Transportation: Texas style
By Paul M. Weyrich
web posted May 23, 2005
The Texas Transportation Institute recently released its Urban Mobility Report, which noted that in 51 metropolitan areas drivers spend at least twenty hours stuck in traffic yearly. The Associated Press reported: "In the 85 urban areas studied, rush-hour drivers spent three times as much time stuck in traffic in 2003 – 47 hours – than they did in 1982, the study found." This means parents have less time to spend with their children because they are stuck in traffic. Children, including teenagers, need the guidance their parents can provide. The more time parents spend working and commuting the less influence and supervision they can provide.
There are solutions to this problem, which cultural conservatives are well-positioned to advance.One solution is not easy for many parents to adopt but the benefits often could be incalculable. That solution would involve one parent deciding to stay home and provide a steady presence in their children's lives. This solution was unfashionable during the 1970s, when radical feminists won the debate between stay-at-home mothers who limited their professional potential and women who found satisfaction in the workplace. It was never the simple tradeoff that the feminists and their compadres in the entertainment industry portrayed in which a woman either was one of the Stepford Wives or a successful career woman.
My wife Joyce raised our children and undoubtedly our sons and daughters reaped the benefit of that decision. She ensured that our children could read when they entered grade school. Our children were not perfect but they avoided the severe drugs and alcohol problems that ensnared so many teenagers. I enforced the rules but without my wife's constant watchful presence it is likely that the children might have engaged in activities that were frowned upon in our home.
The Census Bureau reported that there are 5.4 million mothers and 98,000 fathers who are stay-at-home parents. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the idea that one can "have it all" is slowly losing its appeal. Vicki Shotbolt, Deputy Chief Executive of Britain's National Family and Parenting Institute, recently commented, "This is the generation of young women who have seen the ‘have it all' ethos up close and personal, and they have realized that it doesn't work. Their own mothers may have tired to juggle motherhood and careers, and it may have been the children who feel they lost out."
Public Agenda released a survey in 2000 that found 70 per cent of parents with children five years of age or under believed that having one parent at home represented the best child-care arrangement. Over half of the survey respondents agreed strongly that "no one can do as good a job of raising children as their own parents." Most parents with young children expressed distrust for daycare.
Families may need to sacrifice in money to have one parent spend more time with their children. Technology can help to compensate because the home computer can let a parent work from home. It gives young parents more flexibility to raise their children and to work. A father can telecommute and spend more time with his children while working from home. The mother who is a freelance graphic artist can be a stay-at-home parent but still supplement the family income.
Many parents may opt for home schooling because it is an excellent opportunity to instill important moral values in children. Public education cannot be trusted to do this job and private and religious schools may be costly. Fortunately, excellent curriculums can be purchased by home schooling families to give their children the benefit of a rigorous academic program.
When both parents work they increase their living expenses. When one parent decides to stay at home with the children, the parents no longer pay for child care, and reduce commuting, meals, business attire and home-maintenance expenses. It cannot be assumed that families with one working parent are wealthier. Data compiled by the Census Bureau in 1997 and analyzed and presented by the Family and Home Network showed that the median earnings of a one-income family were $37,116 compared to the $35,713 in median earnings of two-income family.
My colleague Bill Lind and I have spent decades preaching to conservatives the virtues of public transportation as a way to improve community and family life. The hours upon hours that many commuters spend in traffic jams represents time that could be spent with their children. Riding the train can reduce tension at home because the father or mother will not be more relaxed having traffic jams. New York and Los Angeles are not the only places where people get stuck in traffic. Omaha and Colorado Springs and San Francisco and Charleston also have traffic jams. Lind and I wrote in our publication "Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique:" (PDF format)
"On a nationwide basis, the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey found that, in answer to ‘I use Public transit because,' 43 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that ‘It is faster than using a private vehicle.' This data confirms what those of us with the good fortune to live in cities with rail transit already know: in or near the city center, in rush hours, taking the train gives a faster ride and takes less time than does driving a car through the congested (and sometimes) gridlocked urban streets and freeways."
Communities with public transportation, such as light-rail lines, offer families the ability to spend more time with their children and less time in traffic.
Lind and I developed cultural conservatism to help Americans find practical solutions to real problems. Too often the most realistic and practical solutions seem to elude our most sophisticated citizens, including our nation's policymakers. More time at home and more time commuting on public transportation are ways to concentrate on what should be most important in your life. 
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
 Printer friendly version |
|