I belong to the National Streetcar Coalition, which pushes policies
favorable to the return of streetcars throughout the nation. Each month
we hold a conference call with member participants who explain what is
happening in their communities. This month I was blown away at the level
of activity from one end of the country to the other. Portland, Oregon
is the poster child for a successful streetcar system. Intersecting with
Portland's prolific light-rail system this eight-mile modern streetcar
line has attracted over 100 other communities in the USA and even
foreign countries which are looking to bring back streetcars.
Despite an extraordinarily well run streetcar line, which has attracted
$3.5 billion in stipulated investment which would not have occurred
without the streetcar, the George W. Bush Administration refuses to
partially fund a new line to the other side of town. Mind you, these
investment properties have voted to voluntarily tax themselves to
support the operation of the car line. So what is the Bush
Administration pushing? So-called bus rapid transit. In fact, despite
the legislative history of the small-starts program which was
established to fund starter streetcar lines, the Bush Administration
Department of Transportation authorities will have none of it. They only
fund bus rapid transit. In fact, they have a whole unit limited to
promotion of one mode. They do not do this for any other technology.
They hold conferences. They have staff that goes on location to push bus
rapid transit. They have a web page devoted solely to bus rapid transit.
There is only one problem. People don't like to ride buses. They will
tolerate riding a bus that feeds a rail line but they really don't buy
what the Administration is pushing.
Many communities are funding starter streetcar lines on their own. That
is well and good but the elitist "public be damned" attitude of the Bush
Administration is reprehensible. The Federal Transit Administrator seems
to be reasonably in favor of streetcars. But someone is giving him
orders not to fund rail. There is an irony in the current campaign to do
away with earmarks. The current law requires Congress to earmark funds
for transit projects. If earmarks are abolished, and I certainly am no
defender of the earmark practice, should Congress violate the law and
not set aside money for transit projects? That presently is the only way
rail projects are funded.