Is good public transit a civil rights issue?

It seems that most planners have built or are planning to build downtown to suburbia rail systems that will only get rush hour usage. The policy of the past 8 years of the Bush Federal Transit Admistartion
has not to build light rail where there is already a transit dependent population who uses the bus. Never mind that the bus is slow and crowded and often does not air conditioning. The bus routes in many citys have the numbers that would justify light rail but because FTA feels that the population is transit dependent they dont count The fact is that many people in the inner city are minorities and of those many receive some sort of public assistance and live in dense section 8 public housing (Which was me at one time with my partner). Should it not be self evident that the route up from poverety is being able to get to work and school by good public transportaion and that should be rail? see- http://www.cts.umn.edu/Research/Feature ... income.pdf (light rail provides benfits for low wage workers) see also- http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/aug/01/00023/

Anything you want to spend public money on is a "civil rights" issue.

Oh, brother....

I agree that it is a civil rights issue. Access to decent paying jobs, and freedom from the costs of personal automobile ownership (a very large drain on all of us, much less the working poor), can help historically poorer and lesser educated peoples access the many blessings of our nation. Whatever we can do to help those less fortunate than us will be, in the end, not only a blessing on our hearts for our intents but also, for those of us who see the bottom line only, better for us all in taxation and other financial matters.

But, I'm a very proud liberal. Others might disagree and have equally valid viewpoints on the matter...while others still might just start screaming about socialism and Obamacare and make all the people on both the right and the left who actually think before we speak shake our heads in disgust.

Come to Portland and ask yourself if building more rail lines is truly good for civil rights, when scores of bus lines are being cut back (or in some cases eliminated).

Don't forget that two TriMet rail lines opened during the Bush years (Red Line in 2001, Yellow Line in 2003), and two more TriMet rail lines (Green Line and WES) were funded during the Bush years.

The recent $75M investment in the Portland Streetcar serves very few, if any, neighborhoods containing any significant minority population and few low income residents; prior Streetcar openings in 2001, 2005, and 2007 all occurred during the Bush years and received some federal investment. TriMet is forced to fund the City of Portland Streetcar to tune of over $6 million despite it not being a TriMet operation, and the bus route cutbacks occurred on bus routes that don't overlap or serve the Streetcar neighborhoods.

SemperFidelis wrote:I agree that it is a civil rights issue. Access to decent paying jobs, and freedom from the costs of personal automobile ownership (a very large drain on all of us, much less the working poor), can help historically poorer and lesser educated peoples access the many blessings of our nation. Whatever we can do to help those less fortunate than us will be, in the end, not only a blessing on our hearts for our intents but also, for those of us who see the bottom line only, better for us all in taxation and other financial matters.

But, I'm a very proud liberal. Others might disagree and have equally valid viewpoints on the matter...while others still might just start screaming about socialism and Obamacare and make all the people on both the right and the left who actually think before we speak shake our heads in disgust.

I tend to agree. The economic viability of an area, and the nation as a whole, is inherently constrained by the ability of potential employees to get to their jobs. The great advantage of mass transit is that it is mass, that is it has high capacity. Though it does inevitably mean that there's less flexibility in movement, as its not a private car service. But there's a reason why the older northeastern cities (and Chicago) retain their economic importance and cachet even with all the changes that have occurred over the last 20-30 years in the US economy: many people in those metro areas can actually get to work without needing to own a car (or more than one in a family), which is a very inefficient form of transportation (especially if driven alone). That alone makes the areas more attractive, and therefore more economically diverse and robust. (And if economic diversity doesn't seem important, I've got one word: Detroit.)

To focus only on the poor or minorities, however, has way too much of a chance of turning it into an "us vs them" issue. Everyone benefits from good mass transit. Let me say that again: Everyone benefits from good mass transit. The nature of that benefit varies depending on the individual situation, but the old argument that only riders benefit is demonstrably false. Reduction in pollution and road congestion and boosts in property values are readily apparent for all who live in the area, not just riders. The ease and convenience of not having everyone drive everywhere, also has benefits to public health from the decreases in stress levels (driving is very stressful for most people, just witness the road rage), fewer accidents causing injuries, and more exercise from walking to and from the station. (It's the suburbs where people drive even to go to the corner store that lead in obesity.)

However, I wouldn't necessarily call it an absolute right, just as there's no absolute right to hold a job. (The actual right involved with jobs is to not be denied from holding a job based on capricious standards, such as race, or to be denied the ability to pursue one without just cause.) It's a negative vs positive rights thing.

The support of public mass transportation is just good, sound economic policy.

I'm going to disagree. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find a clause guaranteeing public transportation. Roads for the delivery of mail, yes; but there are no rights on transit.

Of course good transportation modes is vital for strong economic growth, but even economic growth isn't guaranteed by the Constitution. And it can't be a "right", specifically civil or not, if it isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.

Um, without getting into a huge debate, i'm going to mention three things.

First, the federal Constitution has no bearing on the enumeration of additional rights by state constitutions (like New York State's right to education). The only thing the federal Constitution says about state constitutions is that they are guaranteed to have a republican (small "r") structure. The limitations on state legislature to infringe upon people's other federally-enumerated rights comes from the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, which deals with all state law, not just state constitutions.

Indeed, the idea that the enumerated rights in the federal Constitution somehow makes them the only rights that people have is anathema to the Founder's ideals, as evidenced by the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states the "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So the idea that it isn't a right if it isn't mentioned by the Constitution is simply incorrect.

Thirdly, that is why debates such as these are necessary. The Constitution does not, nor was it ever meant to, contain all the answers to every issue or situation, nor was it meant to perfectly describe the human condition. Understanding full well that they were very much humans of their times, the Framers built in the idea that rights could be expanded by law, without needing them enshrined at the constitutional level.

oknazevad, that is a sharp post!

Thanks, Mike.

Excellent point about the Constitution being inclusive rather than exclusive. Never-the-less, while one may state the public can have the expectation of some sort of public transit, there's no way any government can afford public transit on every street with a bus stop or train station on every block or in front of every house.
When you start confusing terms of expectations with "rights", and not specifically "civil rights", you're abusing the power of the latter term. If public transit was a right, then everyone in the country should expect to have it. Once a service becomes optional, it is no longer a right.
The truth of the matter is that not everyone in the country is served by public transit. Large parts of Alaska, just as an example, don't even have roads to the nearest neighboring town. I wonder how they could be served by our government's guarantee of the right for public transit? They can't....and that's why public transit isn't a "right".
Even New York City doesn't run buses down every street. Even New York City doesn't have a public sidewalk on every street. Even New York City doesn't have a public street in front of every house.
I would state we have the right for the ability to travel from one location to another. But that right isn't free everywhere. If there was such a right; there would be no toll roads, no toll bridges, no HOV lanes, no Managed Lanes, no parking fees, etc.; it would all be free to everyone.

Exactly. While one has a right to travel unimpeded, there's no guarantee of a particular mode of travel. And while some would argue that a right that can be exercised is no right at all, such arguments are full of philosophical and practical pitfalls that make them less than convincing.

As for the guarantee of economic growth, of course there's no guarantee of that, but fostering economic opportunity is one of the roles of government. Much of modern politics is debates over just how to accomplish that. The problem is that economics isn't an exact science, and any theory can't be definitively proven or disproven, thereby making the debate ultimately intractable. Indeed, one policy may be quite appropriate under one set of conditions and completely inappropriate in another, which also make the debates perpetual, as economic conditions change over time in response to changes in technology and other shifting conditions.

Why not a "right" to own a government provided car?

oknazevad wrote:While one has a right to travel unimpeded, there's no guarantee of a particular mode of travel.

That should answer your question, Passenger.

Anyway, when I posed the question about public transit being a civil rights issue to an outspoken conservative, Tea Party friend of mine, he replied as follows:

"...many conservatives rightfully balk at being stuffed into railcars like sheeple. Conservatives, generally, tend to be more independent-minded and self-sufficient."

I guess all those well-dressed Wall Street types that ride the IRT in downtown Manhattan are closet liberals, after all.

Ocala Mike wrote:I guess all those well-dressed Wall Street types that ride the IRT in downtown Manhattan are closet liberals, after all.

Compared to your "Tea Party" friend?