather a host of other reasons. Where European opponents are convinced that it is big money forcing HSR on people, in California supporters are convinced that opponents are on the take (while the train is on the dole). In truth, support or opposition is about values and priorities. But let's leave any fascists out of transport policy.