It's a friggin' privilege people, not a right!

 

______________________

 

Study: Americans know Bart better than 1st Amendment

By Gerry Doyle

Tribune staff reporter

Published February 28, 2006, 9:52 PM CST

 

 

A survey released Wednesday showcases a bit of data that should surprise nobody: Americans know more about "The Simpsons" than they do about the 1st Amendment.

 

The study, conducted by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum, focuses on the 1st Amendment and found that less than one percent of the respondents could identify the five protected rights: freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and to petition the government.

 

On the other hand, about 20 percent of respondents could name Bart and Homer and the other three members of the animated

 

.........

 

The right to own pets, for example, which 21 percent of respondents said was listed someplace between "Congress shall make no law" and "redress of grievances." Seventeen percent said that the amendment contained the right to drive a car. And 38 percent thought that "taking the 5th Amendment" was part of the 1st.

 

..........

ouch.

~Oh, Canada!~

I'd be interested to know how many got religion, speech and assembly - because really, not knowing freedom of the press is enumerated separately from freedom of speech?  I ain't worried about that guy.  And not knowing the right to petition the government is in the 1st amendment?  Hell, I've read the constitution and the amendments a lot of times, and in fact just quite recently, and I didn't remember that.

 

Now, more interesting is definitely the pull quote KJP chose - 17% believing driving is a constitutional right...although, at the height of Watergate, with Nixon on the ropes, embarrassed, with a crap economy and the ugliest fashions ever conceived, Nixon still had a 24% approval rating...and with double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates and super-high unemployment and an energy crisis and Americans being held hostage in Iran and the country humiliated internationally, at least 30% of the people thought Jimmy Carter was doing a good job.

 

...goes to show you, it's a big country out there, with lots of people thinking lots of stupid things...

:shoot:

:shoot:                           

:shoot:

:shoot:

That's funny.

Even if I were highway zealot, and believed driving was a right, how can it be in the first amendment, knowing that the amendments are numbered chronologically? I knew our founding fathers had a great deal of foresight, but to foresee the automobile more than 100 years before its invention would be downright clairvoyant.

Amazingly, no thread on this either. There should be, considering the major discussions underway on the fate of the soon-to-be-insolvent federal Highway Trust Fund.

____________________

 

 

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=187179

 

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Report: Tolls can't meet future highway needs

By Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org Staff Writer     

 

 

State highway officials warned Wednesday (March 7) of a looming $11 billion hole in federal highway funds and said the growing shift toward tolls and private leases of roads can’t generate enough money to meet the nation’s short- or long-term transportation needs. 

 

Instead, the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, last raised 14 years ago, would have to go up at least 3 cents by 2009 and 7 cents more by 2015 just to maintain the current highway system and keep pace with the fast-rising cost of roads, according to a new report (http://www.transportation1.org/tif1report) by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

 

One popular solution to road-funding woes involves state and local governments adding toll lanes or leasing toll roads to private companies. In 2005, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels ® inked a $3.85 billion deal to lease the Indiana Toll Road to an international consortium for 75 years. In 2002, Texas Gov. Rick Perry ® launched a 50-year plan to build 4,000 miles of privately financed toll roads along portions of I-69 and I-35. Pennsylvania and New Jersey are considering leasing portions of their toll roads to private companies.

 

More at link above

 

AASHTO Report: Transportation - Invest In Our Future (http://www.transportation1.org/tif1report/)

This subject came up briefly during the ODOT Budget hearings in the Ohio senate on Wednesday.  New ODOT Director Beasley told the Seanate Transportation & Public Safety Committee members that the diminishing federal funding from the Highway Trust is a great concern and that Ohio is going to have to start evaluating highway projects on more than the basis of simply "capacity".  I believe I heard him say that out of all of the highway projects approved by the TRAC in the past year, only two had any element of economic development necessity even mentioned in ther criteria.

 

BTW: This AASHTO report is often cited as major evidence of why we need to begin investing in our rail systems to move more freight and people. Much as it may seem funny to see the highway folks with the jitters, this is a very serious challenge that affects us all and requires that we develop a national transportation/energy policy that invests in a broader range of projects.  And clearly, there is a need to establish a funding mechanism for major rail projects.

Here's an executive summary to a larger report by AASHTO that shows what we're up against....

______________

 

http://www.transportation1.org/tif1report/execsummary.html

 

Executive Summary

 

Congress created the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission to examine “future surface transportation system needs, expected demographic and economic changes that will shape traffic demand, the future of the Interstate System, and the potential for expansion, upgrades, and other changes to the surface transportation system to meet the nation’s needs.”

 

The Commission was directed to consult with representatives of State departments of transportation. This report is the first of six that AASHTO plans to provide to assist the Commission. It contains a comprehensive assessment of transportation needs today and in the future, and the demographic and economic changes that will shape that future.

 

On October 30, 2006, AASHTO’s Board of Directors approved a series of policy recommendations for the Commission which included a “Call for Action.” In part it read,

 

“Our generation inherited the world’s best transportation system made possible by the commitment of the past two generations to invest in the country’s future. We have spent that inheritance.”

 

“The 21st Century is an increasingly competitive world where countries like China and India have set their sights on overtaking America as the preeminent economic power. Our prosperity and way of life are at stake. America must respond.”

 

Today the country is faced with increasing global competition. China, with a population of 1.3 billion, is building a 53,000-mile National Expressway System which, when complete in 2020, will rival the 47,000-mile U.S. Interstate System. India, with a population of one billion, is building a 10,000-mile national expressway system. Europe, with a population of 450 million, is spending hundreds of billions of euros on a network of highways, bridges, tunnels, ports, and rail lines.

 

To support their economic development, nearly all the major players on the world stage are investing aggressively in their transportation infrastructure. The two questions this raises for the United States are: First, does not the United States also need to invest to compete? And second, if so, how much?

 

Future Surface Transportation Needs

The future needs of the U.S. surface transportation system are great and the costs to provide them are increasing:

 

Preservation. The current system of highways, transit, and railroads is growing old and will need to be rebuilt or replaced.

 

Capacity. Travel on the current system has increased well beyond what it was designed to carry. Over the next 50 years, nearly as much highway arterial capacity as was built over the past 50 years will need to be added. Over the next 20 years, we should double transit ridership.

 

Increased Costs of Construction. Between 1993 and 2015, construction costs will have increased nearly 70 percent. To restore the purchasing power of the highway and transit programs, revenues will have to be increased to levels which match the increase in costs. For highways, that would mean increasing the Federal program from $43 billion, in 2009 to $73 billion in 2015. For transit, it would mean increasing the Federal program from $10.3 billion in 2009 to $17.3 billion in 2015.

 

Global Trade. International trade and the volume of freight needed to be carried by truck and rail is increasing rapidly. This will require substantial additional capacity and in many cases dedicated truck lanes.

 

Highways and Transit

The 2007 “cost to improve” highways and bridges in the United States is estimated at $155.5 billion and the “cost to improve” transit is estimated at $31.4 billion.

 

Freight Rail

The “cost to maintain freight rail’s current market share,” in 2007 is estimated at $12 billion—$2.75 billion annually in public support and $9.25 billion annually in railroad private capital investment.

 

Intercity Passenger Rail

The “cost to bring 21 intercity passenger rail corridors to a good state of repair” is $3.3 billion in annual rail capital investment.

 

Are these investments achievable?

Is it is even worthwhile to consider investments of these magnitudes? Yes, for three reasons. First, the needs are based on the estimate made by U.S. DOT in 2006, updated using a credible index which accounts for the increases in construction costs which have occurred in the recent past and are expected in the future.

 

Second, when put into historic perspective they look more realistic. Actual highway capital spending nationally increased from $19.7 billion in 1981, to $75 billion in 2005, an increase of 280 percent over 24 years. Between 1981 and 2004, transit capital investment increased by 290 percent. If both the Federal and state governments continue to fund their shares of the increases needed over time, significant growth in both programs can be achieved.

 

The third reason to consider investments of this magnitude is that while they are huge, they do not have to be achieved all at once. The program needs to be increased over many years and several phases. In the first phase, from 2008 to 2010, the objective should be to assure sufficient revenues to sustain the highway and transit programs at the levels promised in SAFETEA-LU. In the second phase, from 2010 to 2015, the objective should be to restore the purchasing power of the highway and transit programs to 1993, the last time the Federal gas tax was increased. In the third phase, from 2015 and beyond, the objective should be to close the gap between current spending and the “cost to improve” goals.

 

Demographic Trends Affecting Transportation

Population

Between 1955 and 2005, the U.S. population grew by 130 million to 295 million. Over the next 50 years it is expected to grow by 140 million to 435 million. Over the next 30 years, 88 percent of that growth will occur in the south and west. By 2030, the population of people over 65 will have grown from 35 million to 70 million. More than 70 percent of the nation’s population growth and 80 percent of its economic growth are expected to take place in metropolitan areas. At the same time, rural states will face the enormous cost of preserving the network of roads they have built over the past 80 years.

 

Vehicles

In 1955, U.S. highways carried 65 million cars and trucks. They carry 246 million today, and that number is expected to reach nearly 400 million by 2055.

 

Travel

Highway travel, measured in “vehicle miles traveled,” increased from 600 billion in 1955 to three trillion in 2006. FHWA forecasts that it will grow by 2.07 percent through 2022. Travel may exceed seven trillion vehicle miles by 2055.

 

Truck Freight

Truck tonnage is expected to increase 114 percent between 2004 and 2035. Trucks are expected to carry 79 percent of total tonnage. Today’s Interstates carry an average of 10,500 trucks per day per mile. By 2035, this figure will increase to 22,700 trucks per day per mile.

 

Rail Freight

Rail tonnage is expected to grow by 63 percent by 2035. Rail is expected to carry 13 percent of total tonnage in 2035, down from 14 percent in 2004.

 

Trade

Trade as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased from 13 percent in 1990 to 26 percent in 2000, and is expected to reach 35 percent in 2020. Container traffic increased from 8 million units in 1980, to 42 million in 2005. By 2020, container volume is expected to hit 110 million units.

 

Economic Forecast

U.S. economic growth is anticipated to remain healthy, with real GDP projected to expand by 2.8 percent annually. Oil prices are expected to drop from the record-setting levels of $70 a barrel and above in early 2006 and hover around the $50 per barrel range. Thereafter, the forecast shows oil prices climbing steadily to 2030 and beyond.

 

###

Transportation needs a broader look

Rick Record

Cincinnati Enquirer Op-ed

 

Last week's Enquirer article (March 3) on a gloomy federal funding picture for the Brent Spence Bridge project gives timely hint of a much-needed rethink about transportation and how we pay for it.

 

Transportation is a critical, fundamental part of our national economy. It warrants careful investment on every level. But there is far more transportation demand than can be satisfied by historical funding sources and pathways.

 

When we consider transportation projects, a fundamental question is who benefits? And the important corollary is, of course, who pays? These are difficult questions, and hard to assess, particularly in big, complex projects.

 

But the times demand that we at least try to understand these questions, and a bunch of others.

 

Full letter to the editor at:

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/EDIT02/703170335/1090/EDIT

It's nice that the GAO as come around. I remember reading some years ago - probably much longer than I'd care to realize - about a GAO statement that Americans don't use high-speed trains, and for the US to invest in them would be a bad idea. I reread the article carefully to make sure I hadn't misunderstood it, and I hadn't.

 

Of course Americans weren't using high-speed trains. We didn't have them.

Drivers test paying by mile instead of gas tax

 

By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY

 

"Beginning early next year, drivers in six states will begin testing a new way to pay for roads and transit: Commuters will be charged for the miles they drive rather than paying taxes on gasoline purchased.

 

Researchers from the University of Iowa Public Policy Center will install computers and satellite equipment in the vehicles of 2,700 volunteers — 450 each from Austin, Baltimore, Boise, San Diego, eastern Iowa and the Research Triangle region of North Carolina.

 

Over the next two years, the drivers will get sample monthly bills for the number of miles they've driven. They can compare what they now pay in gasoline taxes with what they would have paid in per-mile fees.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-20-roads_N.htm?csp=34

 

MORE AT THE LINK ABOVE

Amazing, but I don't think we've ever had a thread that questions national transportation policy.......

________________

 

Note the comments that follows this at:

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/moving-billions-of-people-on-a-still-green-planet/index.html

 

January 11, 2008,  9:12 am

Moving Billions of People on a Still-Green Planet?

By Andrew C. Revkin

 

Jesse Ausubel, who studies, well, everything at Rockefeller University’s Program for the Human Environment, has long been exploring patterns of development and their broader consequences. He’s a quirky, sometimes prickly, thinker who, for example, sees a fossil fuel, methane, as a keystone — and greatly neglected — resource serving as a bridge to a climate-friendly energy future.

 

With the unveiling of India’s $2,500 Nano car, and my post last night looking ahead to the near-certain prospect of a global car population of 1 billion or more within little more than a decade, Prof. Ausubel sent me links to a couple of papers he co-authored awhile back envisioning green mobility on a global scale.

 

....

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/moving-billions-of-people-on-a-still-green-planet/index.html

I would hate to be hit by any other car in that thing.

Do you ride a bicycle?

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/01/15/gas.html

 

Transit panel urges 40 cent gas-tax hike

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:13 AM

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A special commission is urging the government to raise federal gasoline taxes by as much as 40 cents per gallon over five years as part of a sweeping overhaul designed to ease traffic congestion and repair the nation's decaying bridges and roads.

 

The two-year study being released Tuesday by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, the first to recommend broad changes after the devastating bridge collapse in Minneapolis last August, warns that urgent action is needed to avoid future disasters.

 

..........

While I agree that we need to re-structure our transportation infrastructure I do not feel it is fair for states such as Ohio to be subject to the full 40 cents.  Our public transportation infrastructure is not able to supply residence with a form of transportation that is reliable and convenient.  Without major changes to the public transportation system FIRST or at least at the same time of the gas tax increase, Ohioans will be forced to spend more and more of their income on transportation with little alternatives.

 

I know that car sharing exists, biking, etc ; however the majority of residence do not live in areas where they can bike to work or car share even exists or even useful public transit.  Also, I do not put the blame soley on the gov't, in general the public looks down on public transit and alternative transportation sources because of historical use.  Potential future use of public transportation is great, it just has not been realized by the public, yet.

But that's the whole point of the proposed 40-cent federal gas tax increase.... to underwite such an essential investment in our rail and transit syatems.  Our highway and aviation systems were made possible by the Tooth Fairy.  It took a political commitment to get it done and raise the $$$$ through gasoline taxes. 

 

But I digress....

 

Here's a release from the National Association of Railroad Passengers regarding the gas tax report.....

 

National Association of Railroad Passengers www.narprail.org

900 Second St., N.E., Suite 308

Washington, DC 20002-3557 

Telephone 202-408-8362

 

For Immediate Release (#08-01)

January 15, 2008

 

NARP Applauds National Surface Transportation Commission Report --

Report echoes NARP's proposal to strengthen and expand America' passenger train network

 

(Note: links to the report and key passenger rail sections and maps are available at the bottom of this release, under our contact information)

 

Washington, DC, January 17, 2008 - The National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) lent its support to the recommendations for passenger rail outlined in Transportation for Tomorrow, the plan issued today by the bipartisan National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.

 

"This long-awaited report takes a hard look at the quality-of-life, economic, environmental, and energy consequences of our current transportation policy and maps out a realistic strategy to address current and upcoming needs," said Ross Capon, executive director of NARP and a member of the Passenger Rail Working Group.

 

Capon noted that the passenger rail portion of Transportation for Tomorrow builds on a proposal introduced in June of 2007 by NARP, the largest citizen-based organization advocating for rail passengers.  NARP called on America's elected officials and policymakers to support a nationwide "Grid and Gateway" train network.  NARP's vision also includes improved linkages between airports and intercity rail, a concept where the U.S. lags as far behind Europe as in passenger rail development generally.  A map of the proposed "Grid and Gateway" network and information on its benefits are available at www.narprail.org/vision. 

 

Transportation for Tomorrow incorporates many of the ideas and routes presented in NARP's "Grid and Gateway" proposal.  Transportation for Tomorrow also recommends upgrades in frequencies and speeds on specific corridors, phases in proposed rail expansions over several years, and proposes funding mechanisms to implement this vision. NARP singled out specific elements of Transportation for Tomorrow for support, including:   

 

* Comprehensive recitation of the benefits of passenger rail, including for smaller communities with little or no other access to public transport, as well as more commonly cited factors such as the ability to provide travel choices where roads and airports are congested and to increase the energy efficiency and reduce the negative environmental impacts of U.S. transportation overall;

 

* Passenger train maps, though "for illustrative purposes only," embracing the concept that all forms of intercity passenger train services should expand;

 

* Recognition that both passenger and freight trains are vital components of the national transportation system;

 

* Legislative and funding proposals that would level the playing field among transportation options and allow rational planning and decision making across transportation modes.

"We particularly appreciate the report's recognition of the importance of serving both urban cores and rural communities," said Capon. "Polls and studies repeatedly demonstrate that Americans want more passenger trains."

 

Capon thanked the Commission, especially Wisconsin Secretary of Transportation Frank Busalacchi, who served as chair of the Commission's Passenger Rail Working Group.

 

About NARP

 

NARP is the largest citizen-based organization advocating for train and rail transit passengers. We have worked since 1967 to expand the quality and quantity of passenger rail in the U.S. Our mission is to work towards a modern, customer-focused national passenger train network that provides a travel choice Americans want. Our work is supported by over 23,000 individual members. www.narprail.org.

 

# # #

 

Contacts:

 

Ross Capon (Cell 301-385-6438) or

David Johnson

(202) 408-8362

[email protected]

[email protected]

 

# # #

 

The report is available online:

 

Full report: http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/ 

 

Passenger Rail Findings: http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/pdf/volume_2_chapter_4.pdf (p.p. 19-24 of PDF) including national rail passenger maps for 2015 (page 22), 2030 (page 23) and 2050 (page 24).

 

State of current system: http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/pdf/volume_2_chapter_3.pdf (p.p. 6-7) including current national rail passenger map (page 7)

 

Current and potential funding sources: http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/pdf/volume_2_chapter_5.pdf (p.p. 10-11, 19, 23-24)

 

 

We shouldn't overlook the impact of land use patterns and policies on transit efficacy, either. While there's growing awareness of the adverse effects of sprawl on the environment and the taxpayers, there's still a lack of stringent, enforceable public policy requiring developers to pay up front not only for the immediate capital costs of related infrastructure, but also to contribute to an endowment for the future maintenance and upkeep of that infrastructure. It might be good to include a subsidy from the developer to assure transit access to new developments, especially commercial strips and apartment complexes.

 

If the full social costs of sprawl were reflected in the cost of development, there would be more incentive toward dense, transit-efficient development and less toward continuing our pattern of irresponsible, land-wasting sprawl.

While I agree that we need to re-structure our transportation infrastructure I do not feel it is fair for states such as Ohio to be subject to the full 40 cents. 

 

If we give Ohio a free ride, or even a reduced fare one, where does that leave everyone else? Favoritism will not solve this problem. Besides, nearly every state, other than the Northeast, Chicagoland,and a few other places are in the same boat as Ohio.

 

Yes, we will have to make some hard choices and ante up, but it's a small price to pay when compared with what will happen if we stay on our current course.

From railwayage.com:

 

January 15, 2008

Spending, cost savings touted for "Transportation for Tomorrow"

 

More spending, combined with expedited scheduling for cost savings, emerged as the tandem theme recommended by "Transportation for Tomorrow," the report by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, announced in Washington Tuesday. The nine majority members of the 12-member panel stressed that investment was a requirement, since the current U.S. transportation network, once holding excess capacity, is now "bursting at the seams."

 

.........

 

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news.shtml

The main thing to note about the Nano is that it's more "foreign" than any vehicle that we currently have out there. Now that Hyundai and Kia have become respected in the United States, Tata will now need to jump through the barrier with their cheap and compact Nano. Upon first glance, it would seem that this vehicle would be the holy grail for urban envrions, but its tail pipe emissions are higher than other cars -- their catalytic converter removing only 80% of emissions in India. In Europe and in the states, where the requirements are much more strict, that number should be 99% but could push the cost higher.

 

It achieves an average 50 MPG, and its cheap cost will be very attractive to a lot of people -- like myself, who jaunt short distances to work, to the store, etc. Ignore what you hear in Consumer Reports, who will tell you that it will be a very poor vehicle for most because it handles poorly on freeways, has poor acceleration, and has no reliability record. It's simply not designed for freeways -- it's what... 33 HP engine can only go to 65 MPH.

 

I await this vehicle.

Without major changes to the public transportation system FIRST or at least at the same time of the gas tax increase, Ohioans will be forced to spend more and more of their income on transportation with little alternatives.

 

Did you see the part of the article which noted that the gas tax would be phased in? Similarly, improvements to diversify our transportation would be phased in too. Radical change doesn't happen overnight, and someone's got to pay for it. But we in America like to think we can get something for nothing. It's an unfortunate side-effect of the credit-card culture that didn't exist before the 1960s when Americans saved their money and bought things with cash.

Ohio encouraged to lead the push away from oil

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:02 AM

By Alan Johnson

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown praised OSU's work on alternative energy.

With the Buckeye Bullet 2 as a backdrop, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown said yesterday that the nation must rely on pioneering work like what's being done at Ohio State University to end the reliance on foreign oil.

 

"Ohio really is on the road to being the Silicon Valley of alternative energy," the Ohio Democrat said during a visit to the OSU Center for Automotive Research along Kinnear Road.

 

.........

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2008/01/16/BROWN_GAS.ART_ART_01-16-08_C8_DR92LT2.html?sid=101

The main thing to note about the Nano is that it's more "foreign" than any vehicle that we currently have out there. Now that Hyundai and Kia have become respected in the United States, Tata will now need to jump through the barrier with their cheap and compact Nano. Upon first glance, it would seem that this vehicle would be the holy grail for urban envrions, but its tail pipe emissions are higher than other cars -- their catalytic converter removing only 80% of emissions in India. In Europe and in the states, where the requirements are much more strict, that number should be 99% but could push the cost higher.

 

It achieves an average 50 MPG, and its cheap cost will be very attractive to a lot of people -- like myself, who jaunt short distances to work, to the store, etc. Ignore what you hear in Consumer Reports, who will tell you that it will be a very poor vehicle for most because it handles poorly on freeways, has poor acceleration, and has no reliability record. It's simply not designed for freeways -- it's what... 33 HP engine can only go to 65 MPH.

 

I await this vehicle.

 

This car has potential in other countries but growth in developing countries will subside (fortunately for us and unfortunately for them) and I think oil prices will lower for the short term.

 

In the meantime, I think we'll build our economy around supply but in the form of promoting alternative energy applied to vehicles and solar panels on rooftops and/or backyards before promoting change in land use policy or implementing these massive rail transit networks connecting cities. From my understanding, oil and coal are just as prevalent in household use so it's not just an issue involving transit. I would love to see it happen for other reasons but I think that ultimately people will end up plugging cars into a renewable grid over night (possibly a combination of solar, wind, nuclear,fission, etc).

I have no doubts that those who profit from the status quo or are unfamiliar with more beneficial alternatives (smarter urban land use, expanded transit choices) will do all they can do hold on to this nation's car-obsession.

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news.shtml#Feature2

 

January 16, 2008

AAR "pleased" with "Transport for Tomorrow" recommendations

 

The Association of American Railroads late Tuesday released a statement supportive of "Transportation for Tomorrow," a report released earlier in the day by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.

 

AAR President and CEO Ed Hamberger said: "The nation's freight railroads are pleased that this comprehensive, two-year study by the commission very clearly sets out the need for a robust freight rail industry, and recognizes the opportunity for freight railroads to play a major role in alleviating traffic congestion, increasing highway safety, reducing pollution and saving energy.

 

...........

 

AND

 

January 16, 2008

Analyst: Commission's tax credit recommendation spurs rail stocks

 

Stock prices for most Class I railroads rose in trading Wednesday, one day after the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission released its "Transportation for Tomorrow" study. Stifel Nicolaus analyst John G. Larkin credited the study recommendation of tax credits to expand freight rail capacity for the boost.

 

 

.........

A dissenting view from USDOT Sec. Mary Peters on the recent National Transportation Policy Commission report and it's recommendations. Not surprisingly, she spouts the Bush Administration line and plays to the "no new taxes" constituency.

 

COMMENTARY

 

Gas Taxes Are High Enough

By MARY E. PETERS

January 18, 2008; Page A13

 

Anyone who drives on the highways knows we have a serious and growing traffic problem. This problem has grown from a nuisance to a major economic, environmental and energy threat that costs the country over $78 billion each year in lost time and wasted fuel.

 

Traffic is just as bad in areas that have low gas taxes as it is in areas that have high gas taxes. And roads are just as jammed in areas that spend a lot on transportation as they are in areas that spend a little. It's clear that our national approach to transportation isn't working. This failure is bad for families, business productivity and the environment. It also distorts real estate markets.

 

..........

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120062474267899727.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

And more to reveal the Bush Administration attitude toward transportation policy reform:

 

Bush Administration editors at work

www.railwayage.com

 

A pro-rail-transit section of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commissions Transportation for Tomorrow report was edited out by the Bush Administration, according to the National Corridors Initiative, a passenger rail lobbying organization.

 

........It is disappointing that after [the section I contributed] was passed by a nine to three vote that someone without ever asking me would see to it to do away with these important policy considerations, Weyrich said to NCI. It is the kind of gutter politics that make people hate their government, and Washington in general.

 

____________

 

Following are excerpts from the section omitted from the Commission report:

 

It is the view of the Commission that public transportation, especially in the form of electric railways, must and will play a significantly larger role in Americans mobility. Federal transportation policy should not only accommodate but encourage this development.

 

Many of the factors leading to an increased role for public transportation are widely recognized. They include increasing traffic congestion, especially in urban areas; the failure of many urban areas to meet Federally-mandated air quality standards; the difficulty of constructing new urban freeways in the face of land use, right-of-way cost, and environmental obstacles; the negative impact of automobiles and especially of limited-access highways on urban vitality, which contrasts strongly with the ability of electric railways generally and streetcar systems in particular to stimulate urban redevelopment; and the rising price of gasoline, which leads commuters away from the private automobile and towards increased use of public transportation.

 

To these well-known factors pointing toward greater reliance on mass transit, a highly important new consideration must be added: national security. Americans dependence on automobiles fueled largely with imported oil is the Achilles heel of our current foreign and national security policy. Rising oil prices threaten the prosperity of our economy, with dependence on oil imported from unstable regions adding the risks of actual fuel cutoffs, limited foreign policy options, and wars over oil sources and supplies. In the face of the global war on terrorism, providing Americans with mobility that is not dependent on foreign oil may be second in importance only to securing our homeland against direct terrorist attack. Just as the Cold War brought about the National Defense Interstate Highway Act, so we think it probable that the future will require a National Defense Public Transportation Act. Current and near-future national transportation policy should take this likelihood fully into account.

 

As we look toward increasing reliance on public transportation, we must recognize that all public transit is not alike. In particular, public policy must acknowledge that buses and rail transit are not fungible. In addition to the obvious advantage of electrification, rail transit, including streetcars, light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail (which should in most cases be electrified once certain densities are reached) serve different markets and perform different functions from buses. Rail transit has repeatedly demonstrated its success in drawing riders from choice, people who have a car and could drive but choose to take transit instead, while buses generally carry only the transit-dependent, those who have no other way to get around. Most Americans like riding trains and streetcars but do not like riding buses. Rail transit, but not buses, has a demonstrated ability to spur development and, importantly, redevelopment in urban cores. Streetcar systems, which can be built inexpensively, have shown a particularly strong and positive impact on urban re-development.

 

Federal policy should include a clear and unambiguous endorsement of a shift away from the private automobile to public transportation for travel in urban areas. It should be the objective of the Federal government to bring all aspects of transportation policy in line to support and encourage this shift, including provision of adequate resources. As federal policy is amended to reflect its support for public transportation as the preferred approach to urban mobility, with a strong focus on electric railways, many other specific policies will change with it. In the long term, it should be the objective of Federal transportation policy to provide every American the option of mobility without an automobile.

Here are a couple of clowns in today's Cincinnati Enquirer:

 

Government doesn't need money, via gas tax or otherwise

The gas tax issue is a hoax and here is why: All taxes are added costs to consumers.

 

Taxes on income, gas, death and everything else take money from the people and give it to the government. The government has many ways of taking your money. The idea that a gas tax will support roads is preposterous.

 

Congress will spend the money any way it wants to (how about that Social Security trust fund?). The government has plenty of money and does not need more.

 

Recall, the record taxes taken into the treasury this year that were reported a few months ago. The government must make better choices on how to spend money, and voters must hold elected officials accountable for every dollar they spend.

 

Scott Spahr

Lebanon

---

Rebate conflicts with gas-tax proposal

Yeah! Congress will discuss whether to give us an $800 rebate to stimulate the economy ("Bush, Congress want to put up to $800 in our pockets," Jan. 18). That should just about offset the 40 cents-a-gallon gas tax they want to add to cover the costs of highway improvement.

 

And we want these people to be in charge of our health care.

 

Jeanne Kilgore

Sharonville

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080122/EDIT0202/801220311/1090

Ignorance is bliss.

She Brakes for Ideology

By Fred Hiatt

Washington Post

Monday, January 21, 2008; A15

 

The next time you are stuck in traffic (and when are you not?), you might take a moment to ponder Mary Peters's contribution to the fix you are in.

 

Peters is the Bush administration's transportation secretary, and her main objective seems to be blocking any increase of public contributions to the public infrastructure. The main reason you are sitting in traffic, she believes, is not that the purchasing power of Highway Trust Fund revenue has been dwindling for the past decade, not that population and freight traffic have been soaring with no government response -- but that you are not being asked to pay enough to use the road you are on.

 

.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002275_pf.html

Good column!

Maybe we should have a new thread called  "Stupid Bush Policies?"

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The state of the Union crumbling

By Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org Staff Writer  

 

The numbers are staggering. More than one in four of Americas nearly 600,000 bridges need significant repairs or are burdened with more traffic than they were designed to carry, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

 

A third of the countrys major roadways are in substandard condition a significant factor in a third of the more than 43,000 traffic fatalities each year, according to the Federal Highway Administration. Traffic jams waste 4 billion hours of commuters time and nearly 3 billion gallons of gasoline a year, the Texas Transportation Institute calculates.

 

Dams, too, are at risk. The number of dams that could fail has grown 134 percent since 1999 to 3,346, and more than 1,300 of those are high-hazard, meaning their collapse would threaten lives, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) found. More than a third of dam failures or near failures since 1874 have happened in the last decade.

 

Underground, aging and inadequate sewer systems spill an estimated 1.26 trillion gallons of untreated sewage every year, resulting in an estimated $50.6 billion in cleanup costs, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Much of America is held together by Scotch tape, bailing wire and prayers, said Donald F. Kettl, director of the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania.

 

Fixing these problems and others threatening the nations critical infrastructure would cost $1.6 trillion more than half of the annual federal budget, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates. And that doesnt include what it will cost for new capacity to serve a growing population.

 

Recognizing the importance of structures so integral to U.S. commerce and Americans well-being and safety, local, state and federal governments already are budgeting nearly two-thirds of the $1.6 trillion needed for infrastructure work. The problem is they raid many of those funds for other purposes, ASCE says.

 

Coming up with new money to fill the funding gap has become a political nightmare, with politicians and the public trying to avoid anything that looks like a higher tax.

 

We have convinced ourselves that infrastructure is free, that someone else should be paying or that we have paid our share, said Mike Pagano, an urban planning expert at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

 

Infrastructure is the four-syllable jawbreaker that governments use to describe the concrete, stone, steel, wires and wood that Americans rely on every day but barely notice until something goes awry. Broadly speaking, it includes airports, the electrical energy grid, hazardous and solidwaste storage sites, navigable inland waterways, public parks, schools and even the security to protect all of those structures.

 

While the federal government bears the broadest responsibility to keep Americas gears turning, state and local governments are accountable for supplying more than half of the money and all of the manpower to build and maintain the countrys vast ground transportation network. States also have regulatory oversight of 85 percent of dams and help fund drinking- water and wastewater systems. Federal and state officials share the blame for shortfalls in Americas maintenance budget. Congress hasnt raised the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon which pays for about 45 percent of all road construction since 1993, nor have many state leaders been willing to charge drivers more at the pump to pay for local road repairs.

 

 

The association of state dam officials contends that most state dam safety programs are underfunded, understaffed and often dont have adequate authority to regulate safety standards or emergency plans. Likewise, the federal dam safety program, which helps pay for the upkeep of structures, never has been fully funded by Congress.

 

The EPA estimates that the nation is falling short on water infrastructure by $22 billion annually. The federal Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which makes low-interest loans to clean up or protect water supplies, has shrunk from more than $3 billion in 1990 to roughly $1 billion in 2007.

 

The consequences of skimping can be dire:

 

On Aug. 1, 2007, the Interstate 35 bridge in downtown Minneapolis collapsed into the Mississippi River, killing 13 people and injuring at least 80. Losing the states most heavily traveled bridge is costing an estimated $400,000 daily in extra commuting time and gasoline, said Brian McClung, a spokesman for Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty ®.

 

(A report issued Jan. 15 by the National Transportation Safety Board blamed the bridge collapse on inadequate steel "gussett" plates that hold the structures angled beams together.)

 

 

Steam pipe explosions in Midtown Manhattan last summer killed one person, injured dozens and disrupted businesses.

 

In March 2006, the 116-year-old Kaloko Reservoir Dam in Hawaii collapsed after heavy rains, killing seven people and causing nearly $15 million in damage.

 

In August 2005, after Hurricane Katrina, levees holding back Lake Pontchartrain gave way, flooding major parts of New Orleans. The storm and flooding are blamed for more than a thousand deaths and more than $100 billion in damage.

 

In May 2002, the Interstate 40 bridge near Webbers Falls, Okla., collapsed into the Arkansas River, killing 14 people.

 

Despite urgent calls to prevent more tragedy from failed infrastructure, politicians and voters have signaled they are gun-shy of new taxes. After the collapse of the Minneapolis bridge, Minnesota politicians failed to agree to a statewide transportation package, putting off to the 2008 legislative session more debate over a proposed 5-cent hike in the states gasoline tax. Gov. Tim Pawlenty ® twice vetoed gas-tax hikes before the bridge fell.

 

 

Washington state voters in 2006 did pass a 9.5-cent increase in the states gas tax, but last year passed a followup measure to require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature or voter approval for any tax increases.

 

To begin to address their transportation problems, state governments are borrowing more money, adding user fees such as tolls, and striking deals with private companies, including leasing state assets.

 

Proposals to pay for bridge and road repairs with tolling are on the upsurge with politicians though not with the public, especially in Pennsylvania. There, Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell last year pushed through a plan to add tolls to a section of Interstate 80 to collect $950 million a year for transportation projects. But a slew of civic groups fear tolls will discourage tourism and trucking along the I-80 corridor and have asked state and federal lawmakers to reconsider.

 

Rendell has said that if tolls are junked, he will fall back on a plan to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike to a private company, similar to Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels 2006 lease of the Indiana Toll Road to a foreign firm for a whopping $3.8 billion. Political backlash over that deal became a factor in the 2006 elections, when Democrats recaptured a majority in the Indiana House. Daniels subsequently shelved two smaller proposals for privately built and managed toll roads in the Hoosier State.

 

But many other states continue to barrel down the path of privatization as more allow for-profit firms to lease, design, build and operate public infrastructure options that are more widespread in other developed countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, 10 percent to 13 percent of all infrastructure projects involve some public-private partnership, according to Deloitte Services, LP, part of a worldwide consulting firm.

 

In the United States, more than $21 billion in public-private transportation deals have been signed in the past dozen years, with projects in California, Florida, Texas and Virginia accounting for half of that amount. Also, more than 25,000 water and wastewater systems are managed privately, according to a 2006 Deloitte report.

 

One new cutting-edge program will let Missouri repair or replace 800 of its small and medium-sized bridges within five years. The state will choose a team of private contractors to finance construction costs up front and maintain the structures for 25 years. The Show Me State will pay back the builders annually for a quarter century, costing the state at least double the initial construction costs but providing a quick fix for ailing bridges. The plan spares lawmakers from seeking higher gasoline taxes or new tolls.

 

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ® is calling for legislation to encourage more public-private partnerships to handle $500 billion in public projects that he says are needed over the next 20 years. That plan follows his success in 2006 in convincing voters to approve more than $40 billion in bonds for transportation, water and school-building projects.

 

In 2007, Texans approved more than $6 billion in bonds for roads, flood control and clean-water projects.

 

Overall, states debts nearly doubled between 2000 and 2005, from $1 billion to $1.9 billion, according to Federal Reserve Board data.

 

Using bonds to pay for capital projects can be a worthwhile reason for debt because the results provide longterm public and economic benefits, said Sujit CanagaRetna, a fiscal analyst for the Council of State Governments. However, Chris Edwards, who studies budget issues at the libertarian Cato Institute, argues that debt, even to finance infrastructure, just defers the tax bill. Instead, he favors the privatization approach.

 

One of the chief challenges facing infrastructure is simply age. Much of the nations transportation infrastructure was erected in the boom days after World War II and is reaching the end of its life cycle.

 

Half of the nations bridges were built before 1964, when the ill-fated Minneapolis bridge was constructed. More than half of the bridges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts also are rated deficient or obsolete, according to the U.S. Transportation Department.

 

More than a third of the nations nearly 83,000 dams already are 50 years old, and within a decade, 60 percent will reach the half-century mark.

 

Cast-iron pipes from the 19th century still carry water to sinks in some of the nations oldest cities and are overdue to be replaced, according to the American Water Works Association. Although it has not done a state-by-state survey, the association estimates that replacing worn-out water pipes will cost $250 billion over 30 years. In November, Congress overrode President Bushs veto to authorize up to $23 billion over 15 years for water projects.

 

Another worry is that the nations growing population is creating a need for more capacity. Today, 246 million cars 278 percent more than 50 years ago are forced to squeeze onto 47,000 miles of interstate that have increased only 15 percent during the last half-century.

 

New Jersey has the most snarled traffic in the country with congestion choking 58 percent of its urban roads and 52 percent of rural roads, according to an analysis of federal data by The Road Information Project.

 

To handle growing transportation needs, the federal highway system will have to double during the next 50 years and public transportation ridership should double within 20 years, according to recommendations from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Railways should be prepared to handle a 63 percent increase in freight by 2035, the association estimated.

 

Besides stretching the countrys infrastructure to its limits, the growing population puts more people in harms way when something goes wrong. Development in floodplains and below dams has contributed to the fast-rising costs of flood damage, now an annual $6 billion, according to the Association of State Floodplain Managers.

 

 

Dams are a major concern for states, which have regulatory oversight of 85 percent of those structures even though nearly two-thirds are privately owned. The federal government monitors the other 15 percent, mostly major hydro-power generators such as the massive Hoover Dam on the Colorado River.

 

Ohio has the highest percentage of dams listed as deficient, with 48 percent, according to data compiled by ASDSO. Indiana is second, with nearly 45 percent of its dams rated in need of repair. States set their own standards for rating dam safety.

 

Another challenge is that infrastructure repairs simply arent as sexy as ribbon-cuttings. The public and politicians are more likely to support new construction, leaving existing structures wanting, said Pagano, the urban planning expert in Chicago. Its like buying a car and budgeting only for the purchase price, ignoring the costs of insurance, fuel, oil changes and new tires, he said.

 

The Government Performance Project (GPP), which measures how effectively states are managed, called unfunded and deferred maintenance unquestionably the biggest problem for states in their management of infrastructure. (The GPP, like Stateline.org, is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.)

 

Overall, rehabilitating a dilapidated structure can cost six to 20 times more than routine maintenance would have cost, Deloittes analysts found.

 

For example, the Minnesota bridge that collapsed last August had been tagged structurally deficient in 1990. But the state deferred a $1.5 million steel-reinforcement project scheduled for 2006 and ordered more frequent inspections. The cost to build a new bridge is slated at $250 million.

 

States also are skimping on staff to check up on existing structures. Minnesota had 77 bridge inspectors for 14,000 bridges. There arent enough hours in the workday for 77 inspectors to check 14,000 bridges the way we should with an inspection every two years, Minnesota bridge inspector Bart Andersen testified on Capitol Hill.

 

One problem of paying for repairs is that the pot of money for improvements is steadily shrinking in value, if not in size.

 

Matthew L. Garrett, director of the Oregon Department of Transportation, said that even with a growing number of taxpayers, revenues arent keeping pace with the bills. Spending on bricks-and-mortar projects equaled about 2 percent of per-capita personal income in the 1950s and 1960s but has shrunk to less than 1 percent, Garrett said.

 

Compounding the problem, prices for steel, concrete and land have grown rapidly in recent years. Road-building costs are projected to increase more than 70 percent between 1993, when federal gas taxes were last increased, and 2015, according to an AASHTO report. The association estimates that federal gasoline taxes would have to rise 10 cents to 28.4 cents per gallon by 2015 just to keep up with maintenance.

 

Comment on this story in the space below by registering with Stateline.org, or e-mail your feedback to our Letters to the editor section at [email protected].

 

Contact Eric Kelderman at: [email protected].

 

Gas tax hike would fund transportation overhaul

By Eric Kelderman,

Stateline.org Staff Writer

 

A congressionally chartered panel Tuesday (Jan. 15) released its recommendations for an overhaul of the nations transportation funding systems, including a hike of up to 40 cents of the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon.

 

The nation is spending less than 40 percent of the $225 billion needed annually for the next 50 years to maintain the current system of roads, rails and bridges and build enough transportation capacity for a growing population, according to the 12-member commission, created under the 2005 federal transportation law.

 

The report suggested a federal tax on passenger rail services and increased use of tolling and rush hour fees, even on federal Interstates where it is now prohibited without a waiver. States also should pursue innovative public-private partnerships to build and maintain their road, bridges and rails, the commission said.

 

The group also called for a streamlined U.S. Department of Transportation, condensing 108 federal programs into 10, and a long-term study of ways to replace the gasoline tax, such as taxing mileage.

 

Business and transportation groups generally praised the commissions report. But three commission members, including U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, disagreed with some of the panels conclusions, especially the need to raise gasoline taxes.

 

Raising gas taxes wont improve traffic congestion, it will only perpetuate our ineffective reliance on fossil-based fuels to fund infrastructure and send more of Americans hard-earned money to Washington to be squandered on earmarks and special interest programs, Peters said in a written statement.

 

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=270952

Maybe we should have a new thread called  "Stupid Bush Policies?"

 

No. It wouldn't be possible to add server capacity fast enough to keep up with it.

 

Has anyone brought human carnage into this discussion? Here's a bit of info from the NHTSA web site:

 

A total of 42,642 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2006. Another 2.6 million people were injured.

 

In addition to human tragedy, there's the economic cost of all that slaughter; medical costs, impoverishment of dependents and survivors ...

 

Consider that a disproportionately high number of those deaths and injuries occur among people in their teens and twenties, and then consider the long-term cost to society from the loss of their skills, talents and energy. Consider the educational opportunities that may be lost to some young people because impoverishment of families resulting from major medical expenses and/or the death of a provider.

 

None of that takes into consideration the costs of property damage resulting from vehicle crashes or the high cost of casualty/property insurance premiums, based on the probabiity of expensive settlements.

 

I had a conversation with a local pastor who worked regularly with programs to assist poor people in Fort Wayne. He said that after taxes, utilities, food and rent, the working poor spend more than sixty per cent of what's left of their paychecks on transportation, generally old, unreliable cars that break down often. Because the community is designed around car dependency, jobs and essential services are often in outlying areas not accessible to them except by driving.

The West Side Ecumenical Ministry in Cleveland says one of their top issues is transportation -- or lack of it for the poor to reach available jobs in a timely manner. Those available jobs are often in suburban or exurban areas.

January 29, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

The New York Times

Investing in America

By BOB HERBERT

 

On a quiet Wednesday morning last August, Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel held a news conference in Washington to discuss what they felt was a critical issue: the nations deteriorating infrastructure.

 

The press was not impressed. Only a handful of reporters showed up to listen to their contention that a real crisis was at hand. That evening, during rush hour, the Interstate 35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed, plunging vehicles 60 feet into the river and killing 13 people.

 

........

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

 

I can't downplay the importance of infrastructure investment, done in a balanced manner that pays attention to all modes and integrates them into an efficient system.

 

I take exception, though, to the repeated use of the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis as an example of infrastructure deterioration and neglected maintenance. Investigation and analysis have shown that the bridge failed due to inadequate design and/or construction; the gusset plates used to join the girders were one-half inch thick, when they should have been one inch thick. I don't know whether the engineers designed it that way to keep costs down, or whether the contractor cut corners to increase profit, but the report says that the defect that caused the collapse would not have been evident in thorough physical inspection of the structure.

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterf$&k_nation/2008/02/serial-bubbles.html

 

Serial Bubbles?

 

    Eric Janszen of iTuilip.com has made a splash in the mainstream media with his Harper's Magazine cover story on the "The Next Bubble." His thesis is that a new tidal wave of investment will shortly roll toward "infrastructure and alternative energy." By this Janszen means a revived nuclear power push, refurbishing highways, bridges, and tunnels, "high-speed rail," solar and wind power, and alternative liquid fuels. This coming boom, he says, would be driven by political fear about energy security.

 

      On the face of it, Janszen's proposition seems more promising and intelligent than the previous engineered boom in suburban houses. But it raises a lot of questions and flags.

 

    For one thing, the term "bubble" suggests something more like a financial Chinese fire drill than actual productive activity. It would be an excellent thing if Americans invested in a restored passenger rail system. But if it were merely a scheme for big banks to issue innovative new securities for gigantic fees without actually getting any trains running -- well that would be in the nature of just another old-fashioned swindle, as the bundling of mortgages into securitized debt paper has proven to be.

 

    In other words, does Janszen make a distinction between a boom and a "bubble?" He seems to understand that the previous two bubbles in dot-coms and houses were essentially frauds that generated imaginary wealth, which sooner later evaporated off the balance sheets and out of the financial system. A boom, it seems to me, is not the same as a "bubble." While perhaps wasteful and messy, booms at least produce something of value beyond the fees paid to bankers for arranging the deployment of capital. A boom that resulted in citizens being able to take a train from Boston to Albany would produce a substantial public good. The creation by Goldman Sachs of a company on paper that never accomplished anything would be something else. This, of course, leads to a deeper question as to whether the USA is actually a serious society or just a nation of hopeless, greedy clowns? Are we even capable anymore of distinguishing between purposeful activity and the art of the grift?

 

    This leads to a further consideration of where the capital for "the next bubble" supposedly comes from. Janszen doesn't account for the essentially bankrupt condition of the USA. The capital that was deployed and squandered in the previous two bubbles is not there anymore to be washed, rinsed, and recycled. It's gone. It was winkled out of hundreds of pension funds, millions of individual investors, and, in terms of eventual obligations, the federal government. There is a black hole of unresolved debt where that "capital" used to be.

 

      Janszen's idea seems to be that the new investment comes from simple credit reflation. I don't see how this is possible while the current bubble in housing remains only fractionally "worked out." It has a long way to unwind yet, and a lot of damage to do. It will bring down banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, municipal governments, and leave a lot of individuals impoverished, literally out in the cold. As long as trillions in losses remain concealed or unresolved, the basic system for deploying capital will remain paralyzed.

 

      I wonder if fixing all the infrastructure for happy motoring is not an exercise in futility and another layer of tragic misinvestment. After all, it's based on the assumption that we will still be running huge numbers of cars and trucks decades ahead, and I'm not convinced that this will be possible under any circumstances. The psychology of previous investment will exert a powerful pull to throw money at our highways. It might be more realistic to think of this as a triage process -- to ask ourselves how much of this stuff do we just let go of and which parts do we actually keep. Thousands of miles of suburban commercial strip highway six-laners may not be needed at that "level of service." What becomes of them? Do we run trains down the interstates? Surely, we don't want our bridges to crumble.

 

      By the same token, I wonder if our investments in alternative energy will prove to be chimerical -- things wished and hoped for but impossible to achieve. My own hunch is that our notions of scale are not consistent with what reality will permit in this field. I don't believe that we will build more than a few giant wind farm installations. Rather, I believe we'll discover that wind power is only really practical on the household or extremely local basis. Ditto solar. I also doubt that we will continue to get all the necessary exotic metals needed to fabricate the hardware for these things. Along similar lines, I believe our expectations for ethanol and bio-diesel fuel production will prove to be not only disappointing but destructive to the food production sector.

 

    All of which is to say that an investment campaign aimed at sustaining the unsustainable by other means would end in tears. Personally, I don't think there will be a "next bubble." I think we're out of bubbles and that our current mode of life in this nation is running out of time. We're facing such an array of potential instabilities that even assuming we continue to live in an orderly society may be too much. Like every other activity in our lives, finance, too, may be in for an epochal downscaling.

Rail transit? “Oh, we just deleted it”

by Bill Vantuomo

Editor / Railway Age

 

In my line of work, what you ultimately decide to leave out of a story, whether it’s a full-length feature or a one-paragraph news brief, is often dependent on the amount of available space.

 

In the federal government’s case, that’s never a problem. The government printing office seems to have an endless supply of paper and ink and binding materials. Those of you in this industry who must regularly digest those enormous government-issued documents (STB decisions, NTSB accident reports, FRA rulemakings, etc.) know what I’m talking about. So, it would seem that when a special commission of experts is assembled to produce a study and make recommendations—let’s say, on transportation—and that document is vetted and approved (even voted upon) before public release, chopping out pieces of it won’t happen.

 

That’s what Paul Weyrich assumed. Weyrich, for those of you who don’t know him, is a staunch conservative, a principal of the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative Washington, D.C. think tank. He’s also a former Amtrak board member, and a strong advocate of all forms of passenger rail. He and colleague Bill Lind have published several excellent position papers supporting investment in rail transit for APTA. Rail transit, Weyrich believes, is good for the nation, for reasons ranging from economic and social and environmental to national defense and security.

 

Weyrich served on the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and contributed to its “Transportation for Tomorrow” report (p. 12) with a section titled “The Case for Public Transportation.”

 

Weyrich’s section included the following: “It is the view of the Commission that public transportation, especially in the form of electric railways, must and will play a significantly larger role in Americans’ mobility. Federal transportation policy should not only accommodate but encourage this development.” And, “Federal policy should include a clear and unambiguous endorsement of a shift away from the private automobile to public transportation for travel in urban areas.”

 

When the report was issued, Weyrich’s section was missing, apparently deleted by someone in the Bush Administration.

 

“It is disappointing that after [the section I contributed] was passed by a nine to three vote that someone without ever asking me would see to it to do away with these important policy considerations,” Weyrich said to the National Corridors Initiative. “It is the kind of gutter politics that make people hate their government, and Washington in general.”

 

So this “editing,” if you can call it that, was no word processing glitch. It was no “Oops, we overlooked it—sorry!”

 

Why does that not surprise me?

 

“Gutter politics”? Look at this way: Highways—not railroads—have gutters.

 

http://www.railwayage.com/B/xfromtheeditor.html

 

EYES ON THE ROAD

By JOSEPH B. WHITE  

The Wall Street Journal

February 5, 2008;

 

I lead a double life.

 

Monday through Wednesday, I get to work by walking a block and a half from a high-rise apartment building to a stop on Washington, D.C.'s Metro subway. I emerge three stops later a half block from my office. My commute is pretty close to a zero petroleum experience (never mind how the Metro gets its electricity.)

 

The rest of the week, I am back in Detroit, where I return to the 20th century. I drive about 20 miles to my office, which is located by the side of a freeway in a suburban "edge city." I sometimes walk to a sub shop for lunch, but it's an arduous slog along busy four lane streets that sometimes have sidewalks, and sometimes don't. To get just about anywhere from my office requires another car trip.

 

.........

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120190455899936509.html

 

Americans Prefer To Spend More on Mass Transit

 

Three-fourths of Americans believe that being smarter about development and improving public transportation are better longterm solutions for reducing traffic congestion than building new roads, according to a recent survey, the 2007 Growth and Transportation Survey, sponsored by the National Association of Realtors and Smart Growth America.

 

Nearly half of those surveyed think improving public transit would be the best way to reduce congestion, and 26 percent believe developing communities that reduce the need to drive would be the better alternative. Only one in five said building new roads was the answer.

 

This year the survey also asked about climate change, and more than 70 percent of respondents are concerned about how growth and development affect global warming. Americans expressed strong support for bold measures to combat climate change. Nearly nine in 10 believe that new communities should be built so people can walk more and drive less; cars, homes, and buildings should be required to be more energy efficient; and public transportation should be improved and made more available. Americans strongly disapprove of increasing gasoline taxes as a way to discourage driving and reduce energy use, with 84 percent rejecting the idea.

 

With road building costs often exceeding revenues, many states are turning to tolls as a key funding source. Americans are divided on tolls, although 55 percent approve of charging tolls on more roads if it improves roads and decreases congestion. On the other hand, six in 10 are opposed to charging tolls on freeways during rush hour to reduce congestion, and respondents are evenly split on charging tolls during rush hour, even if the money is used to provide transportation alternatives to the freeway.

 

When it comes to spending taxpayer dollars, respondents believe Congress should spend more money to maintain and repair roads, highways, freeways, and bridges and to expand and improve public transit than to build new roads.

 

Respondents were overwhelmingly opposed to the private ownership of roads; that is, selling key roads and highways to private companies that would charge a toll and give a portion of the toll money to the state. Eighty-four percent of respondents oppose private ownership of roads; only 14 percent support the concept. Similarly, 66 percent are opposed to allowing private companies to build, own, and collect tolls for new roads - even if those companies give a portion of the toll money to the state.

 

For more information on the survey, see http://www.smartgrowthamerica. org/narsgareport2007.html

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-traffic4feb04,1,4726845,full.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

Candidates overlook traffic issue

As the presidential hopefuls jet in and out of California, one of its top concerns lies beneath their radar.

By Steve Hymon

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

 

February 4, 2008

 

It's been candidates gone wild here in Southern California in recent days, as some of those aspiring to be the next president have been jetting in and out of the region in preparation for Tuesday's big primary.

 

The key word there: jetting. These aren't folks who have to worry about traffic.

 

You would think that something affecting millions of voting Americans would top the list of talking points for every one of the candidates. Yet most of those stumping for the nation's highest office have offered little more than platitudes: When it comes to transportation, they're basically for it.

 

What could a president of the United States really do to improve your commute?

 

.........

Even the highway people don't like it...

 

http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2008/02/05/10/

 

Environment & Energy Daily

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

 

Bush seeks to replenish highway funds with mass transit account

(02/05/2008)

 

Debra Kahn, E&E Daily reporter

 

The Bush administration wants to fund a $3.2 billion shortfall in the Transportation Department's highway account by taking money from mass transit programs.

 

While the highway account will be $3.2 billion in the red by the beginning of fiscal 2009, according to Treasury Department projections, the mass transit fund is $4.4 billion in the black. The highway account cannot operate at a deficit, so it would borrow funds from mass transit to be repaid at a later date, DOT Secretary Mary Peters said yesterday in a conference call with reporters.

 

.......

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/11/starlight_train_commentary/#

 

Text of an interview from the NPR show Marketplace America:

 

KAI RYSSDAL: Commentator Charles Handy has made the study of business management his professional life, 45 years of observing behavior and fitting those pieces into the larger economic puzzle. Today he's back with the second of a series of essays he'll be doing for us this spring, in which a simple train trip provides the metaphor.

 

 

CHARLES HANDY: We are currently living in Los Angeles, but are planning a weekend in San Francisco. "We should go by train," I said. "I hear that the Coast Starlight goes right up the West Coast, hugging the shoreline. It should be a wonderful ride." "Yes," our American friends said, "I believe it is," but we could not meet anyone who'd actually done it. Why? Because it takes 11 hours.

 

At first we thought they were joking. After all, to travel from London to Edinburgh, roughly the same distance, takes only four hours, and now you can go from London to Paris in just over two hours. You would expect America to have the best, the fastest, the sleekest trains, rather than yielding pride of place to the Japanese, the French and, yes, even the British. Of course many of the journeys here are far too long for a train to make sense, but in Europe today, any journey of 500 hundred miles or less, city center to city center, is quicker by train than by plane, and much more pleasurable.

 

Then I paused. Why was I so obsessed by time? If I was going to London by air, I would consider 11 hours to be normal. Why should it be different because it was San Francisco? Why, I ask myself, are we always in such a hurry? Why do eager parents want to accelerate their children's education when life is so much longer now? In business we let the short-term pressures obscure the promise of the longer term. We forget that in nature a full ripening takes time. Push it too hard and you lose too much of the flavor.

 

So, I said on reflection, we'll take the train. It will be a day well spent. Alas, when we went to book our tickets they told us that a mudslide had closed the track. There was to be no train that weekend. So do events conspire against our best intentions.

 

KAI RYSSDAL: Charles Handy is the Distinguished Drucker Fellow at the Drucker School of Management at Claremont Graduate University. His new book is called "Myself and Other More Important Matters."

 

At first we thought they were joking. After all, to travel from London to Edinburgh, roughly the same distance, takes only four hours, and now you can go from London to Paris in just over two hours. You would expect America to have the best, the fastest, the sleekest trains, rather than yielding pride of place to the Japanese, the French and, yes, even the British. Of course many of the journeys here are far too long for a train to make sense, but in Europe today, any journey of 500 hundred miles or less, city center to city center, is quicker by train than by plane, and much more pleasurable.

 

I'd say that pretty much says it all, and since it comes from a British/European perspective, it means a whole lot more to me.

Infrastructure: How Would You Spend $1.6 Trillion?

 

Source: ARCHITECT Magazine

Publication date: 2008-02-01

By Amanda Kolson Hurley

 

China spends 9 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on infrastructure and India budgets 3.5 percent while aiming to increase its allocation to 8 percent. By comparison, the United States budgets $112.9 billion or just 0.93 percent of its GDP, and sidesteps the reality of a ballooning $1.6 trillion deficit for necessary upgrades over the next five years.

Infrastructure 2007: A Global Perspective

 

In the reportInfrastructure 2007: A Global Perspective, published last May, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and Ernst & Young assess the state of the world's infrastructure as we reach a turning point in world history: For the first time, one out of two people on the planet lives in a city. Now more than ever, effective systems of public infrastructure are crucial for societies' health as populations grow and resources are squeezed. But in many countries, including the United States, public infrastructure is underfunded and under strain. The ULI estimates that it would cost $1.6 trillion to make needed upgrades to America's infrastructure.

 

 

............

 

 

Jane Holtz Kay

Author, Asphalt Nation

 

http://www.architectmagazine.com/content.asp?articleID=652494&sectionID=1006

An amazing post! Some very inspiring ideas, even if I don't agree with all of them. But I love the creativity.

 

Then there are the "ideas" from Ford Motor, governmental folks and the Teamsters. Hardly inspiring, innovative or cage rattling. Unfortunately, these are the people with the political power.