Obama’s Approach to Mass Transit: Stimulus for Mass Transit, Un-Stimulus for the Auto-Industry?

With the allocation of about $16.4 billion for the transportation system, the stimulus plan is embarking on a new era. New leadership under president Obama has taken a completely opposite approach to the distribution of funds, with $8.4 billion for mass transit and about $8 billion for high-speed rail (see left). This is obviously an improved attempt by the new President to distribute more resources than former President Bush’s final budget of a mere $11 million for the same project. President Obama’s extensive attempt at creating a cabinet for urban policy (see below) is an attempt to rebuild for future prospects. Why did the new leadership take on a completely opposite approach to mass transit then the previous administration had done? Perhaps, we have come to the realization that the need for a correlation between urban city planning and transportation function is the way of the future. A fact the Bush administration chose to neglect by allocating more funds towards the auto industry, and less towards the future welfare of the Nation. In a previous post I made reference to the endless benefits to the rural community once an accurate and reliable transit system in downtown Los Angeles is put into place; and the unpleasant results and monetary lose it will bring about for the auto industry. Clearly the time for change has come, as we consider the recent increase into public demands for a reliable transportation system. Although, the prospect of a wide-ranging transit system might inadvertently contribute to the already dying auto industry, the question remains as to how this will affect the current economy in the United States? Nonetheless, serious investments in constructing a better transit system will aid in building a sustainable society in terms of environment, social and economical prospects for our Nation.

The auto industry has for long been a power-house, strongly and successfully lobbying to delay the implementation of any future modernized transportation systems. Unfortunately, by implementing such a system many innocent people might lose their jobs in the process. Nonetheless, we should not waste anymore resources to bailout GM when obviously they lack to present the public with any credible proposition for the future. I propose that we set up a training program for the many qualified employees of the auto industry who might show interest in having a sustainable career in the mass transit industry. A point Massachusetts Professor Robert Pollin, who is also a consultant at the Department of Energy further develops by stating that; “Obama should instead invest the bailout billions into transportation that moves billions of people, and creates several times more jobs than what GM and Chrysler say they will lose.” Professor Pollin goes on to state that every dollar in mass transit results in creating more jobs then it would if it is spent in the auto industry; $22 billion for every $1 billion. When we put all these facts together it should persuade us to invest massively in a transit system at the present time for the purpose of building a better future. We should prioritize and work on the various ongoing but yet unfinished projects in the transit sector rather then aid and assist auto makers who lack to present a long term resolution to an ever growing problem.

Los Angeles should refer to the European countries and Japan as a good source of reference for building a reliable transit system. These countries are in the forefront and have benefited from their endeavors greatly. Perhaps, we could even use smaller cities like Chicago and New York as good references for having excelled in utilizing a massive transportation system. It makes me wonder why Los Angeles has fallen behind in this race and has yet to become sufficient in the matter? I am left to conclude that industrialization played a major role in this development. In cities such as New York and Chicago the population and its citizens were not as spread out as they are in Los Angeles, making the construction of a reliable transportation system much more practical in these smaller cities. Moreover, another fact that should not be overlooked is the age of the city in question. Both New York and Chicago grew and matured quite rapidly in comparison to Los Angeles which gave rise to a compelling need to a fast growing transit system. Therefore, Los Angeles being a relatively young city I believe it too is destined to undergo similar progress. It could be argued that the realization has come later then the necessity for building such system in Los Angels. Nonetheless, what is certain is that the 30 million people who found their way to Los Angeles during the past five years is a definite indicator that the policymakers will have to take a serious and long-term approach when deciding upon the shape and structure of mass transit system – an eminent fact. However, there are numerous factors as to why it is important for us to change our policies towards such a system one of which is to diminish the dependency of foreign oil. Furthermore, this will reduce the emission rate in our city and save the states energy crisis. Debates have been raised to address the question of making the urban center environmentally friendlier than the suburbs. However, all such debates rely on whether we are going to have well working and functioning transit system?

With raising population rate the issue of transportation can no longer be ignored. Some people in Los Angeles may seem satisfied to some extent with their mass transit system, but this number represents the minority of the population. Moreover, I recognize that we have an established transit system – an unavoidable fact – but I do assert that it is neither whole nor is it sufficient. Multiple projects have been undertaken that are still incomplete due to a lack of funds on the one hand, and attention and care on the other; project that can better serve the masses if completed. I am not alone in this conviction and wish to direct your attention to data assembled by the National Associated of Realtors (N.A.R) on this subject. A poll conducted by this institution reveals strong support for public transportation. When people were asked what they believe to be the greatest and best way to solving traffic problems almost 50 percent favored improving public transportation, 25 percent expressed that they rather desire to build communities where driving is not required, and only 20 percent answered that building roads was best. Fifty six percent of the people who participated in this survey stated that, the federal government has neither committed nor has it taken enough initiative to prioritize and distribute sufficient resources for such a project. Lastly, 75 percent – the majority – expressed that they wished this country to improve “intercity rail and transit.” In short, it is time for a more sustainable future in all shapes and forms. It is time that we finish what we should have started a long time ago.