Why not transit?

Ryan Avent and Matt Yglesias make a good point: As soon as the world recovers from its current slump, high oil prices will be right back, because the underlying scarcity of oil hasn't been alleviated. The best thing we can do to insure our economy against future oil shocks is to invest in mass transit - light rail and high-speed rail.

But this is something that conservatives have long opposed doing. To some, the word "rail" is a thing to conjure horror - a code word for totalitarian communism. More recently, high-speed rail projects became a prime target for Republican obstructionism. But why? What have conservatives got against rail?

One explanation is - you guessed it - anti-black racism. If white people ride the train, they have to look at and be around black people every day (and if white people don't ride the train, they're paying taxes for black people to ride the train). Some people may not like looking at black people. ome may be scared that black people will rob or attack them.

But this reason doesn't work for high-speed rail, because high-speed rail is expensive to use. Therefore, poor black people will not use high-speed rail. We must seek another explanation.

High-speed rail is good for business. Connecting major hubs allows companies to more easily branch out and have meetings with people in nearby cities. Rail stops become commerce hubs. Why does this sound like communism to Republicans?

Is it because Republicans tend to drive a lot? But rail reduces traffic, which should make all drivers happy. And yes, diverting money from highways to rail might conceivably mean more potholes, but fewer car on the road should mean fewer potholes, and the effects should balance out.

The point here is: contrary to what Michelle Bachmann says, no one can make you ride the train. We can only give people the choice of transportation options. And isn't choice good? Isn't that why we have a capitalist society in the first place?

So why are Republicans still hating on trains? Anybody? Bueller?