Expert: U.S. population to hit 1 billion by 2100

By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY

 

If the USA seems too crowded and its roads too congested now, imagine future generations: The nation's population could more than triple to 1 billion as early as 2100.

 

That's the eye-popping projection that urban and rural planners, gathered today for their annual meeting in Las Vegas, are hearing from a land-use expert.

 

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

 

 

Find this article at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2008-04-28-onebillion_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

 

Infrastructure 2008: A Competitive Advantage Says 2008 Marks Critical Juncture In U.S. Infrastructure Investment, Development

New Report Examines Major Issues and Trends; Cautions that U.S. System is Flawed

For more information, contact Marge Fahey at 202-624-7187, E-mail: [email protected]

 

WASHINGTON (April 29, 2008) – The United States needs to overhaul its outdated regional infrastructure planning process and create a viable federal framework, or face compromising its ability to compete in a global marketplace, according to a new report co-published by the Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young.

 

Infrastructure 2008: A Competitive Advantage provides a snapshot of current and planned infrastructure investment in a variety of categories across the globe, with an in-depth look at the United States, China, Japan, India and Europe. The second annual report also touches on the infrastructure needs in several of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, highlighting the consequences of inadequate federal policy and guidelines that have resulted in “a mish-mash of disconnected regional infrastructure management approaches.”

 

“The status quo increasingly looks like a precarious option–relying on existing networks and systems will only hamstring future growth and compromise sustainability,” the report states. “2008 seemingly marks a critical juncture in a rapidly changing economic environment where new approaches to land use, infrastructure and energy efficiency will likely determine and possibly reorder the next generation of winners and losers–countries, companies, investors, and peoples.”

 

The pull-no-punches report says the United States is headed toward decline, and needs to wake up to the dire state of its infrastructure, but cautions that “political will may only emerge when people face imminent reward or immediate risk–a bridge collapse or a burst levee, and maybe not even then.” The report estimates that the U.S. has at least a $170 billion annual funding gap in addition to its outmoded land use and infrastructure models. “America heads for a crisis in the next 10 years if nothing is done,” warns the report.

 

“It is increasingly clear that the infrastructure funding gap will need to be addressed with public/private partnerships,” said Dale Anne Reiss, Global Director of Real Estate, Ernst & Young, LLP in New York City. “If the U.S. fails to embrace this model, it could lead to our economy falling behind more of our global competitors.”

 

“Infrastructure investment and development are having stronger-than-ever implications for urban growth patterns,” said Richard Rosan, president, ULI Worldwide. “If we continue to minimize transportation infrastructure as a federal priority, we are setting our urban areas up for decline, rather than prosperity. This country simply cannot afford to keep treating infrastructure as an afterthought.”

 

The Infrastructure 2008 report was released at a press conference at ULI headquarters in Washington, D.C. and will be presented to ULI members at ULI’s Spring Council Forum in Dallas May 7-9.

 

The report identifies four stages of the infrastructure lifecycle and identifies the U.S., Canada, Australia and Russia as “coasting on prosperity.” India, China and the United Arab Emirates are in the “growth and development” stage. The United Kingdom, the European Union, Spain, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Panama are in the “retool and revamp” stage, while Mexico, Brazil and the Czech Republic are in the “inadequate investment” stage.

 

Highlighting the different approaches to infrastructure investment, the report makes clear the U.S. is falling behind and needs to “rethink accepted land-use models which led to rampant suburban growth during the last half century.” Since 1980, vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. increased 95 percent but road capacity only increased 3 percent, according to the report. Congestion also increased dramatically. For example, Washington, D.C. experienced an increase in annual delays from 10 hours to 60 hours from 1982 to 2005. The report also points out: “Traffic congestion costs motorists $78 billion a year in wasted fuel and lost time.”

 

Numerous worldwide trends and issues are discussed in the report, including:

 

Infrastructure as a competitive imperative –

 

+ China leads the world in infrastructure spending topping out at $150 billion annually or 9 percent of its GDP. India grappling to keep up concentrates on new airports and ports. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are fashioning desert oases in the Middle East.

+ The U.S., Canada, Australia and Russia all need to ramp up infrastructure spending to stay globally competitive. Australia, however, is developing public/private financing structures tapping domestic institutional funds.

In the United States, the window of opportunity is narrowing as a massive budget gap and outmoded land use models strangle economic competitiveness.

+ Brazil, Mexico and Eastern Europe face insufficient funding for infrastructure maintenance leading to economic weakness from lowered productivity and efficiency. President Calderon has promised a major overhaul in Mexico and the Czech Republic hopes to benefit from European Union connectivity programs.

 

Expansion of infrastructure privatization –

 

+ Financing volume in the Euro market grew by one-third during the first half of 2007 (excluding UK) following a 37 percent increase in the 2005-2006 period, according to the report. The EU seeks public/private partnerships to accelerate implementation of connectivity projects. “A new report estimates that PPPs provide funding for about 15 percent of infrastructure projects in Europe.” But, the role of government remains key in providing the framework to make the overall system work.

+ China’s transformation to industrial power could not be sustained at the $150 billion annual pace, so China created corporations to develop and manage infrastructure projects. The state owns the corporation as a shareholder with private entities and local governments. The corporations can be taken public and the government uses proceeds for other projects. The China Railways IPO raised $3 billion in 2007. “The U.S. and the rest of the world could learn a thing or two about financing its infrastructure needs from of all places China,” the report concludes.

+ A new Building Canada program targets $33 billion for new infrastructure projects through 2014. About one-third of funding comes from a federal gas tax.

+ In Mexico, a new 5-year $250 billion program targets 12,400 miles of highways and rural roads for modernizing, expanding rails by 930 miles and developing suburban rail around Mexico City. The government also wants to convert 16 public freeways to private toll roads and build an additional 24 privately managed toll roads. Airport privatization has been successful with 34 airports managed by three operators.

+ Brazil’s poor road infrastructure severely hampers its economy, particularly agriculture. Airports suffer from inadequate infrastructure with air traffic growing at a 15 percent annual pace since 2004. The government’s growth plan calls for $270 billion in public and private investments between 2007 and 2010.

 

Trends and issues in public/private partnerships relative to the U.S. –

 

+ Infrastructure funds have an estimated $400 billion of buying power worldwide but fund managers are gravitating to those assets with proven revenue streams.

+ Specialist operators of ports and airports (foreign owned) are blocked in the U.S. due to 9/11 security concerns.

+ State governors avoid “Skyway” fallout and focus public/private partnership proposals on toll road construction projects.

+ Private fund managers will pay more for “brownfield assets” in high-travel corridors, but expect next generation deals to share revenues and give states more control with shorter concession terms.

+ Support builds for Congress to allow states to establish tolls on interstates.

+ Interest diminishes for raising tolls to cover shortfalls in state budgets that are not infrastructure related.

+ The U.S. needs a better policy for undertaking public/private partnership transactions. “Until this happens, private capital will steer clear,” the report states.

+ Freight rail companies are heavily investing in new tracks and facilities.

+ The report notes that a bill introduced in the U.S. Senate proposes a national infrastructure bank, while other proposed legislation calls for “Build America Bonds” to pay for transportation infrastructure. A number of recommendations are included in the report, such as: breaking down government silos, focusing on deferred maintenance, and developing national and regional infrastructure plans. “Government needs to set a policy course that enables greater mobility and productivity as the nation’s population grows and concentrates in major gateways and mega regions,” the report concludes.

 

The proposed infrastructure bank might provide a solution to a weakening economy by funding job programs related to rebuilding infrastructure, states the report. “A jobs program can be a means to an end, a powerful tool for economic development, funding future infrastructure to increase employment and improve economic competitiveness.”

 

Another key finding: “Land use and transportation planning must be coordinated at state and regional levels… and transit authorities need to operate with common purpose.” And regional planning needs to align with national priorities.

 

The report also recommends new funding strategies, including: user fees; interstate toll roads; funding based on reducing vehicle miles traveled; subsidies to encourage infill housing and commercial development served by mass transit in pedestrian-friendly communities; stop subsidizing sprawl; and stop tapping user fees to make up for other shortfalls.

 

NOTE TO EDITORS AND REPORTERS: Copies of the report are available at www.uli.org/reports/i19. For a hard copy of the report, contact Marge Fahey at 202-624-7187 or E-mail: [email protected]. To interview Dale Ann Reiss, contact Marge Fahey, or Tim Gallen, Gallen and Associates, 925-915-0762 or Andrew Neilly, Gallen and Associates, 925-915-0759.

 

About the Urban Land Institute

The Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org) is a nonprofit education and research institute supported by its members. Its mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. Established in 1936, the Institute has more than 40,000 members representing all aspects of the land use and development disciplines.

 

About Ernst & Young

Ernest & Young, a global leader in professional services, is committed to restoring the public’s trust in professional services firms and in the quality of financial reporting. Its 114,000 people in 140 countries pursue the highest levels of integrity, quality, and professionalism in providing a range of sophisticated services centered on our core competencies of auditing, accounting, tax, and transactions. Further information about Ernst & Young and its approach to a variety of business issues can be found at www.ey.com/perspectives. Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited does not provide services to clients.

I found the above when I was looking for more information on this....

 

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

 

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news.shtml#Feature4-4-30

 

April 29, 2008

Survey forecasts spending shift to transit

 

The Urban Land Institute (ULI) reported Tuesday that a survey of 23 large metropolitan regions indicates that their combined transit spending over the next 25 to 30 years "will actually exceed that spent on highways, a shift of historic proportions."

 

"The growth in annual per capita transportation spending between today’s levels, as reported in the near-term Transportation Improvement Programs, and the long-range plans is relatively modest: 24% per capita," said ULI in its analysis of the survey. "However, there is an enormous difference between highway plans--expected to grow at a modest 9%, and transit plans, which enjoy 52% expansion."

 

ULI said the seven regions with the most extensive transit systems and highest transit use "plan to increase transit spending by $6 billion annually to $16.5 billion, compared to a very modest increase in highway spending, from just under $9 billion to slightly over $9 billion." (This does not include Chicago, which does not publish the split between highways and transit.)

 

The survey was conducted for ULI last month by Hartgen Associates.

^Let's hope!

Obama’s Call for Rail Expansion Instead of Gas Tax Holiday Welcomed by Friends of the Earth

Instead of pandering with McCain-Clinton ‘holiday’ that won’t solve problem, Obama proposes real solution 

 

WASHINGTON, DC - May 1 -Senator Barack Obama’s rejection of a gas tax holiday and his decision to call instead for an expansion of passenger rail service was welcomed today by national environmental group Friends of the Earth, which said Obama was proposing real solutions instead of creating false hopes.

 

“With Americans feeling pain at the pump, Senator Barack Obama is talking about real solutions, including stronger fuel economy standards and support for expanding passenger rail,” said Colin Peppard, Friends of the Earth’s transportation policy coordinator. “Rail is an efficient, cost-effective way to travel that also happens to limit global warming. Senator Obama deserves a lot of credit for his foresight and candor.”

 

Peppard also criticized the other leading presidential candidates’ support of a gas tax holiday:

 

“The ridiculous ‘tax holiday’ proposed by Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton is a typical Washington gimmick designed to score political points without actually helping voters. It’s a short-term stunt that would do little if anything to lower prices at the pump. At the same time, it would actually hurt us in the long run by diverting attention from real transportation solutions like passenger rail that can reduce costs and cut carbon at the same time.”

 

Yesterday at a campaign event held at an Amtrak employee’s home in Beech Grove, Indiana, Obama argued for more rail service in the U.S.:

 

“With gas prices what they are, we should be expanding rail service,” Obama said, according to a press pool report. “We are going to be having a lot of conversations this summer about gas prices. And it’s a perfect time to start talk about why we don’t have better rail service. We are the only advanced country in the world that doesn’t have high speed rail. … [Rail] is a lot more reliable and it is a good way for us to start reducing how much gas we are using. It is a good story to tell.”

 

More information about Obama’s call for expanded rail transit in the face of increasing gas prices can be found here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/30/17129/8159

 

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0501-22.htm

Score Obama.  I was kind of worried when he didn't mention anything about transportation in his "Plan for Change."  I really hope he wins because he's consistently bringing REAL solutions to the table.

Pretty amazing. I hope he follows through if elected.

Hey anybody, there was a great article on CNN about transit in the US on Thursday, but I can't figure out how to post new stories.  Here's the link:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/01/news/international/usgas_price/index.htm

 

And the talkback is really interesting on this one.  I think people are getting it.

Talkback link:

http://cnnmoneytalkback.blogs.cnnmoney.cnn.com/2008/05/01/us-gas-so-cheap-it-hurts/

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050802810.html

 

A Transportation Crossroads

By Judith Rodin

Friday, May 9, 2008;

 

All the gas tax talk has stirred up a storm. Whatever you think about the candidates' proposals, however, their debate has illuminated an urgent reality: If the U.S. government continues with its current transportation policies, it will undermine the social and economic security of our workforce and accelerate global climate change. We must chart a new course, rebuilding America's overburdened and, in many cases, obsolete transportation infrastructure while addressing these two 21st-century imperatives.

 

.........

 

The writer is president of theRockefeller Foundation, which has provided funding for the America 2050 forum, Rebuilding & Renewing America: Toward a 21st Century Infrastructure Investment Plan.

Interesting short video on transit/quality of life improvements in Melbourne, Australia.  They don't get our snow, but they do have arcades.

 

http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/melbourne/

 

^^Very interesting!

Here's an article that appeared in the April 2008 issue of the Midwest Rail Report, the publication of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association....

__________________

 

 

The Plot to Derail Rail’s Revival

New federal criteria is denying rail funding – on purpose

By Ken Prendergast

 

With 25 years of rail’s popularity and success – including for light-rail, regional commuter rail and intercity passenger trains – you’d think the federal government would be eager to meet their electorate’s desires.

 

Instead, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and other federal transportation agencies have made a concerted effort to change project-scoring criteria to deny funding to rail projects and make it appear there is actually less demand for new rail projects. The end result is what they desired – divert federal dollars to new high-occupancy vehicle lanes on freeways and bus alternatives that have little hope of encouraging denser, mixed-use developments around transit stops.

 

The obvious question is – why?

 

The disturbing answer is reminiscent of a dark chapter in America’s transportation history book in which highway and oil industries joined forces to create shell companies to buy electric streetcar systems and replace them with buses. Today, the highway lobby is using a slightly different tactic to stop the transit renaissance dead in its tracks. It’s a tactic that gained traction in the last six years with the White House and Congressional.

 

The transit renaissance, and rail’s energizing of it, is hard to ignore. In March, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reported that Americans took 10.1 billion trips on local transit in 2006. It was the first time in 50 years that public transit was used so heavily. The ridership growth didn’t just start when gas prices began heading upward in 2004.

 

“Public transit use is up 30 percent since 1995,” APTA reported. “That is more than double the growth rate of the (nation’s) population (12 percent) and higher than the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled on our roads (24 percent) during that same period.”

 

Rail transit ridership was responsible for the nation’s increased use of public transportation, according to an analysis by Ed Tennyson, Pennsylvania’s former deputy secretary of transportation, now a consultant to the nonprofit organization Light Rail Now!

 

“If we analyze the APTA data, ridership went down with streetcar eliminations from 1956 to 1981 when San Diego Trolley came alive,” Tennyson wrote. “Ridership had gone down 75 percent as (the nation’s) population grew. Transit was no longer relevant except in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and New Oreleans. Why there? Rail service. Even Shaker Heights, with Cleveland’s partial demise, lost only half as many riders as bus systems did.

 

“Now, since 1984, what has happened?” Tennyson asked. “Using APTA-FTA data, light rail has grown 274 percent from a small base. Regional commuter rail has grown 57 percent from a larger base. Rapid rail (subways, elevated railways, etc.) has grown 40-some percent from a large base and buses lost half a percent from the largest base.”

 

New rail transit services continue to be added while existing services are expanded. Yet, many of these are happening with federal funding contributions reduced from 80 percent of total project costs in the 1980s to less than 50 percent today. Smaller, new-start rail transit projects – Denver’s Central Corridor, St. Louis’ Cross-County light-rail line, the first phase of New Mexico’s RailRunner – are getting built with no federal dollars.

 

The total number of new-start transit projects receiving federal funding fell from 80 projects in 2002 to 40 in 2006, according to the New Starts Working Group. Most new-start projects are rail. The declining federal contribution is a big factor, especially for conducting preliminary engineering. Another factor is the increasingly complicated planning process which the FTA puts a project through. In the past, it would typically take five years for a project to go from the alternatives analysis phase to final design. Today, the planning process takes at least 10 years, said Jeff Boothe, chairman of the New Starts Working Group and a partner at the Washington D.C. office of Holland & Knight, LLP.

 

“They (FTA) are putting more of the onus on local funding for design with less certainty for federal funding,” he said. “People are spending a lot more time, which is money, before you get considered for a full funding grant agreement (from the FTA). There aren’t many transit agencies willing to going through that. It’s death by a thousand cuts.”

 

As is typically the case for any transportation mode, there are far more transit projects than there is federal funding available to them. For transit, however, there is a 20-year backlog of projects waiting for federal funding. Last year, the FTA New Starts Program was funded at just $1.2 billion.

 

Furthermore, in 2002 the FTA began changing the weighting, or emphasis on criteria it uses to rate new-start transit projects in search of federal funding. Cost, ridership, benefits to low-income areas and environmental impacts are among the key factors FTA uses to measure the merits of a New Start project. Cost-effectiveness is now a primary factor, determined by travel time savings and annualized capital costs over the short term. Land-use impacts were pushed farther down the list.

 

Although rail projects tend to have large, up-front construction costs, they have more long-term benefits than buses by encouraging denser, mixed-used communities around transit stops. The reason is rail’s permanence provides confidence to real estate developers; they know that rail will serve their investments for decades. Rail services also have more easily identifiable routes and carry less of a social stigma than buses. Rail competes well with express buses on travel time savings when higher-density neighborhoods exist around stations.

 

But when land-use impacts carry less weight with the FTA than short-term cost-effectiveness, the FTA will opt for high-occupancy vehicle highway lanes in low-density, suburban sprawl areas and a few Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes.

 

“It (the New Starts standards) totally misses how you reshape a city,” said Kevin McCarty, senior director of federal policy at the Surface Transportation Policy Project.

 

“There are no cost-effective rail projects anymore,” Boothe said. “The focus is on BRT and to use FTA money on HOV lanes and put in express buses. Then they turn the HOV lane over to single-occupant cars. The New Starts Program has become a highway program.”

 

“They (FTA) seem to be more highway oriented,” McCarty said. “If you make the whole (project rating) thing about travel-time reduction, then the truth is that for a lot of (rail) segments, it isn’t going to be enough. On a given rail corridor, up to 30 percent are taking transit. That’s a lot of lane capacity, saving (drivers’) travel time.”

 

So how did the FTA come to hold new rail projects in such a low regard? Like everything else in Washington D.C., nothing happens without political pressure. That pressure was applied by a succession of congressmen who chaired the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, which has spending authority over U.S. Department of Transportation programs. First was Harold “Hal” Rogers (Kentucky’s 5th District). Next was Ernest Istook Jr. (Oklahoma’s 5th District). Most recently, it was Joe Knollenberg (Michigan’s 9th District).

 

“They put the pressure on OMB (Office of Management and Budget) and OMB puts pressure on the FTA,” Boothe said.

 

And who put the pressure on Congressmen Rogers, Istook and Knollenberg? Highway and oil lobbyists are funneling their message, and money, through so-called independent “think tanks” espousing far-right causes. They include the Reason Foundation, Thoreau Institute, Coors Foundation, Buckeye Policy Institute and others.

 

Among their funders, according to Media Transparency and compiled by Light Rail Now!, are the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, plus The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Founders of these “charitable groups” grew their fortunes from oil, pipelines and asphalt, Media Transparency reports. And, they gave more than $50 million to right-wing “think tanks” seeking to block rail transit and smart growth.

 

“They are in complicity with the committee chairs, the FTA and OMB,” Boothe said. “We have a lot of ideology working here. They view that road and air (travel) is the free market. Rail is viewed as social engineering. It’s frustrating and ludicrous.”

 

At a 2004 hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, then-Chairman Istook opened the session by saying that while he comprehends the nation’s need for more transit services, “we need to distinguish between the grass and the weeds.”

 

“It’s all an effort to move away from rail and it extends to high-speed rail, too,” said Boothe, a Washington D.C. political insider for 25 years. “It’s history repeating itself. They’re trying to kill off rail transit again.”

 

He referred to National City Lines, the most prominent of many shell corporations created in the 1930s by General Motors, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Truck (which made buses) to acquire electric streetcar and interurban railway systems. Back then, most transit systems were run by private companies which competed against government-owned roads. Transit companies were wracked by the Great Depression and a Supreme Court ruling that divorced their railway and electric utility operations on the grounds they wielded too much political power and ignored rural interests. More than 40 transit systems were acquired by National City Lines, their streetcars dismantled and replaced with buses made by GM and Mack, burning Standard Oil and Phillips fuel and running on Firestone tires.

 

In 1949, the U.S. Justice Department prosecuted National City Lines and its corporate financiers on antitrust conspiracy charges, winning at the district and appellate court levels. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ rulings.

 

“Street railways failed for economic and demographic reasons which had nothing to do with any plot by General Motors,” GM officials countered.

 

The transit renaissance in recent decades, riding on the rebirth of rail, has become a threat to the highway and oil lobbies’ dominance over how we have lived and traveled for the past 50 years.

 

Boothe said there is hope in Congressman James Oberstar of Minnesota, a strong supporter of rail transit who took over this year as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. Oberstar said he will hold oversight hearings in the coming months on the FTA’s scoring criteria for New Starts.

 

“I’m optimistic we’ll get an airing of these (New Starts) issues,” Boothe said. “I hope that FTA realizes there’s a new sheriff in town.”

 

END

___________________________

 

The Plot, In a Nutshell...

 

Full Speed Ahead – Since 1995, ridership on public transit has risen 30 percent, faster than the nation’s population growth, and even faster than the rising use of cars. According to transit industry data, all of public transit’s ridership growth is the result of the greater availability of rail transit and its encouragement of smart growth around stations.

 

Not so Fast – At the same time, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made it more difficult for transit agencies and communities to submit federal funding requests for rail projects and get them approved. Instead, bus rapid transit and high-occupancy vehicle lanes on highways are getting an increasing share of the federal funding. It is an apparent attempt to make it seem as if there is less demand for rail projects.

 

The Train Robbers – The FTA is under pressure from the Office of Management and Budget, which in turn was under pressure from the last three chairmen of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. Those three chairmen saw eye-to-eye with right-wing “think thanks,” funding by highway and oil interests, who consider rail to be social engineering and highways/aviation part of the free market.

 

New Sheriff in Town – There is a new chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, James Oberstar, who is very pro-rail, and will hold hearings on FTA’s anti-rail bias.

Amtrak will not be involved in any of the aspects of the new high-speed plan, Mica said. The service has not produced a profit since its launch in 1971, and relies heavily on government funding.

 

That Amtrak would not be involved is troubling. And there's that old "Amtrak loses money" tag line that ignores the vast amounts of money we spend on other modes.

 

Mica said the ultimate goal would be to produce a passenger transit rail system that can travel between New York and Washington in about two hours.

 

If we incrementally addressed the outstanding issues with the current Northeast Corridor between New York and Washington, such as Baltimore tunnels, new catenary (which would permit speeds over 135 mph), the trip time would be cut to near what Mica calls for and at less cost.

 

While I am encouraged by Mica's cooperation with Rep. Oberstar, I am wary of his possible agenda. He has repeatedly made statements and attempted privatiztion schemes which would have killed rail passenger service outside the Northeast.

 

Over the long haul, I think it would be good policy to ban short haul flights between New York and Washington or Boston. It makes no sense to continue to eat up gate space at airports when an alternative exists. However, to make that possible, service would have to be faster and even more frequent than it is now.

 

How you balance that with the rest of the country, much of which has little or no service is a good question. Both must be addressed and I won't support any sort of Northeast-only proposal,

 

I'm in the middle of John Stilgoe's book:  Train Time:  Railroads and the Imminent Reshaping of the American Landscape. 

 

I highly recommend it.  If he's right (and he lays out a compelling case), railroads are going to come back in a big way-- bigger than even most rail advocates dream about. 

 

The real estate industry, freight logistics industry, and others have already begun making investments, buying property based on an increased role for railroads-- both freight and passenger.  He says in recent years, people in these industries have been pouring through archives, old timetables, official guides and what little history is left from the Railway Express Agency, and more trying to piece together how things used to work in the heyday of America's railroads. 

 

Stilgoe blends appropriate and interesting parts of American railroad history and puts it in a context as to why a major railroad revival is vital for the future and is being sought after by investors (and he makes a great case without even mentioning peak oil-- peak oil will only make a rail revival that much more vital). 

 

A few interesting tidbits from the past...

 

In 1929, America's railroads operated 10,000 mail trains a day.  The system was very efficient at distributing mail.  Back then, for the price of a first class postage stamp, you could have overnight delivery of mail between New York and Chicago, and many other cities-- something that's impossible today without paying a premium. 

 

Americans lost much more than they realize with the demise of mail and express trains and the Railway Express Agency (I never knew this, because the REA went under around the time I was in first grade or so).  The REA offered shipping services to Americans that were not only very efficient, but they would ship just about anything just about anywhere-- whether it was luggage shipped ahead of you for a vacation, or your row boat and your refrigerator to your summer property,  live animals, and all sorts of bulky, awkward items that are difficult and expensive to ship nowadays.  In many parts of the country, you could make a telephone order out of a J.C. Penny catalog on Monday and receive your item on Tuesday. 

 

Almost no one carried anything but an overnight bag with them on a trip because people shipped their bulky luggage through the REA and would find it waiting in their hotel room upon arrival at their destination.  Personal experience:  this would have been a great service to have when my family and I went to Flagstaff and Santa Fe last year-- we had to UPS (and it wasn't cheap) some items-- like a backpack carrier for our toddler-- because they were too bulky and cumbersome to deal with on top of our luggage.  And, it would be helpful this year when we go to Ontario and have to rent a stroller and car seat because those items are too much hassle to haul around.

 

It's amazing how much this single mode of transportation was able to do, and how we have three modes of transportation doing it now, and it's not being done as well or as efficiently.  :whip:

 

Here's an interview with Stilgoe from a recent NPR-Living on Earth program:

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=08-P13-00019&segmentID=8

Yep, back in the day you could go to LaSalle St. Station in Chicago, put your letter in a special slot for the 20th Century Limited and have it delivered the next day in New York...all for five cents. The mail would be processed en route in the Railway Post Office car (literally a rolling post office) and be ready for delivery the next morning.

 

This went on night after night all over the country. If you lived in a city within 1,000 of the city you wanted to mail to, you could do this. New York Central and competitor Pennsylvania Railroad had whole fleets of trains for this purpose running overnight between New York-and every major city east of the Mississippi. Then there were other markets and secondary runs.

 

Amazing. :clap:

 

 

Already posted this in the Amtrak thread.

On-Line CNN Poll (May 31st)...as of 9:05 a-m

 

Quick Vote

Would you support using more tax money to improve U.S. public transportation systems?

 

Yes 67% 53826

No 33% 27054

Total Votes: 80880

 

Related story from cnn.com

 

Gas prices too high? iReporters use bikes, trains

 

By Kate Taylor

CNN

 

(CNN) -- Americans are seeking new ways to get to work, with soaring gas prices suddenly making their cars and SUVs uncomfortable -- or at least expensive -- places to be.

 

........

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/30/finding.alternatives.ireport/index.html

 

People are being forced to change their ways. Now they have to think about their travel options and I think that's healthy. Cheap gas made driving automatically the mode of choice and we ended up with a "one-size-fits-all" non-system that is not flexible enough to deal with today's changing situation.

 

I saw a poll that says 78% of Americans say they have no choice but to drive. That's pretty pathetic and an indication of our government's failure to anticpate the day when the oil would start to become more and more expensive.

The latest ridership numbers from the American Public Transit Association (APTA) indicate only 20-percent of all Americans have access to public transportation, even with ridership hitting record highs in communities where it is available.

Probably best to put this here. From a longtime friend.....

__________________

 

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/narpblog/index/

 

Rail Advocate Comments on WSJ Story

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

I commend to your attention this commentary by Fritz Plous of Chicago on a recent Wall Street Journal story.

 

On May 28, The Wall Street Journal ran a story “Europeans Protest Fuel Taxes but Accept High Prices.” Journal reporters Guy Chazan and Marcus Walker quoted anonymous “analysts” citing “fatalism” for the puzzling failure of European motorists to protest high gasoline prices.  A named source, British trucking official Geoff Dossetter, was quoted describing motorists’ behavior as “dumb acceptance.”

 

Actually, the behavior of European motorists is not puzzling, but rational.  Unlike Americans, Europeans are not dependent on their cars because fast, frequent intercity trains, commuter trains, rail rapid transit and streetcars connect most of their residential neighborhoods, workplaces, shopping areas and vacation spots.

 

In Dortmund, Germany, a town of fewer than 600,000, 130 intercity and commuter trains a day serve the downtown rail station, which connects with an extensive network of local light-rail lines that pass through the center of the city in a 6.5-mile subway.  On the busier lines, the light-rail trains include a café car.  Dortmund is not unique; scores of smaller European cities from Seville to Szeged and from Bordeaux to Bratislava make rail travel the centerpiece of their local and intercity mobility options.  Some of those cities are on the fast-expanding European high-speed rail system, now carrying passengers at 200 mph—the equivalent of traveling from Chicago to Kansas City or Pittsburgh in about three hours. 

 

Dortmund is smaller than Jacksonville, Nashville or Columbus, yet the mobility choices it offers to its citizens and visitors makes those three American cities look truly backward:  Jacksonville has four Amtrak frequencies per day but no commuter rail, streetcars or rapid transit.  Nashville has three daily commuter-rail round trips, but only from its eastern suburbs.  All other daily work trips must be performed by car.  There is no light-rail transit and, despite the city’s immense popularity with tourists, no intercity rail service (Amtrak reservation agents report Nashville is the most requested destination their company does not serve—what a huge missed opportunity).  Columbus, the largest city not served by Amtrak, has no commuter trains or light rail either.  Except for a small bus system it is completely auto-dependent.

 

Except for the very largest cities on the two coasts plus Chicago, most of America is stuck in the same car-dependent environment as Jacksonville, Nashville and Columbus.  Not one American city in the 500,000-600,000 population range—not even Portland OR – approaches Dortmund’s level of rail mobility.  In fact, a May 27 CNN poll showed that 78 per cent of 86,207 people queried said they had no transit options available to them.

 

If European motorists are responding to fuel-price increases with a “What, me worry?” attitude, it’s for a very good reason:  They have nothing to worry about.  The trains are running, the subways are running and the streetcars are running, most of them powered by electricity generated without oil controlled by hostile foreigners.  The Europeans have cars, and they enjoy them, but their cars are a discretionary item, not a necessity.  American policy makers need to look across the Atlantic and learn a lesson.

Brent Spence Bridge typifies how woefully behind US is on transit

Op-ED to the Cincinnati Enquirer

by William Hudnut

 

 

World-class cities have world-class infrastructure. First Katrina and the levee damage in New Orleans, then the collapse of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis, are tragic reminders that our infrastructure - so critical to the ability of our cities to grow and thrive - is often taken for granted until it fails.

 

A few weeks ago, the Urban Land Institute and Ernst and Young released a new report: Infrastructure 2008. Unlike other countries, America has no national plan for:

 

........

 

William H. Hudnut III is a senior resident fellow at the Urban Land Institute in Washington and former mayor of Indianapolis.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080605/EDIT02/806050321/1021/rss

Good write up!!

Interesting tidbit from Gizmodo on a potential maglev project..

 

http://gizmodo.com/5014227/transportation-bill-gives-45-million-to-maglev-project-sets-it-up-for-fail

 

 

A new transportation bill signed by Bush on Friday would free up $45 million to build the U.S.'s first maglev train. The train will travel between Disneyland and Las Vegas at up to 300 mph and is meant to help ease traffic on the 250+ mile ride on Interstate 15. While I'm all for high-speed trains and efficient public transportation, isn't the Bush administration forgetting something?

 

Maglev trains are hella expensive. Sure, the $45 million is only supposed to pay for “environmental studies” in the first phase of the project, but the government can probably expect to spend a hundred times that amount before this thing is over.

 

Japan's Linimo maglev train, located near Nagoya, cost a cool $380 million to build and it's only 5.5 miles long. China's Shanghai Maglev Train, finished in 2004 in a country where labor's cheap and private land ownership is a pretty new concept, cost $1.3 billion for 19 miles of track—roughly $68.4 million per mile. What will $45 million buy in the States? 10 feet?

 

I love the concept of mass transit and one of my biggest gripes with the U.S. is how they let their train infrastructure shrivel and rot, but the paltry amount dedicated to such a pricey technology makes me wonder if this isn't just another attempt for Bush to greenwash his last few months in office. [slashdot]

 

 

With the amount spent on the war... every few months, who's to say that we could not build the needed infrastructure in this country?  We need to get our priorities straight, and quickly.

Bush... or "Shrub" as Molly Ivins used to call him... doesn't even talk a good game when it comes to passenger rail.  He's got no game. He makes Herbert Hoover look like a genius.

Congressman Earl Blumenauer Energizes Federal Effort to ‘Rebuild and Renew America’

 

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) addresses a gathering in Washington D.C., hosted by New York’s Regional Plan Association, about the need for a change in the way Americans value infrastructure.

 

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) was recently selected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the Congressional point man for a renewed focus on infrastructure investment at the federal level. In this capacity, Congressman Blumenauer, earlier this month in Washington D.C., delivered the following speech at a conference entitled, “Rebuilding and Renewing America: Toward a 21st Century Infrastructure Investment Plan,” hosted by the Regional Planning Association’s America 2050 project.

 

..........

 

http://www.planningreport.com/tpr/?module=displaystory&story_id=1335&format=html

I kept meaning to post this. This was a presentation given at a West Shore Corridor Stakeholders meeting April 23 in Westlake. It shows how radical some of the changes to our nation's transportation policies could be ...

 

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/FederalFundingreevaluation.pdf

 

The man who gave this presentation is in a position to know what's going on in Washington D.C. Here are his credentials....

 

Donald J. Emerson, Principal Consultant at the internationally recognized planning and engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff, will be discussing these federal issues and how they may affect local projects like the West Shore Corridor.

 

Mr. Emerson offers strategic advice on transit, highway, and multimodal transportation planning and project development based on over 30 years of experience. His specialties include system and corridor level alternatives analyses, federal planning and environmental requirements and project funding.

 

Mr. Emerson previously served as chief of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Analysis Division, where he was responsible for planning and project development for the FTA New Starts program. Mr. Emerson helped create the FTA’s New Starts Criteria and managed the evaluation of rail and other fixed guideway projects for FTA’s annual “New Starts Report” to Congress.

 

Mr. Emerson also chairs the American Public Transportation Association’s Policy and Planning Committee and is a member of APTA’s Reauthorization Task Force.

Her head-in-the-sand posture neatly captured the administration's abdication of responsibility.

 

Awesome!

 

Governor Pawlenty seems like he's waiting for the solution to drop from the heavens.

 

Earth to Gov: We need to invest our transportation dollars in rail, mass transit and other options that free us from the car keys.  An energy policy alone, though also needed, will not bring about significant change on it's own.

Compact, walkable communities are a nice alternative to alleviate dependence on cars.  The only problem is that even at $4, or even $8 gas, many Americans do not want to live in these types of areas.  I don;t believe they are being selfish in not wanting that. 

 

It seems to me that we cannot advocate removing lanes and installing rails on interstates if that is not what people want nor what our transportation network is demanding.  In many ways, the answer to our problems may lie in more efficient personal vehicles, not in extensive expansion of mass transit. 

Compact, walkable communities are a nice alternative to alleviate dependence on cars.  The only problem is that even at $4, or even $8 gas, many Americans do not want to live in these types of areas.  I don;t believe they are being selfish in not wanting that. 

 

And many people do want that lifestyle. I think you'll find a few of them here on this forum!

 

It seems to me that we cannot advocate removing lanes and installing rails on interstates if that is not what people want nor what our transportation network is demanding.  In many ways, the answer to our problems may lie in more efficient personal vehicles, not in extensive expansion of mass transit. 

 

Who is proposing to eliminate highways for tracks?

 

I've run into a lot of folks who take an all-or-nothing approach to our transportation system. And maybe it's our history of transportation monopolies. From 1850-1950, the railroads were the monopoly. From 1950 to the present, highways were the monopoly. Now, when change is in the wind, there's an overreaction by some that we're somehow going to replace highways and replace them with tracks or busways. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

 

Gee, maybe if we actually had a balanced transportatin system in this country for a change, we might be able to enjoy the advantages of each mode of transportation which compensate for the shortcomings of the others.

 

What a concept!

Gee, maybe if we actually had a balanced transportatin system in this country for a change, we might be able to enjoy the advantages of each mode of transportation which compensate for the shortcomings of the others.

I am all for that.  Maybe they can create personal vehicles that can travel by rail.  I am just thinking that a reinvention of the personal vehicle (that uses little or even no oil) is a more practicle answer than planning out mass transit that will be underutilized except in some big cities/close-in suburbs.

Putting transit in the outer suburbs anyway is a dumb idea (unless it serves areas along the way to a larger population center or to be a part of a land-use densification strategy). Otherwise, the only reason why transit is available in outer suburban areas is to serve a political objective. Although that assumption changes as gas prices continue to rise and personal transportation becomes more cost prohibitive.

Compact, walkable communities are a nice alternative to alleviate dependence on cars.  The only problem is that even at $4, or even $8 gas, many Americans do not want to live in these types of areas.  I don;t believe they are being selfish in not wanting that. 

 

It seems to me that we cannot advocate removing lanes and installing rails on interstates if that is not what people want nor what our transportation network is demanding.  In many ways, the answer to our problems may lie in more efficient personal vehicles, not in extensive expansion of mass transit. 

 

There are a lot of people who live in with a car-dependent lifestyle just because it's what they were raised with or is what most people they know are doing. Many of them aren't passionate about where they live; it's just where they ended up. These are the ones who would be better served by denser development. A surburban/exurban lifestyle will always be available to those who really want one, though it will be more expensive to get around.

Compact, walkable communities are a nice alternative to alleviate dependence on cars.  The only problem is that even at $4, or even $8 gas, many Americans do not want to live in these types of areas.  I don;t believe they are being selfish in not wanting that. 

 

It seems to me that we cannot advocate removing lanes and installing rails on interstates if that is not what people want nor what our transportation network is demanding.  In many ways, the answer to our problems may lie in more efficient personal vehicles, not in extensive expansion of mass transit. 

 

More efficient personal vehicles aren't a real solution because the problem is bigger than energy cost or consumption. Car-dependency wastes land by fostering bad land-use policies.

 

It leads to paving surfaces and interfering with natural drainage while fouling watersheds with parking lot runoff.

 

It disperses essential goods and services so that they can't efficiently be connected via public transportation with the places where people live, especially people who can't or don't drive or who can't afford newer, more efficient, reliable automobiles.

 

The bigger issues are environmental stewardship and social justice. In that context, the current frenzy over gas costs is a red herring.

 

Edit: "Selfish" doesn't really describe it. Americans are spoiled; we've become so used to self-indulgence that we think we're entitled to it.

While those facts may be true, I can pretty confidently say that there will never be widespread support for moving away from basically personal vehicles, especially on a local level. People don't want to have to go where everyone is going.

 

The most valuable goal is to provide high quality alternatives in areas where lots of people want to go to the same places and maintain an acceptable system that allows for individual freedom of mobility.

 

I don't want to drive to work everyday, but I love to drive around town exploring or the countryside doing the same thing.

While those facts may be true, I can pretty confidently say that there will never be widespread support for moving away from basically personal vehicles, especially on a local level. People don't want to have to go where everyone is going.

 

The most valuable goal is to provide high quality alternatives in areas where lots of people want to go to the same places and maintain an acceptable system that allows for individual freedom of mobility.

 

I don't want to drive to work everyday, but I love to drive around town exploring or the countryside doing the same thing.

Exactly.  Great post!

Broadcasting now on NPR.  Hopefully it'll be available as a downloadable file.  Good stuff.  It's nice to hear this sort of discussion on a national news outlet.

Thanks. I just tuned in online.

I'm a big fan of Diane Rehm. I always appreciate the quality of the discussion and her skill at keeping things civil and constructive.

 

This is the first time I've ever turned off her show, even though it's a topic that's among my strongest interests. Even knowing what Randall O'Toole is about doesn't make listening to him any less annoying, and I was reaching the point where I was about to start yelling at the radio.

There is a podcast for her show. It usually takes a couple hours after the show ends for it to come online.

Oh, that sounds good.  I'll have to look for that later today.

I listened to it, I like how she basically told Randal O Toole that he was making up his figures

I was glad to hear that at the end. Some of O'Toole's earlier blather went unchallenged.

That's because he is making them up.

 

This ought to be discussed in the National Transportation Policy thread.

Well, it was to clue anyone and everyone that the show was streaming live.  You can move it wherever you feel it's appropriate.

Oh, and I like how he said that a light rail vehicle pumps as much greenhouse gas into the air as a standard SUV.  Whether that's true or not, you don't have 100 passengers riding in one SUV, and you also don't have more than a million light rail vehicles on the tracks everyday...and that random number is *very* generous.

bah, i couldn't get the program to run at work

 

If light rail was an incorporated name, idiots like O'Toole and Utt would have been put in the poorhouse years ago for slander.

The Diane Rehm Show - Thursday, June 12th, 2008 (Hour 1)

 

10:00U.S Transportation Infrastructure

 

Record breaking gas prices are prompting new questions about our nation’s transportation infrastructure. A look at the state of mass transit, our highway systems, and the role of the federal government

Guests

 

Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Oregon, 3rd District, Democrat

Robert F. Puentes, Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution

Randal O'Toole, senior fellow, Cato Institute

Mayor Greg Nickels, Mayor of Seattle, Washington

Tyler Duvall, Acting Under Secretary, Department of Transportation

 

WMV:  http://wamu.org/audio/dr/08/06/r1080612-20828.asx

Real:  http://wamu.org/audio/dr/08/06/r1080612-20828.ram

 

I'll try to get a stream rip of this after I get home, and put it on Mediafire for a few souls.