GOP's Transit Fight Intensifies PA's Urban-Rural Political Divide

Pennsylvania is a diverse state. Hundreds of miles separate rural communities from dense cities. Governing this fractious geography requires lawmakers to address all regions and balance the needs of different cities and boroughs. 

Consider the case of rural Potter County, where a gas station owner had to turn off a single pump because of aging underground tanks. The gas station served residents but also visitors in the region, a destination for ATV treks. The closure of the single gas pump was a big loss for residents and a hit for local businesses dependent on ATV visitors. 

When Gov. Josh Shapiro learned of the problem, it took him about a week to fix it. In true get-stuff-done fashion, Shapiro shepherded the agencies under his jurisdiction to find funding to replace the underground tank and help with the replacement process and permitting. Shapiro capped it off with a press conference in Potter County promoting the area as a tourism destination for ATV riders, garnering statewide attention for the region. 

This isn’t new. 

Wolf also expanded broadband internet to rural communities, invested in rural health care, and supported manufacturing programs in small towns. These were lifelines for communities struggling to keep their economies afloat in the 21st century.

Now, let’s compare these efforts in heavily Republican regions to how Pennsylvania Republicans treat Democratic cities.

Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and smaller cities like Lancaster, York, Allentown, and Erie rely on public transportation to keep people moving and the economy humming. Buses, trains, and trollies shepherd workers to jobs, patients to hospitals, and shoppers to businesses. Due to the density in these regions, connected public transportation makes sense. It keeps people out of cars and off the road so those who want to drive have an easier time getting from point A to point B. 

But each year, Republican legislators fight against transit funding for cities of all sizes – even cities and transit systems that they represent. They cast larger transit systems like SEPTA as ineffective, bloated bureaucracies, even though SEPTA is one of the most cost-efficient systems in the country. 

Republicans point to the efficiency and cost savings of roads, ignoring that federal, state, and local governments provide even larger subsidies for these transportation methods. Before lawmakers even consider funding, they force the systems to jump through operational hoops. When the systems meet those requirements or agree to things like special prosecutors for SEPTA, Republicans move the goalposts. 

Republicans ignore that the cities they attack and the transit systems they choke generate massive amounts of the tax revenue that funds rural roads, schools, and hospitals. They even ignore that tens of thousands of their constituents benefit from buses or micro-transit. 

It’s again part of a pattern. 

Republicans would seemingly rather take money away from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh than fund programs or projects in their districts. It’s a counteractive approach that only impedes rural revival.

For decades, lawmakers viewed the success of one region of the Commonwealth as success for all of Pennsylvania. Lawmakers were willing to give a win to other regions, knowing that they would benefit from reciprocal generosity. 

But the agreement has frayed. 

Rural areas have stagnated and declined, and rural constituents and lawmakers have errantly blamed cities – not corporate and federal disinvestment and failed federal policies – for their decline. Instead of looking for ways to grow rural areas, Republican lawmakers have focused their energy on punishing their urban counterparts. 

And now we could see a policy horseshoe. The next idea that both parties could agree on is that the other deserves punishment and disinvestment. Urban constituents and Democrats are livid at Republicans’ treatment of public transit systems that drive their economies and sustain their way of life. 

If the transit crisis is not resolved amicably and soon, urban and suburban voters impacted will have a chance to speak up, and we could see an equal effort against rural regions. 

Why are we paying for rural roads when they won’t help fund our trains? 

Why are we paying for rural police coverage when our trains are idle and our businesses suffer?

Democrats might see primaries from aggrieved insurgents who capture attention and focus blame on rural legislators and their constituents. And the agreement to run Pennsylvania as a patchwork commonwealth of shared interests for statewide prosperity could further erode.  

We want to repair the frayed agreements between rural and urban legislators and constituents, and the behavior of Republican lawmakers is making it more likely that there will be an even larger fracture between our regions and parties. 

Mark Nicastre is a crisis and advocacy communications consultant in Philadelphia, where he runs Fitler Square Strategies. Most recently, he was the Communications Director for former Gov. Tom Wolf.