Why Conservatives Should Champion Public and Active Transport
Key Takeaways
- Transport systems benefit from long-term policy consistency.
- However, transport policy is becoming increasingly polarised.
- Conservatives are unnecessarily being alienated from supporting public and active transport because the case for them is not being made in a way aligned with conservative values and priorities.
-
Conservatives should support public and active transport for a variety of reasons, including:
- Shrinking the size of the state.
- Reducing congestion.
- Supporting economic growth and productivity.
- Promoting individual freedom and choice.
- Building vibrant town centres, local businesses and communities.
What Next?
When advocating for public and active transport to conservative politicians, are you framing your arguments in a way that is firmly rooted in their language and values?
Introduction
The Conservative Transport Paradox
Picture this: A conservative politician campaigns on reducing government spending, cutting congestion, and supporting local businesses. Once elected, they approve transport policies that increase government spending, make congestion worse and harm local businesses without even realising it.
This scenario plays out across the world almost every day. Transport policy has become unnecessarily polarised, with public and active transport branded as "progressive" causes while car-centric policies are seen as inherently "conservative." This artificial division is doing significant damage to our transport systems in an area where there should be far more consensus.
This has not always been the case. Conservative Prime Ministers in the UK, such as David Cameron and Boris Johnson, were both keen advocates of active and public transport. Similarly, centre-right state governments in New South Wales, Australia, invested heavily in public transport.
The irony is profound. Many policies that some conservatives reflexively oppose, such as bike lanes, public transport investment, and walkable neighbourhoods, actually advance conservative goals while car-centric alternatives often undermine them by expanding government, reducing economic efficiency, and limiting individual choice.
A Different Conversation
The problem is that the vast majority of advocacy for public and active transport comes from progressives, and so they naturally couch their advocacy in progressive language and values. Meanwhile, the only people who couch their advocacy in the language and values of conservatives are car enthusiasts. It is no wonder that conservative politicians are not big advocates for public and active transport and can be openly hostile.
This blog isn't an environmental or equity argument for public transport wrapped in economic language. This is a genuine argument that public and active transport advance core conservative values and car-centric alternatives do not.
Here are five reasons why conservatives should support public and active transport.
Reason 1 - Shrinking The State
Ask many conservatives about transport funding and they'll likely tell you: "Cars pay their own way through fuel taxes and registration fees, while public transport requires endless taxpayer subsidies." Unfortunately, it's built on a fundamental error that is creating bad transport policy.
The Hidden Car Subsidy
The truth is that cars receive huge government subsidies, they're just hidden in plain sight. Consider what taxpayers actually fund for car infrastructure:
- Road construction and maintenance: Fuel taxes rarely cover all road costs, with the remainder funded through general taxation.
- Parking mandates: For every car on the road, there are between 2 and 4 parking spaces, often on government land. This comes at a large cost to taxpayers.
- Emergency services: Police, ambulance, and fire services spend large resources responding to traffic accidents.
- Land opportunity costs: Roads and parking consume 30-60% of urban land.
- Healthcare: Car-dependency is directly linked to a reduction in exercise and increases in obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health issues. These "lifestyle diseases" are hugely expensive to government healthcare budgets.
The True Fiscal Comparison
When you account for all costs, cars typically receive thousands of dollars per vehicle per year in direct and indirect subsidies, while well-run public transport will use less subsidy per person than the cars it replaces. A protected bike lane is relatively cheap to construct and requires virtually no ongoing maintenance.
Even better, active transport creates positive fiscal feedback loops. Every person who cycles to work instead of driving saves taxpayers money on road maintenance, reduces healthcare costs, and frees up valuable urban land for productive economic use.
The bottom line is that when you undertake a full accounting of the subsidies for cars, they are not the small government solution they first appear to be.
Conservatives who genuinely want to shrink government's fiscal burden should be championing the transport modes that reduce long-term taxpayer obligations, not defending the systems that create them.
Reason 2 - Solving Congestion
Every day, millions of commuters sit in traffic. The conventional wisdom seems logical: traffic jams mean we need more road capacity. Build more lanes, reduce congestion. It's intuitive, it feels proactive, and it's exactly what most politicians (both from the left and the right) promise their frustrated constituents.
There's just one problem: it doesn't work.
After decades of research, we now know about "induced demand", every new lane of highway capacity fills up with additional traffic. The reason is simple when you make driving easier and faster, more people choose to drive. You end up spending billions of taxpayer dollars to recreate the same congestion problems you started with.
Here's where active and public transport offer a better answer: moving more people in less space.
A single road lane can move up to 2,000 cars per hour, carrying roughly 2,400 people if you're optimistic about occupancy rates. That same space can move 15,000-20,000 people per hour via bus rapid transit.
During rush hour, one bus can replace 40-50 cars. One train car replaces 100+ cars. Every person walking or cycling to work removes a car from the road entirely, creating space for those who need to drive.
This isn't theoretical. Simple "school streets" policies, closing roads around schools during pickup times, reduce rush-hour congestion by 10-15% in affected areas as parents feel it is safe to let their children walk or cycle to school. School streets are also extremely popular with parents and cheap to implement.
Conservatives who genuinely want to tackle congestion should abandon the failed strategy of endless road building and embrace solutions that actually work.
Reason 3 - Economic Growth
For many conservatives, economic growth is a high priority. On transport, the conventional conservative wisdom assumes that more roads equal more growth. Build highways, reduce travel times, increase productivity. It's a seductive equation that has driven transport policy for decades.
But what if this equation is wrong? What if, beyond a certain point, building more roads actually reduces economic productivity?
The Productivity Paradox
Transport expert Todd Litman identified what he calls the "Mobility-Productivity Paradox." In the early stages of motorisation, cars dramatically boost economic productivity. A farmer can get goods to market faster. Businesses can access larger labour markets. Economic growth accelerates.
However, as mobility increases, benefits increase at a declining rate since the most valued trips have been taken, so additional vehicle-miles are incrementally less productive, while costs tend to increase linearly. As a result, at high levels of mobility an increasing portion of travel is economically inefficient: its marginal costs exceed its marginal benefits, which reduces productivity:
Car travel imposes large costs:
- to users (to own and operate vehicles),
- To governments and businesses (for roads and parking facilities) and
- To communities (for imposing congestion, crash risk and pollution damages).
Motor vehicles tend to displace other modes, reducing non-drivers’ productivity. It is no coincidence that highly productive cities like London, New York and Tokyo have extensive public transport networks and increasing active transport networks too.
Conservative governments serious about economic growth should focus on transport investments that maximise economic return. Active transport projects typically generate benefit-cost ratios of 3:1 to 8:1. Quality public transport projects generate ratios of 2:1 to 5:1. Highway expansion projects, once you account for induced demand and opportunity costs, often generate ratios below 1:1, they destroy economic value.
Reason 4 - Expanding Individual Choice and Freedom
Car advertisements sell freedom. Open roads, personal mobility, the ability to go anywhere at any time. For conservatives who prize individual liberty, this narrative is deeply appealing. However, car-dependent transport systems restrict individual choice and freedom, rather than enhancing it.
In car-dependent areas, government doesn't just encourage car ownership, it effectively mandates it. Through zoning laws, parking requirements, and infrastructure design, governments force citizens into car dependency whether they want it or not.
Consider the hidden requirements of car-dependent living:
- Financial mandate: Adults must spend $8,000-12,000 annually on vehicle ownership, insurance, fuel, and maintenance—often their second-largest expense after housing
- Age restrictions: Anyone under the driving age cannot access independent mobility
- Health restrictions: Elderly people, those with disabilities, or medical conditions that prevent driving lose access to employment and social connections
- Economic barriers: Low-income families face impossible choices between car payments and other necessities
This isn't freedom, it's a government-imposed mobility tax.
The Coercion of Car-Centric Design
Car-dependent development doesn't just encourage driving, it eliminates alternatives. When governments mandate minimum parking requirements, ban mixed-use development, and design streets exclusively for cars, they remove citizens' ability to choose how they travel.
A mother in suburban sprawl can't choose to walk her children to school; there are no sidewalks and busy roads make it dangerous. A teenager can't bike to their part-time job because bike infrastructure doesn't exist and parents fear for their safety. An elderly person can't take public transport to medical appointments, the nearest bus stop is too far away with infrequent service.
These outcomes are the direct result of government policies that eliminate choice.
True Transportation Choice
Genuine freedom means having real options. The freest transport systems are those where people can choose the best mode for each trip:
- Walking or cycling for short local trips
- Public transport for longer journeys along busy corridors
- Cars when they're genuinely the most efficient option
The Freedom Dividend
When people have genuine transport choices, everyone benefits, including drivers. Consider the Netherlands, where cycling infrastructure is world-class. Dutch drivers experience less traffic congestion than drivers in car-dependent countries because many short trips are made by bike instead. The roads remain available for those who need them most.
Children in walkable neighbourhoods gain independence years earlier than their suburban counterparts. Elderly people maintain mobility and social connections long after they stop driving. Families save thousands of dollars annually when some trips can be made without a car.
Breaking the Dependency
Conservatives rightly oppose policies that create government dependency. Yet car-dependent infrastructure creates exactly that, dependence on massive, ongoing government spending for roads, parking, and the regulatory apparatus needed to manage vehicle-oriented development.
True conservative policy would create transport systems that maximise individual choice while minimising ongoing government obligations. This means investing in infrastructure that gives people options, walkable streets, cycling networks, and efficient public transport, rather than locking them into expensive car dependency.
Reason 5 - Vibrant town centres, local businesses and communities
Conservatives tend to be strongly rooted and proud of their local communities. They value local businesses, town centres where neighbours meet, and the social fabric that holds communities together. Yet across the world, these cherished institutions are under assault, not from progressive policies, but from car-centric development.
The Death of the High Street
Drive through many small towns and you'll see the same tragic pattern: boarded-up shops on the High Street, thriving big-box stores surrounded by vast parking lots on the town's edge.
When we prioritise car access above all else, we systematically destroy the conditions that make local high streets and town centres successful. Wide roads create barriers between neighbourhoods. Mandatory parking requirements consume valuable downtown land and inflate commercial rents. Traffic noise and pollution make streets unpleasant places to spend time. The result is predictable: local businesses can't compete with suburban chains that can provide "free" parking and car-friendly access.
The False Solution
Faced with struggling town centres, many politicians reach for the obvious solution: more parking and wider roads to make downtown more car-accessible. This intuitive response is actually accelerating High Street's decline.
Free or cheap parking doesn't solve the problem, it creates new ones. When parking is underpriced, spaces fill up with long-term parkers (often employees), leaving no room for customers. Meanwhile, more cars mean more traffic, making downtown even less pleasant for pedestrians.
The Community-Building Solution
Successful town centres worldwide share common characteristics, and none of them involve massive car parks. They're places where people can easily arrive on foot, by bike, or via public transport. They're designed for human interaction, not vehicle storage.
When you convert car-dominated streets into pedestrian-friendly spaces, local businesses report significant revenue increases as foot traffic surges and visitors stay longer. Property values rise. New businesses open and the town cenres become destinations people want to visit.
Conclusion
The Conservative Case is Clear
The evidence is overwhelming: public and active transport align perfectly with many core conservative principles. They reduce government spending through lower infrastructure and healthcare costs. They boost economic productivity by moving people efficiently rather than trapping them in traffic. They expand individual choice by giving people genuine alternatives to car dependency. And they strengthen the local communities and businesses that form the backbone of conservative values.
Yet despite this natural alignment, too many conservatives have been convinced that supporting cars means supporting freedom, while supporting public transport means supporting big government. This narrative has it exactly backwards.
When we build car-dependent communities, we force people into expensive vehicle ownership and create massive government obligations for road maintenance, parking provision, and healthcare costs from sedentary lifestyles. When we invest in walkable neighbourhoods with quality public transport, we give people genuine choice while reducing long-term taxpayer burdens.
A Call for Conservative Leadership
Transport infrastructure lasts for generations. Conservative politicians and advocates have an opportunity to lead on this issue rather than cede it to progressives.
This doesn't mean abandoning pragmatism or ignoring the legitimate transport needs that cars serve. It means recognising that the best transport systems offer multiple options, allowing people to choose the most efficient mode for each journey. It means supporting policies that strengthen local communities while reducing long-term government liabilities.
The future of our communities depends on getting this right. It's time for conservatives to reclaim this issue and champion transport policies that truly serve conservative principles.