Wholly aside from my own ideological inclinations, I really have a soft spot for heretics on both sides. On the national stage, I always find Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan, and Mickey Kaus difficult to categorize and therefore interesting to read.
So it’s no surprise that I’m somewhat obsessed with pro-transit conservate William Lind, above and beyond the fact that he agrees with me. The modern conservative coalition largely consists of rural interests that are never going to be pro-transit, but there’s really no good reason that urban conservatives and libertarians should be anti-rail and anti-transit*.
The effort to win this argument is an important one; the nature of the system is that parties alternate in power, and decades-long infrastructure projects can’t survive administrations that alternate between supporting and sabotaging them.
See also this recollection of Lind’s coauthor, the late Paul Weyrich.
*I fear Lind’s comparison of rail and road subsidies may not be apples-to-apples (are capital costs in that highway figure?), but without easy sourcing it’s hard to say. On the other hand, things like wide arterials, density restrictions and parking mandates are undoubtedly car subsidies but don’t show up in his figures.