Here's a worthwhile graphic from a worthwhile source:

 

http://www.sightline.org/maps/charts/climate-CO2byMode

 

Why are the intercity buses unexpectedly low? They must be hybrids.

Because intercity buses are diesel, they usually have pretty decent passenger loads and they operate at fairly constant speeds.

 

Remember, a lot of this is about usage (number of persons per vehicle per mile -- hence the term passenger-mile), not just vehicle type.

That is why I favor dense neighborhoods so much. For instance the 17 metro bus I take when I go downtown is almost always packed and during peak hours people have to stand. Buses that go out to sprawly areas tend to be under-used and more of a burden even though they serve an important mode of transportation for people.

Rushing on by road, rail and air

 

Feb 14th 2008 | BEIJING

From The Economist print edition

 

China's race to build roads, railways and airports speeds ahead. Democracy, says an official, would sacrifice efficiency

 

IT'S like approaching the Forbidden City, it's absolutely incredible. The adjective is one that Mouzhan Majidi, chief executive of Foster + Partners, liberally attaches to Beijing's new airport terminal, designed by his British firm. The world's largest, designed in the gently sinuous form of a Chinese dragon, it was planned and built in four years by an army of 50,000 workers. The columns on the outside are red and you see them marching for miles and miles, says Mr Majidi.

 

.......

 

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10697210

 

Transportation Disputes: 300-Plus Days And Holding

Feb. 3, 2008

Neal Pierce

Washington Post Writers Group

 

Three-hundred and how many more days until we get a new president?

 

Two gross missteps by the Bush administration, this time tripping up badly needed national transportation improvements, make the question acute.

 

After two years of intense work, a broad-based, bipartisan federal transportation commission mandated by Congress unveiled America's first-ever, 50-year balanced plan to repair and expand the highways, bridges, ports and rail systems the country needs to prosper internally and globally.

 

........

 

http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/peir080203.htm

Transit and Jobs:

 

Number of jobs created by spending $1billion on defense:  8,555

 

Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on health care:  10,779

 

Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on education:  17,687

 

Number of jobs created by spending $1 billion on mass transit:  [glow=red,2,300]19,795[/glow]

 

----This was printed in the Spring 2008 issue of Yes! Magazine (p. 16).

 

Source:  Dept. of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, "The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities", October 2007

 

 

Awesome stats!!

Quotable:

 

"The US government also needs to take a hard look at the country's physical infrastructure.  People who travel abroad often have a slight feeling of returning to a developing country.  While most foreign cities have a fast rail connection from the airport to downtown, most US cities do not...In Europe and Japan, rail is fast, comfortable, convenient, and efficient.  U.S. rail travel is torture... We cannot be competitive with second-rate infrastructure.  The US government needs to make improvement a top priority."

---Three Billion New Capitalists:  The Great Shift of Wealth and Power to the East by Clyde Prestowitz, former counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in the Reagan Administration.  Book published in May 2006

 

 

I find it telling that a former Reaganite says the government needs to spend more on infrastructure.  If you haven't read this book, I highly recommend it. 

 

 

 

This NY Times story raises an interesting point for us to ponder, with very significant implications for how we develop and fund alternate forms of transportation. My own youngest daughter is 18 and has no desire to get her license nor has she bugged us about getting her a car. She uses transit or grabs a ride with friends. She grabs a ride with us to school in the morning.

 

Now.... consider the trend described in this story and ask how are we going to better accomodate a generation that is looking at the automobile as less and less necessary, but is faced with the same limited options as we are today?

 

February 25, 2008

Fewer Youths Jump Behind the Wheel at 16

The New York Times

By MARY M. CHAPMAN and MICHELINE MAYNARD

 

 

DETROIT For generations, drivers licenses have been tickets to freedom for Americas 16-year-olds, prompting many to line up at motor vehicle offices the day they were eligible to apply.

 

No longer. In the last decade, the proportion of 16-year-olds nationwide who hold drivers licenses has dropped from nearly half to less than one-third, according to statistics from the Federal Highway Administration.

 

.......

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/25drive.html?th&emc=th

 

 

^As this trend continues, Ohio's brain drain is going to worsen as young people leave for places that allow them to live without forced car ownership-- NYC, Boston and various east coast cities, Portland, various areas of California, Chicago, etc. 

February 26, 2008

Bush Cool to States Call for Public Works Projects

By ROBERT PEAR

The New York Times

 

Washington--President Bush rebuffed appeals from the nations governors on Monday to increase spending on roads, bridges and other public works as a way to revive the economy.

 

Governors said Mr. Bush had told them at a White House meeting that he wanted to see the effects of his economic stimulus package before supporting new measures.

 

........

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/26govs.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

A very interesting article on how climate change may affect transportation planning:

 

http://www.intransitionmag.org/Winter_2008/climatechangemain.html

Two feel-good articles on how living in a city with fewer cars can make them happier places to live.

 

The first concerns Paris

http://www.enroutemag.com/e/february08/feature2_a.html

 

And the second describes the benefits of requiring school children in Japan to walk to school.  Yes, "requiring."

http://carfreetokyo.blogspot.com/2008/02/catchment-area.html

 

Thought-provoking at least, and perhaps the E4th development is an encouraging sign.

March 4, 2008, 9:45 am

Calling Ralph Kramden: Is Mass Transit the Answer?

Wall Street Journal On-Line

Posted by Keith Johnson

 

While the Bush administration aims to cut gasoline use by focusing on more ethanol and making cars more fuel efficient, its totally missing the train when it comes to public transportation.

 

Thats the conclusion of an upcoming report by the U.S. federation of Public Interest Research Groups, or PIRG. PIRG argues in its report, A Better Way to Go, to be released Thursday, that the federal government should be pouring more cash into mass transit rather than preserving Americas car culture.

 

...........

 

Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/03/04/calling-ralph-kramden-is-mass-transit-the-answer/trackback/

$1,218 PER PERSON

Columbus area pays price for crashes

Thursday, March 6, 2008 3:39 AM

By Tim Doulin

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Drivers are often reminded of how much money they spend sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

 

But that's nothing compared with actually colliding with somebody's bumper.

 

Traffic crashes cost Americans more than $164 billion a year, while they cost about $1,218 a year per person in metropolitan Columbus, according to a report released yesterday by the AAA.

 

The total national cost from crashes was more than twice the $67.6 billion a year U.S. drivers spend as a result of traffic congestion, the report says.

 

.........

 

So, how about reducing the traffic ??????

But the per-person cost is $1,218 in Columbus, compared with $962 in the New York area.

 

And the nitwit thinks that this is because the roads are safer in NYC than in Columbus?

And the nitwit thinks that this is because the roads are safer in NYC than in Columbus?

 

Well... they are.  You only go about 10 mph in NYC :P.  Anyways, I really hope the next administration pours money into public transit infrastructure and alternative modes research.  I like Columbus, but I'll admit I am looking for a job elsewhere because it is so spread out.  We need more cohesion to save money, regional governments anyone?

Well... they are.  You only go about 10 mph in NYC :P.  Anyways, I really hope the next administration pours money into public transit infrastructure and alternative modes research.  I like Columbus, but I'll admit I am looking for a job elsewhere because it is so spread out.  We need more cohesion to save money, regional governments anyone?

 

How about a moat instead? One made of cornfields and used to help fuel our automobile addiction? Funny how the sharply rising value of farmland is making it less cost-effective to expand suburbia. Gives the phrase "corn belt" a whole new meaning...

My point was that since less people drive in NYC, then the per capita spending on accidents is bound to be lower.  Thus, the one logical approach not mentioned would be to reduce the number of drivers rather than attempt to increase the safety of roads (which costs a lot more and is most likely very difficult to do).

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news.shtml#Feature3

 

March 10, 2008

APTA reports record public transit ridership in 2007

 

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) says Americans took 10.3 billion trips on public transportation in 2007, the highest level in 50 years, and representing a 2.1% increase over 2006.

 

Light rail (identified as modern streetcars, trolleys, and heritage trolleys) had the highest percentage of ridership increase among all modes, up 6.1% in 2007. LRT systems showed double-digit increases in the following areas: New Orleans (128.6%); Denver (66.2 %); Saint Louis (27.0%); Philadelphia (26.2%); Kenosha (18.5 %); New Jersey Transit light rail systems (14.7%); and Memphis (11.3%).

 

Commuter rail posted the second largest ridership increase at 5.5 percent. The five systems in 2007 gaining the most were: Nashville (257.9%); Santa Fe (96.6%); Harrisburg (41.3%); Seattle (27.4%); and Oakland (14.2%).

 

Heavy rail ridership (subways) increased by 3.1%. The heavy rail systems with double-digit increases in ridership for 2007 were in the following cities: San Juan (13.2 %) and Atlanta (10.1%).

 

"In light of high gas prices, increased road congestion, and expanded public transit services, this continued growth in ridership demonstrates how important public transportation is for America," said APTA President William W. Millar. "Now with gas prices predicted to rise to $4 a gallon, there is a greater urgency for higher federal funding to expand U.S. public transportation systems so Americans have an affordable transportation choice.

 

"In addition, public transportation is a key part of the solution to decreasing greenhouse gases and meeting our national goal of energy independence," concluded Millar. "When more people ride public transportation, there are more reductions in carbon emissions and our country is less dependent on foreign oil."

 

APTA says use of public transportation is up 32% since 1995, a rate more than double the growth rate of the population (15%) and up substantially over the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on U.S. highways (24%) for that same period.

 

 

###

The Ohio Highway Patrol responded to 610 crashes over a 7 1/2 hour period last Friday (first day of the snow storm):

 

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/15532315/detail.html?taf=nn5

 

 

One of the better articles I've seen exposing the transportation policy of the Bush administration and how it is making it more difficult to create more and better transportation choices.

 

Letting the Market Drive Transportation

Bush Officials Criticized for Privatization

 

By Lyndsey Layton and Spencer S. Hsu

Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, March 17, 2008; A01

 

It took a few moments for Tyler Duvall, the top policymaker at the Department of Transportation, to digest the news from the Hill. But when he realized what it meant, he was stunned.

 

Last year, Congress decided not to dictate how the department could spend its discretionary funds. No earmarks, no strings, no arm-twisting from lawmakers to direct money to bus systems or other mass-transit projects in hundreds of communities nationwide.

 

Duvall and other top department officials were staring at nearly $1 billion. And they knew exactly how to spend it.

 

..........

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031603085.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Why? WHY are lawyers sitting on a transportation committee, why are they even appointed into transportation positions!? 

 

What is with this crappy privatization of roads.  Congestion pricing I can see being useful, to an extent, but privatizing roads!?  When in the history of mankind have roads been successful when they were privatized. Look at most of the housing developments out there.  They start with private roads and within a few years the roads are flipped to the city because they are EXPENSIVE to upkeep.  Aren't current roads about 90% subsidized? 

 

If public transit is privatized then that ship will sink.  It is well known that most public transit systems, in order to be profitable, would have to cut service to those who need it the most.  If COTA did that we would have 3 locals, 1,2,10, and a handful of expensive expresses.

 

 

Very interesting comments from the Executive Director of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission regarding the need to develop more and better transportation options.  He very prominently mentions the Ohio Hub and the Columbus Downtown Streetcar, as well as improvements for bicycles and pedestrians.

 

Link: http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-03-19-0027.html

 

Don't know how long the link will be there, so I'd advise watching it soon.

Six travel issues likely to be ignored

By Christopher Elliott

Tribune Media Services

 

(Tribune Media Services) -- No matter who wins, you lose.

 

Whether you're a Democrat, Republican or pondering a protest vote for an independent presidential candidate in November, what you do at the ballot box is meaningless -- at least as far as your travel is concerned.

 

Sure, travel is a $740 billion industry, but it's a business Washington tends to take for granted. And one election isn't likely to change a thing, right?

 

Hang on. Isn't this election about change? Shouldn't we expect more than the same old, same old?

 

 

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

 

Links referenced within this article

 

Fuel Cost Calculator

http://www.fuelcostcalculator.com/

Air Travel

http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Air_Travel

Travel and Tourism

http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Travel_and_Tourism

 

Find this article at:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/traveltips/04/01/six.issues

 

They didn't respond because the only solutions to the transportation crisis are ones that will surely cost them votes -- namely increased taxes, tolls, fees, etc. etc. to pay for major improvements.

^ Great find, Noozer.  This guy laid it out well.

I always found that amazingly ironic.  Libertarians supporting such massive tax funded programs.  When you take that irony into consideration with who some of those groups are funded by (Shell Oil, Exxon Oil, etc), their agenda becomes crystal clear - we all need fossil fuel pollution makers in the driveway and we all need to have 100 mile round trip commutes to work.

Interesting hearing today in the US House T&I committee in which Jolene Molitoris, ODOT Asst. Director was a witness.  Below is a preview of the hearing as well as a link to the hearing website.  There is a video of the hearing.

 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit - Transportation Challenges of Metropolitan Areas

2167 Rayburn House Office Building

 

 

 

Purpose of the Hearing

 

The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit met on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., in room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony on the transportation challenges of metropolitan areas. The Subcommittee heard from a transportation expert from the Metropolitan Policy Program at The Brookings Institution, the President of the Regional Plan Association in New York, the County Executive from King County, Washington, the Assistant Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Executive Director of Sacramento Regional Transit District, and the Transportation Director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

 

This hearing was the first in a series of hearings exploring emerging themes in transportation policy and practice, the needs of our national surface transportation system, and the reauthorization of our surface transportation laws. The Subcommittee will continue this series by holding hearings in the near future on the issues surrounding freight access and goods movement, infrastructure preservation and modernization, highway safety, mobility and connectivity of rural areas, and other issues.

 

http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetail.aspx?NewsID=570

Jolene Molitoris Testimony:

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Highways/20080409/Molitoris%20Ohio%20DOT%20Testimony.pdf

 

Transportation Challenges of Metropolitan Areas in Ohio

April 9, 2008

Testimony of Jolene Molitoris

Assistant Director, Ohio Department of Transportation

to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

 

Good morning Chairman DeFazio and members of the Committee. On behalf of Ohio Governor Ted

Strickland and Director James Beasley of the Ohio Department of Transportation, I thank you for

asking me to share Ohio's transportation story. I am Jolene Molitoris, Assistant Director for Ohio's

Department of Transportation.

Few people realize that Ohio - only 35th in the nation in terms of land size - has the 2nd largest

inventory of bridges, the 4th most operating rail routes, the 4th largest interstate system, the 7th largest

state highway network and the 12th most transit ridership. Ohio has seven major metropolitan areas:

Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Akron, Youngstown and Toledo, as well as ten smaller

metropolitan centers. All these cities have transportation challenges that can be improved by changes

at home and in Washington.

Ohio's most pressing federal financial challenge is the immediate need to ensure the solvency of the

nation's Highway Trust Fund. The latest figures from the Congressional Budget Office forecast a

potential loss of between $140 million to $400 million for Ohio alone, representing a major blow to

projects planned for as early as 2009 and 2010.

The country's underinvestment in transportation for many decades has resulted in an aging

infrastructure with dramatically increasing demands and many needs. Ohio is no exception. A

significant increase in federal transportation dollars and fair distribution of those dollars is critical.

Ohio's donor status did improve to 92% for highway dollars under SAFETEA-LU, but most

undesirable is the fact that Ohio receives a mere 51% return on each dollar contributed to the Mass

Transit Account.

Under Governor Strickland, a strong and efficient multi-modal transportation system in Ohio is a

priority to retaining and attracting the jobs and businesses we need. Just last week, Governor

Strickland and the State legislature announced a $1.57 billion bipartisan economic stimulus package

which includes major investments in logistics, infrastructure, bridges and other transportation projects.

57,000 new jobs are anticipated. We are acting at home to create transportation solutions, but the state

and the private sector alone cannot resolve our transportation challenges. We need an effective federal

partner.

Let me touch on a few challenges standing in the way of that partnership.

(1) The first is a better recognition that urban projects, by their very nature, cost significantly more.

Like threading a needle with an eight-lane highway, we are trying to modernize roadways tightly

woven in a built environment. Modernizing off-ramps and on-ramps - once acceptable but now

deemed dangerous by today’s standards - is not only complicated, but in some cases, the fix can have

unseen economic consequences on downtown livelihood. In an urban setting, right of way costs soar.

And some projects come to a grinding halt when historic properties stand in the way. Even just the

maintenance of traffic during construction adds significant cost, as work must be pieced together in

small sections over long periods of time.

(2) While the government has little power over basic construction costs, our partnership could see a

more effective use of its dollars with less federal micro-management. Oversight of project

development continues to be lengthy and bureaucratic. Amendments in SAFETEA-LU were intended

Ohio Department of Transportation

Transportation Challenges of Metropolitan Areas in Ohio 3

to improve efficiency in project delivery, but actual change has been modest. Ohio is a leader in

environmental compliance and construction mitigation. But this higher review forces all state DOTs to

produce more detail and paper than needed, often times simply to address a federal reviewer’s

comments instead of project needs.

A prime example of both these issues is the reconstruction of Cleveland's I-90 Innerbelt. What started

as a $500 million replacement of an aging bridge was stretched by federal expansion of the project’s

scope and by this process-oriented delay. Fixing the Innerbelt stands now, at least, at $1.4 billion, and

growing each month. For our metropolitan projects, we should explore putting federal approvals and

state accountability at the program level - not at a time consuming project by project detailed analysis.

Somewhat connected is a second challenge: the use of one-size-fits-all programmatic approaches to

address project level mitigation needs. Rather than the current prescriptive remedies, a menu of green

options could give states flexibility while still protecting the environment. Imagine, instead of

following today's impact-for-impact mitigation logic, that preservation opportunities can be explored

that would allow States to focus on the most important needs of that region, such as farmland

preservation. In some urban settings, wetland mitigation simply brings flocks of geese to downtown

streets, instead of addressing the larger issues of climate change.

(3) On the topic of "greener" alternatives, a third challenge continues to be a lack of federal incentive

to help cities pursue alternatives to the automobile. Simply put, federal transportation funding favors

highways over other transportation modes. The Federal Highway Administration will contribute up to

80 or 90 percent for highway improvements but only 50 percent for transit projects under the Federal

Transit Administration's New Start Program.

(4) Another point on the transit disincentive is FTA's ever-changing criteria. In Columbus, a passenger

light rail project did not meet FTA's New Start criteria, even though Columbus is now the state’s most

populous city and one of the few growing regions in the Midwest. It has become almost impossible for

most cities to introduce passenger rail projects - commuter rail, light rail, or streetcar – with federal

help. One could interpret the constantly moving target as a technique to reduce FTA's investments in

these alternative transportation options.

 

Finally, a story underscoring the need for transit: In Ohio, our 59 public transit systems serve half-amillion

customers every weekday. More than 60% of all those trips are work related. For many

Ohioans, it's public transportation or public assistance. In Cleveland, ranked last year as the nation's

poorest city, one in four citizens do not have access to a car. Last year, a new shopping center was set

to open on the site of an abandoned steel mill. The redevelopment in a core urban area meant jobs for

many who had none. At the new Target store, to get to those new jobs, more than half of the

applicants needed bus service that wasn't currently available. By investing just $200,000 more

annually, the regional transit authority expanded its service to run a half-hour after the store closes,

but at the cost of cutting service to other parts of town. The story is repeated time and again in several

of Ohio’s major cities.

 

The bottom line for Ohio and its transportation system: the proper level of investment, wisely and

fairly made, with the leveraging of private dollars, our own state commitment and an effective federal

partner who helps us solve rather than exacerbate our challenges, will give us the transportation

system we so urgently need. A first rate multi-modal transportation system is key to the success of

Ohio and the nation.

Outstanding testimony, except for the geese on downtown streets comment. That was a bit "out there"....

USPIRG

 

Advancing Solutions To America's Transportation Problems: The nations transportation system is in trouble. Americas dependence on cars for transportation is the number one cause of our addiction to oil and a major contributor to global warming and air pollution. Americans waste millions of hours each year on congested roads -- many of which are in increasingly poor repair. At the same time, we spend billions of taxpayer dollars each year on wasteful projects that should go to basic maintenance, modernization and investments in better transportation choices.

 

America must move toward a new transportation future for the 21st century that enhances our economy, national security, public health, environment, and quality of life. To get there, we need a new federal transportation policy that does the following:

 

Expands clean, efficient transportation choices for Americans by prioritizing investment of new capital funds for light rail, commuter rail, rapid bus service, high-speed intercity rail and other forms of modern public transportation. At the same time, federal policy should encourage transportation investments that build dynamic and accessible communities, where more Americans can walk, bike or take transit to get where they need to go.

 

Fixes our crumbling roads and bridges by investing more federal highway money in maintenance, not massive new highway projects. Its time for the federal government to embrace an approach to highway spending that prioritizes maintaining and modernizing our existing highways over building more.

 

Spends taxpayers' money more wisely by focusing transportation dollars on solving our nation's biggest problems. For decades, the federal government has spent billions of dollars on highway projects with little evaluation and no accountability. That must change. Federal transportation money should be spent only on projects that produce real results over the long haul -- for example, by reducing our dependence on oil, curbing global warming pollution, alleviating congestion, improving safety, and supporting healthy, sustainable communities.

 

I support 21st Century transportation solutions

 

Signed:

 

Name:

 

Affiliation:

 

218 D Street SE, 1st floor

 

Washington, DC 200003

 

Ph: ( 202) 546-9707

 

[email protected]

^Thanks for the lead BuckeyeB.  I just reserved this book through the library.

Has Clinton or McCain posted their transportation plans/agendas?

__________________

 

Obama's Transportation Plan posted

Obama's Transportation Plan is now posted here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Transportation.pdf).

 

" BARACK OBAMA: STRENGTHENING AMERICA’S TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

 

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Strengthen Core Infrastructure: As our society becomes more mobile and interconnected, the need for 21st-century transportation networks has never been greater. However, too many of our nation’s railways, highways, bridges, airports, and neighborhood streets are slowly decaying due to lack of investment and strategic long-term planning. Barack Obama believes that America’s long-term competitiveness depends on the stability of our critical infrastructure. As president, Obama will make strengthening our transportation systems, including our roads and bridges, a top priority.

 

Support Amtrak Funding: Barack Obama has been a strong supporter of federal financial support for Amtrak. Obama believes we need to reform Amtrak to improve accountability. In many parts of the country, Amtrak is the only form of reliable transportation. In the U.S. Senate, Obama is a cosponsor of the Passenger Rail Investment and Innovation Act of 2007, a leading act to provide long-term federal investment to Amtrak. As president, Barack Obama will continue to fight for Amtrak funding and reform so that individuals, families and businesses throughout the country have safe and reliable transportation options.

 

Support Development of High-Speed Freight and Passenger Rail: Barack Obama supports development of high-speed rail networks across the country. Providing passengers with safe high-speed rail will have significant environmental and metropolitan planning advantages and help diversify our nation’s transportation infrastructure. Our domestic rail freight capacity must also be strengthened because our demand for rail transportation has never been greater, leaving many key transportation hubs stretched to capacity. Obama is committed to renewing the federal government’s commitment to high speed rail so that our nation’s transportation infrastructure continues to support, and not hinder, our nation’s long-term economic growth.

 

Strengthen Metropolitan Planning to Cut Down Traffic Congestion: Barack Obama believes we must take steps at the front-end as well as the back-end of the planning process to cut down traffic congestion in our large and medium-size cities. Obama supported a measure authored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to mandate states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies that incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of sidewalks and roads. As president, Obama will work to provide states and local governments with the resources they need to address sprawl and create more livable communities.

 

Strengthen Air Transportation in Underserved Areas: Obama has worked across party lines to protect funding for the Essential Air Service program, which provides vital funds for air transportation in rural areas. Obama supports the continuation of the Small Community Air Service Development Program that helps small and mid-sized communities attract new air service, which is critical to local economic development. Obama will work to improve the effectiveness of these programs and increase the availability of rail transportation options for residents of rural communities.

 

Modernize Infrastructure on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers: Obama strongly supported the Water Resources and Development Act, which will provide funding for modernizing the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers’ system of locks and dams. The bill will also provide funding for environmental restoration along the upper Mississippi. The decay of existing locks and dams has led to stagnating economic development for areas along the river, including Iowa, because of the decreasing ability of farmers and other producers to ship their goods both domestically and internationally. Obama’s work to pass the Water Resources and Development Act has been praised by the National Corn Grower’s Association and the American Soybean Association. As president, Obama will continue to ensure that the federal government invests in upgrading our national transportation infrastructure for agricultural and commercial goods.

 

Improve Transportation Access to Jobs: Three-quarters of welfare recipients live in areas that are poorly served by public transportation and low-income workers spend up to 36 percent of their incomes on transportation. Barack Obama has spent years working to improve transportation access for low-income Americans. As an Illinois state senator, he was the chief sponsor of the bill that created the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Transportation, a body that was charged with building public-private partnerships to help connect low-income Americans with jobs. As president, Obama will work to eliminate transportation disparities so that all Americans can lead meaningful and productive lives. Obama will double the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to ensure that additional federal public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account. JARC funds have been used to connect low-income workers around the country with job opportunities.

 

Improve and Modernize Air Traffic Control: Because of an outdated air-traffic control system and overscheduling at airports already operating at full capacity, there were a record number of flight delays during the first half of 2007. Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration has failed to work well with our nation’s air traffic controllers, neglecting to treat them with the respect they deserve. There are nearly 1,100 fewer air traffic controllers working in U.S. air traffic facilities today than three years ago, despite increasing air traffic. Obama will work with Congress to modernize the nation’s air traffic control system and he will direct the new FAA Administrator to work cooperatively with the frontline air traffic controllers to restore morale and improve working conditions and operations at the agency.

 

SAFEGUARD TRANSPORTATION FROM TERRORISM

Protect Transportation Infrastructure from Terrorism: The federal government’s National Asset Database, which is intended to guide homeland security priorities, lists 77,069 potential U.S. targets including petting zoos and popcorn factories. Experts say this database is not useful for homeland security planning. Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security will develop a meaningful critical infrastructure protection plan across the nation and will work with the private sector to ensure that all high-risk targets are prepared for disasters both natural and man-made.

 

Bolster Airport Security: Between October 2005 and January 2006, Government Accountability Office investigators were able to smuggle bomb components past federal screeners at all 21 airports they targeted. And airline passengers are still not screened against a comprehensive, accurate terrorist watch list. As a result, almost six years after 9/11, we still have a security system that results in eight-year olds and grandmothers being repeatedly questioned and even stopped from flying. Developing a comprehensive, accurate list must be a priority and used in a way that safeguards passengers' privacy while ensuring the safety of air travel. As a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Barack Obama believes we must redouble our efforts to determine if the measures implemented after 9/11 are adequately addressing the threats our nation continues to face from airplane-based terrorism. Obama has supported increased numbers of federal airport screeners and improved funding for aviation security.

 

Safeguard Mass Public Transportation: Every weekday, Americans take 34 million trips on public transportation systems to get to work, school and beyond. Even though recent attacks have happened on public transit in Madrid, Mumbai and London, the Bush administration has invested only a small fraction of the $6 billion that transportation officials have said is necessary to implement needed security improvements. Barack Obama believes that this critical hole in our homeland security network must be addressed. He will fight for greater information-sharing between national intelligence agents and local officials and provide local law enforcement agencies with the everyday tools they need to protect their transportation systems. As a U.S. Senator representing Chicago, Illinois, one of the nation’s major rail transportation hubs, Obama has consistently advocated stronger rail and transit security programs. "

Bush Administration Censors Pro-Electric Rail Report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Bush administration Department of Transportation deleted a section in a report Transportation for Tomorrow (see: http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report) that supported light rail.

 

That deleted section is quoted here:

 

 

Quote:

The Case for Public Transportation

 

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. In addition to decreasing quality of life, traffic congestion imposes real economic costs. According to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2007 Urban Mobility Report, delays per peak period traveler increased from 14 hours per year in 1982 to 38 hours in 2005 for all urban areas in the United States. For the 14 largest urban areas, delay has risen from 21 hours per peak period traveler in 1982 to 54 hours in 2005.

 

• The failure of many urban areas to meet Federally-mandated air quality standards. A shift of commuter travel from private automobiles to electric railways (which include some commuter rail, Heavy Rail (subways) Light Rail and streetcars) can play a significant role in reducing air pollution. Public Transportation's Contribution to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction, published by SAIC [science Applications International Corporation] in 2007, finds that a solo commuter switching his commute to existing public transportation can reduce his CO2 emissions by 20 pounds in a single day or more than 4,800 pounds in a year. Greater savings would result from new electric rail service powered by non-fossil fuel generated electricity.

 

• The difficulty of constructing new urban freeways in the face of land use, right-of-way cost and environmental obstacles. As has repeatedly been demonstrated, the phenomenon of "suppressed demand" quickly leads to renewed congestion on any new freeways that can be built. Generated Traffic and Induced Travel Implications for Transport Planning, published by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute in 2007, described research reports that found new highways would attract enough traffic to be filled to capacity or near capacity within a few years after they opened.

 

• 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 re-development.

 

• 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. The Energy Information Administration reported that 71 million barrels of petroleum were imported from the Persian Gulf region in June of 2007, 18 percent of all petroleum imports. According to the same source, spot oil prices were $81.51 per barrel on September 18, 2007, over $50 dollars more than the $27.26 per barrel spot oil price just four years earlier.

 

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.

 

Key differences between bus and rail transit include:

 

• 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. This means that rail transit, but not buses, has a significant potential impact on traffic congestion. For whatever reasons, it is a fact that most Americans like riding trains and streetcars but do not like riding buses. If our national transportation policy is to be realistic, it must take this fact into account. A Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics reported in On-Board Surveys, published by the American Public Transportation Association in 2007, reported that 38 percent of bus and paratransit riders had an automobile available when they took a transit trip while 58% of rail travelers had an automobile available for their trip.

 

 

• Rail transit, but not buses, has a demonstrated ability to spur development and, importantly, re-development in urban cores. Streetcar systems, which can be built inexpensively, have shown a particularly strong and positive impact on urban re-development. Portland Streetcar: Development Oriented Transit, prepared by the Portland, Oregon, Office of Transportation and Portland Streetcar, Inc., in 2006, found that since 1997 $2.3 billion had been invested within two blocks of the streetcar right-of-way, including 7,248 new housing units and 4.6 million square feet of office, institutional, retail, and hotel construction. The Little Rock, Arkansas, Regional Chamber of Commerce, in "About Little Rock," calls the River Rail streetcar line, which opened in 2004, a "magnet for new businesses and development, another attraction for large conventions and one of several jewels in the restoration of two reviving downtown areas."

 

• While bus lines can be electrified, very few have been. In contrast, most new rail transit projects envision electric railways of one variety or another. In our view, both environmental and national security considerations should lead Federal transportation policy to favor electrified over non-electrified modes of travel. What changes in Federal transportation policy do the above considerations suggest? First and foremost, 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.

 

Further, it should become Federal government policy to encourage the growth and spread of electrified rail transit as something that contributes directly to national security as well as strengthens efforts to re-develop our nation's urban cores. Public Transit in America: Analysis of Access Using the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, published in 2007 by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, found that 53 percent of U.S. households were within one mile of bus service and 40 percent were within one-quarter mile, but only 10 percent of the population lives within one mile of rail transit. National security considerations suggest that funding the spread of electrified rail transit should be considered a national security function, at least in part.

 

These recommendations in turn suggest at least two actions be undertaken immediately. First, FTA criteria for the evaluation of requests for funding for electric rail projects, especially streetcars, should be re- written to take all relevant factors into account, including development impact, and to remove criteria that are not relevant, such as time of travel for streetcars. Second, the Small Starts funding program, which originated as the Blumenauer bill, should be returned to its original purpose, which was to encourage new streetcar systems. A streetcar system is a logical first step toward electrified rail transit for cities that currently have no rail transit, which means such new starts should receive especially strong encouragement in Federal transportation policy.

 

More broadly, Federal support for public transportation generally and electrified rail transit in particular should be made automatic, based on the population of the area served. For example, a city of 50,000 might qualify for automatic approval for a bus system (preferably with electric buses); an urban area of 100,000 for streetcars; of 250,000 for Light Rail. FTA approval would not be required for proposals fitting within each category (it would still be necessary for projects that lay outside the approved categories, e.g., Light Rail for a city of 50,000). Currently, a total of 72 urbanized areas have one or more types of rail service. There are 266 urbanized areas with populations greater than 100,000, of which just 27 currently have Light Rail service. 128 of those have populations greater than 250,000, of which only 26 have Light Rail service. Five of the largest urbanized areas without Light Rail do have Heavy Rail Systems, which are the basic level of rail service for those very large areas.

 

Most of those cities once had electric railways. They lost them, not to the fair market, but to massive government intervention in favor of highways and cars. As early as 1921, government was pouring $1.4 billion into highways. In contrast, the vast majority of electric railways were privately owned, received no government assistance and had to pay taxes. Further, their fares were often controlled by local governments, which did not allow them to rise despite inflation. As a result, by 1919 one-third of the country's streetcar companies were bankrupt. After World War II, many local governments completed the destruction of their community's electric railways by pressuring transit companies to convert to buses. Bus conversion in turn led many former transit riders to drive instead.

 

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. In a 21st century where oil supplies will be increasingly uncertain, such a policy will give our country needed security in the form of security of mobility. For a nation as dependent on mobility as America, security of mobility is as important as security of life, liberty and property.

[...]

 

[End of excised section] 

Bastards.  :whip:

 

How many days until Bush is out of office?

There is still a question whether that deletion was even legal, as USDOT Secretary Peters (who was one of the dissenting votes in a 9 to 3 vote to approve the full report) had the "offending" section removed after the report had already been released and delivered to Congress.  There was speculation that could be considered "contempt of Congress".

 

 

It's been a beef of mine of late that the Presidential candidates have been silent about rail & transit at a time when we're being hurt deeply by rising fuel costs and few or no alternatives to driving.

 

Apparently, the Obama campaign has posted the Senator's stance on transportation policy.  Here's a link to the pdf file:

 

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Transportation.pdf

 

Here's an excerpt....

 

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

 

Strengthen Core Infrastructure: As our society becomes more mobile and interconnected, the need for 21st-century transportation networks has never been greater. However, too many of our nation’s railways, highways, bridges, airports, and neighborhood streets are slowly decaying due to lack of investment and strategic long-term planning. Barack Obama believes that America’s long-term competitiveness depends on the stability of our critical infrastructure. As president, Obama will make strengthening our transportation systems, including our roads and bridges, a top priority.

 

Support Amtrak Funding: Barack Obama has been a strong supporter of federal financial support for Amtrak. Obama believes we need to reform Amtrak to improve accountability. In many parts of the country, Amtrak is the only form of reliable transportation. In the U.S. Senate, Obama is a cosponsor of the Passenger Rail Investment and Innovation Act of 2007, a leading act to provide long-term federal investment to Amtrak. As president, Barack Obama will continue to fight for Amtrak funding and reform so that individuals, families and businesses throughout the country have safe and reliable transportation options.

 

Support Development of High-Speed Freight and Passenger Rail: Barack Obama supports development of high-speed rail networks across the country. Providing passengers with safe high-speed rail will have significant environmental and metropolitan planning advantages and help diversify our nation’s transportation infrastructure. Our domestic rail freight capacity must also be strengthened because our demand for rail transportation has never been greater, leaving many key transportation hubs stretched to capacity. Obama is committed to renewing the federal government’s commitment to high speed rail so that our nation’s transportation infrastructure continues to support, and not hinder, our nation’s long-term economic growth.

 

Strengthen Metropolitan Planning to Cut Down Traffic Congestion: Barack Obama believes we must take steps at the front-end as well as the back-end of the planning process to cut down traffic congestion in our large and medium-size cities. Obama supported a measure authored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to mandate states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies that incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of sidewalks and roads. As president, Obama will work to provide states and local governments with the resources they need to address sprawl and create more livable communities.

 

 

Noozer, look four messages up the forum.

 

HAHA

Ah, but it bears repeating.  :-D

Ah, but it bears repeating.  :-D

Must be an echo in here! :-D

Nah.... it's the Mel Brooks virus.

 

"Repeat after me.  I.... your name.... do solemnly swear..."

 

"I... your name....do solemnly swear....."

JEFF GERRITT

Map a new plan for transportation

Take a big turn to transit's potential

April 13, 2008

 

Our nation spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on highways, bridges, rail lines, buses and railroads that connect communities, shape patterns of growth and development, and sustain the economy. But there is no comprehensive national transportation policy to drive this titanic task.

 

Given the energy and environmental challenges of this new century, such an uncharted course is shortsighted, wasteful and practically suicidal.

 

.........

 

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080413/OPINION01/804130588

 

An outstanding article.

Wow, my thoughts exactly.  This was in a Detroit newspaper?  Fantastic!  This should be released Associated Press style on every site out there with a feed.

Heard this on NPR's "Morning Edition".  It is well worth listening to this report.

 

Home Prices Drop Most in Areas with Long Commute

by Kathleen Schalch

 

Listen Now [5 min 55 sec]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89803663

 

Morning Edition, April 21, 2008 · Median home prices across the nation continue to decline, but some experts are noting a link between falling housing prices and commuting distances. Suburbs where commuters drive an hour or more to work are seeing some of the sharpest drops in prices.

 

The latest from James Howard Kunstler (author of The Geography of Nowhere and The Long Emergency):

 

I happened to be flying into Minneapolis the very day that Northwest Airlines announced its merger with Delta --Delta to be the more senior (more equal) partner -- in effect, to absorb Northwest and run its operations. Many observers are not optimistic that the merger will rescue these companies in any case, since both airlines are financial basket-cases, but it's a sort of last-ditch effort to save them both.

 

    It was less than great news up around Minneapolis, Northwest's corporate headquarters. A lot of people I talked to were anxious that Delta would cut service to a lot of little cities in the upper Great Lakes and northern prairie region, places like Duluth, Grand Forks, Green Bay, Traverse City and many other towns. Instead of one or two flights a day, they may end up with one or two a week, or none at all, they feared.

 

     The Northwest pilots were none too pleased, either, because Delta was making noises about their own pilots seniority counting for more than Northwest's pilot's seniority in terms of preferred assignments and scheduling. In fact, the Northwest pilots were so pissed off they threatened to scuttle the merger.

 

     That part of the country is a big region of wide open spaces Things are very far apart. You wouldn't want to drive a car from Des Moines to Rapid City, even if gasoline was a good bit less than the $3.50 a gallon it is now. Driving around the prairie is especially tedious -- and dangerous because of the tedium. The landscape is boring. The roads are dead straight and mostly dead flat.

 

     It happened, also, that I got a little guided tour of Minneapolis from the author-shlepping service that my publisher engaged. We rode past the old Minneapolis central train station. He said no trains stop there anymore (there's a dinky afterthought of a station next door in St. Paul). Anyway, the only train that comes through the Twin Cities is the pokey once-a-day Amtrak to Seattle.

 

     In other words, this region of the country has next-to-zero railroad service. Can we pause a moment here to ask: exactly how far does America have its head up its ass? Do you get the picture? Can you connect the dots? The airline industry is dying and absolutely no thought is being given to how people will get around this big country -- except to make the stupid assumption that we can just drive our cars instead. Even during the several days I was around Minneapolis, no news media or politician raised the subject of reviving passenger railroad service.

 

      In point of fact, these are exactly the kind of trips that would be better served by rail, anyway -- the towns that are less than five hundred miles apart. The travel time between trains and planes would be comparable, considering the two hours or so that you have to add to every airplane trip because of all the security crap, not to mention the delays. As a matter of fact, USA today ran a front page story two days after the Delta / Northwest announcement saying "Air Trips Slowest [now than] in Past 20 Years." Subhead: "Trend likely to persist as congestion worsens."

 

     One big reason for the airport congestion, of course, is that the runways are cluttered up with planes making trips of only a few hundred miles. This has been a problem for quite a while. Periodically, it gets so bad that the media gets all excited and sometimes (last summer, for instance) the President makes a statement deploring it. Since the current president is a knucklehead, it apparently hasn't occurred to him to get behind a revival of the passenger rail system. But Mr. Bush is apparently not the only elected knucklehead in this country, because absolutely nobody is talking about this.

 

     Now get this: we are sleepwalking into a transportation crisis. As I already said, the airline industry is dying. The price of petroleum-based aviation fuel is killing it. And forget the fantasies about running it on bio-diesel or used french-fry oil. Driving cars will not be an adequate substitute, either. It's imperative that this country gets serious about restoring the passenger rail system. We can't not talk about it for another year. We must demand that the candidates for president speak to this issue. If you who are reading this are active reporters or editors in the news media, you've got to raise your voices behind this issue.

 

April 20, 2008

 

Here's a couple of responses from Ohioans to JHK's above blog:

 

Posted by: FARfetched | April 20, 2008 at 10:59 PM

 

Actually, there is much discussion her in Ohio from the state government in creating a railroad service to connect the bigger cities and sever of the medium and smaller towns. I've included a link to some of the press releases below.

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Ohiorail/Press%20Releases/Press%20Releases.htm

 

Posted by: Kevin | April 20, 2008 at 11:19 PM

 

Haven't responded in quite a while to Mr. Kunstler's weekly blog, but I also wanted to say that I live in the Toledo area and I'd be surprised if anybody ever flies to Cleveland or Cincinnati...but I know people who fly to Chicago which is only 4 hours from here by car. Maybe if more states do this we can get a good rail system back in place. The governor in Ohio does seem to understand much about the energy predicament we may be in.