That or you can order a CD of the hour-long topic for $15, you know, for all those production costs...

Can Mass Transit Rescue America?

With Record-High Gas Prices, Good Public Transit May Be the Ultimate Answer

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PainAtThePump/story?id=5058810&page=1

Thanks for posting that link.  Finally it's hitting the major news network sites.

Another local one!

 

 

Gas prices accelerate need for Cincinnati, region to rethink mass transit

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Lucy May Senior Staff Reporter

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/06/16/story2.html?b=1213588800^1650345

 

Gas was a mere $1.42 a gallon back in 2002 when Hamilton County residents overwhelmingly rejected a sales tax increase to expand bus service and build a light rail system.

 

But with local drivers paying $4 a gallon for regular unleaded these days, transit advocates wonder whether expanded mass transit's time has come.

 

..........

 

Great article!  Very exciting to see that people outside of a microcosm are actually thinking about this stuff.

A fix for high gas prices: Why not rail transit?

Plenty of good reasons exist to ride the rails. The passengers personal pocketbook may matter most.

By Douglas John Bowen, Managing Editor

Railwayage.com

 

Perhaps its simply a matter of price. For decades, rail transit operators, promoters, and even users have wondered what the magic formula might be for increased ridership. Depending on their capital and/or operating budgets, established old-time transit agencies (such as New Yorks MTA) and newcomers alike (Charlotte Area Transit System) have tinkered with marketing involving speed, frequency, capacity, comfort, accessibility, and safety.

 

The cost to the transit rider mattered too, of course, as any transit agency requesting a fare increase knows all too well. All too often the visible cost of drivingmostly fuel consumptionappeared to undercut much of any financial advantage a transit customer might obtain.

 

.......

 

http://www.railwayage.com/B/feature3.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF20Dj01.html

 

Asia Times Ontline

 

Jun 20, 2008

Guns blight US energy choices

By Jonathan Rynn

 

When New York City wanted to make the biggest purchase of subway cars in US history in the late 1990s, more than US$3 billion worth, the only companies that were able to bid on the contract were foreign. The same problem applies to high-speed rail today: only European or Japanese companies could build any of the proposed rail networks in the United States.

 

The US has also ceded the high ground to Europe and Japan in a broad range of other sustainable technologies. For instance, 11 companies produce 96% of medium to large wind turbines; only one, GE, is based in the United States, with a 16% share of the global market. The differences in market penetration come down to two factors: European and Japanese companies have become more competent producers for these markets, and their governments have helped them to develop both this competence and the markets themselves.

 

 

..........

 

Jonathan Rynn, PhD, is a frequent contributor to the Grist environmental blog and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

^ Who is this a$$hole? I know lots of people, myself included, who use "public transportation" out of choice and like it. I love that that I can read a book instead of grip a steering wheel and flip off other drivers like Joe Mysak. I love that I can get in conversations with friends and meet new people. I love seeing pierced and tattooed toughs stand up and graciously offer their seats to elderly women. But aside from the fact that Mysak is dead wrong when he said nobody likes "public transportation," there are many other things that are ridiculous about this article.

 

First, his use of the term "public transportation." What, pray tell, is not public about driving a car on city streets maintained with General Fund tax dollars and getting on a freeway funded primarily by federal tax dollars and parking at a parking lot, the inflated price of which is subsidized by federal tax deductions?

 

As for the schedules, the bus stop two blocks from my house allows me to get on a bus in time to get to my job at the scheduled hour. If I drove, I would still be on somebody else's schedule: my employer's.

Interesting article.

 

Honestly I would say that I am about 50-50 on my love/preference for taking public trans; primarily I take it because it is significantly less expensive.  Depending on the day, my feelings it can skew either way.

 

I love driving.  I love cars and I think there's little better than listening to the radio with the sunroof open and the windows down.  The freedom to get off the freeway if it's crowded and take surface streets, to stop on the way and pick up X, Y or Z that I need, or to visit a store in X neighborhood and then zag over to dinner in Y neighborhood and be home within a tidy amount of time, it's a freedom we as Americans have become accustomed to.  I love road trips and stopping when I want, where I want, detouring into a city to see something specific and getting back on the road when I feel like it.  I enjoy the privacy of it, and the convenience.  I enjoy only having to travel to the market once a week to get everything I need instead of having to stop every day.

 

The negatives for me are also many. In addition to the cost, which includes gas, wear & tear/more frequent trips to the shop for your car, you are at a much higher risk of something happening to you or your car.  I've never gotten into an accident on a bus (though 2 have broken down, but that's rare).  But I've gotten rear-ended, side-swiped, have accidentally hit people myself when driving.  Not often, but over the course of my many years of driving, these are never pleasant experiences.  And my road rage has definitely increased over the years.  When I first moved to LA, driving there was terrifying. I'd been warned about NEVER using your horn or gesturing at anyone or else they could just up and shoot you, and everyone drives so FAST.  If you don't enter the freeway at 80mph and aggressively jockey for position 100% of the time while you are driving, you can get eaten.  And of course the traffic.  But you adjust and then come to appreciate that everyone doesn't crawl along unless they're stuck in a jam, and that traffic regularly moves at 45-55 on surface streets instead of crawling along at 30-35.  But it is expensive.  It does take concentration and for me, ups my stress level.

 

As for public trans, for me, there's nothing worse than being stuck on a bus or car and really having to use the bathroom.  For a lot of people this is a non-issue, but due to major surgery I've had, I have to drink a LOT of water to stay hydrated, so I have to pee like every half hour.  Never mind the other.  When I have to go, I have to GO and waiting is very uncomfortable.  So when you're stuck on a bus that isn't moving on the freeway and they don't or can't detour out of it to a surface street, it can be painful.  A breakdown can cause instant panic for me.  But most of the time it's manageable.  But there are so many things I dislike about it.  I hate sitting next to people that smell, including women and men who seem to think that fragrance is a marinade instead of something you dab on, or those who talk REALLY LOUDLY, particularly those on the phone.  Or the people who leer at you, never mind those who actually sit there and fondle themselves while they look at you.  I hate how dirty it is sometimes, with greasy windows or having to smell someone else's food or nail polish or whatever other stupid sh*t they are pulling out that they're not supposed to.  I hate being crammed in like a sardine and rubbing up against other people because it's crowded. 

 

But there are things I definitely love.  I love to be able to take a quick nap. I love the opportunity to read (now that I don't get sick anymore), and in general it's SO much more relaxing than worrying about traffic or dealing with road rage or getting into an accident, in that way it feels so hassle-free, it's well worth the discomfort.

 

IMO, describing either as an idyllic way to travel just isn't a good fit for me.  There are things about taking public trans I enjoy, but an equal number of things I don't.  Same for driving.  But public trans rules for my daily commute because of the lower cost.

Ah, it's clear!  Joe Mysak is a Bizzarro Jerry Masek.

Rockandroller: If you're stuck in a freeway traffic jam and have to pee, aren't you just as stuck in a car?

 

I, too, love the freedom of a car and the open road and serendipitous side trips.

 

But I also love the freedom to choose among viable transportation options -- a freedom we don't have in this country.

 

(This is my 200th post)

 

Rockandroller: If you're stuck in a freeway traffic jam and have to pee, aren't you just as stuck in a car?

 

No - in a car I can exit the freeway and quickly find a restaurant or something to use the facilities.

Rockandroller: If you're stuck in a freeway traffic jam and have to pee, aren't you just as stuck in a car?

 

No - in a car I can exit the freeway and quickly find a restaurant or something to use the facilities.

 

I disagree.  In rush hour traffic or if there is an accident, you suddenly don't have the assume freedom to move about.  And even if you do get off, that doesn't mean that facilities are easily accessible.

If you all disagree with the columnist, send him a quick e-mail. His address is at the bottom of his column. Just don't write a lengthy diatribe, OK.

If you all disagree with the columnist, send him a quick e-mail. His address is at the bottom of his column. Just don't write a lengthy diatribe, OK.

 

I already did -- basically a cleaned-up version of my post.

Psychologically, you are in control of the situation - the search keeps your mind occupied in a way that being on the bus/train doesn't.

^ Yes. On a bus or train, you are not in control. In a car in a traffic jam you have the delusion you are in control.

And a pedestrian is always in control.  I can't remember the last time I was caught up in a pedestrian jam.

I was, a couple of times were in Cleveland. Once on East 9th during the lunch hour, when the sidewalk was narrowed for a scaffold. The other time was also on 9th, before and after Indians games crossing the street.

 

I've also been in pedestrian traffic jams in other cities, most recently in York, England; London and Paris.

Here's a pedestrian traffic jam on East 9th after an Indians game (from Ctownrocks1's "Downtown Cleveland from Progressive Field" at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,16539.0.html)

 

To clarify, being stuck the whole rest of the trip as opposed to just until you can get to the next highway exit.  If you have 10 more miles to go and traffic is at a near standstill and you have to use the bathroom, it's a nightmare.  In a car, you can exit at the next stop you come to.  I would have thought this was obvious. It's not a "mental" control, it's actual control over when you can get off the freeway and get to a bathroom vs. having to go all the way to your destination.

 

You haven't been in traffic jams where it takes you an hour or more to go a mile to the next exit? It's happened to me more times than I care to count.

You haven't been in traffic jams where it takes you an hour or more to go a mile to the next exit? It's happened to me more times than I care to count.

 

You're not listening.  Yes, I have been, though only that bad when I lived in LA.  But that's *one* hour/*one* mile til I can exit, not 7 hours for 7 more miles to complete my whole journey.

And a pedestrian is always in control.  I can't remember the last time I was caught up in a pedestrian jam.

 

When a pedestrian bumps another pedestrian, they say, "Ooops. Excuse me." When a car bumps another car, you have to get the police and insurance companies involved.

You're not listening. Yes, I have been, though only that bad when I lived in LA. But that's *one* hour/*one* mile til I can exit, not 7 hours for 7 more miles to complete my whole journey.

 

Then you didn't explain it adequately. Speak to your audience's understanding, not your own.

 

 

You're not listening.  Yes, I have been, though only that bad when I lived in LA.  But that's *one* hour/*one* mile til I can exit, not 7 hours for 7 more miles to complete my whole journey.

 

Then you didn't explain it adequately. Speak to your audience's understanding, not your own.

 

Interesting.  I'd like to know if others didn't understand what I was saying.  Anyone?

Can't you get off at the next bus or rapid stop and use the nearest facilities just as easily as getting off a freeway ramp and doing the same?

Can't you get off at the next bus or rapid stop and use the nearest facilities just as easily as getting off a freeway ramp and doing the same?

 

Good point - I'm speaking about flyer buses which take the freeway, similar to how I would drive if I drove to/from work.  The flyers don't exit the freeway until they are at their destination city.  They start downtown and end in the suburbs.  And even if you were to get off at the first stop at the destination, it could be a very long walk to the first available public facility.

RNR, I understand what you are saying with regards to flyer buses, but I don't see this holding true for all types of public transportation (rapid transit, local buses).

 

I don't see public transportation as a loss of freedom.  I see it as a different set of freedoms.  In a car, you are free to change your trip whenever you feel like it.  On public transportation, you are free to go about other activities (read, take a nap) that you aren't free to do while driving a car.

 

I suppose that makes the ultimate freedom being wealthy enough to be able to afford a private driver, but that is obviously not very realistic.

RNR, I understand what you are saying with regards to flyer buses, but I don't see this holding true for all types of public transportation (rapid transit, local buses).

 

I don't see public transportation as a loss of freedom. I see it as a different set of freedoms. In a car, you are free to change your trip whenever you feel like it. On public transportation, you are free to go about other activities (read, take a nap) that you aren't free to do while driving a car.

 

I suppose that makes the ultimate freedom being wealthy enough to be able to afford a private driver, but that is obviously not very realistic.

 

I see what you're saying, but even on the rapid or a local bus, it's not like there is a restroom immediately available wherever you get off the vehicle.  With a car I can drive right to a restaurant, get out and run in and be in a bathroom immediately.  With a local bus I might have to wait til I get to a stop that's relatively near some place I can think of, walk a few blocks, wait through a few stop lights, etc.  I also need to "know" where I intend to go at any given stop, whereas with a car you can just get off the freeway and cast about til you find a place. 

 

I suppose for most people the ability to quickly get to a bathroom is not that big of a deal, but for me it's a huge one.  It's the #1 reason why I can't take public trans anywhere except to/from work, and is the #1 cause of the times I've been very miserable (to the point of tears) when I used to be a bus rider.

I can see your perspective with regards to bathroom availability, but I would say for most people that is a small consideration in the grand scheme of the relative freedoms of the different modes of transportation.  Public transportation also offers less of a loss of spontaneity in more urban areas than suburban ones, as there are more frequent stops, more within easy walking distance of each stop, and more connecting routes to change your travel plans on the fly.  Not all public transportation is the same.  For instance, riding on an Amtrak train with a restroom would be much more convenient for you than driving long distances, especially if you're going through one of those desolate areas where they put up "No Services for 40 miles" signs.

I can see your perspective with regards to bathroom availability, but I would say for most people that is a small consideration in the grand scheme of the relative freedoms of the different modes of transportation. Public transportation also offers less of a loss of spontaneity in more urban areas than suburban ones, as there are more frequent stops, more within easy walking distance of each stop, and more connecting routes to change your travel plans on the fly. Not all public transportation is the same. For instance, riding on an Amtrak train with a restroom would be much more convenient for you than driving long distances, especially if you're going through one of those desolate areas where they put up "No Services for 40 miles" signs.

 

Agree with the points you make 100%.  I would love the days when everyone took the train everywhere, a much better way to see the countryside than by car, and much less hassle.  I've looked into train vacations before however and find the schedules not very flexible, the prices extremely high, etc.  Probably because nobody does it much anymore.

Agreed, and I wish it weren't that way as well.  Articles such as the one that now seems lost in the shuffle on the previous page and generalized criticisms of all public transportation sure won't help our country receive better train service.  The article wasn't posturing that given the current climate, public transportation is less freedom.  He was saying that it ALWAYS means less freedom.  That is what I disagree with.  I think that is the short-sighted view of someone who loves their car a bit too much.

House OKs funding for mass transit systems

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House approved financial help Thursday for mass transit systems facing a surge in riders because of high gas prices. But Republicans blocked Democrats from requiring oil and gas companies to drill on the millions of acres of government land and water on which they already own federal leases.

 

........

 

Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/congress.energy.ap/index.html

 

^^^that appears to be good news.  We'll see where'd the money ultimately goes though.

 

So I feel that I have to weigh in on this topic because I've ridden quite a few different transit modes in the last day.  And boy were they different experiences. 

 

In Cleveland I took a city bus to downtown where I jumped on a light rail train out to Shaker Square for a bit.  I caught the train back to downtown where I transferred to the heavy rail red line out to the airport.  I caught a plane back home to Milwaukee last night.  I caught an "Airport Express" coach bus to downtown.  The opening ceremony of Summerfest (a massive music fest that brings in hundreds of thousands) was happening right as I got in so the city buses were stuck in the middle of the crowds.  I decided to walk home, but managed to get caught in a "pedestrian jam" on the way.  I quickly packed and then biked to the Amtrak station.  I took the Amtrak to Bloomington IL via Chicago.  From there I took a taxi to Peoria IL because there's no inter city service that I know of.

 

Why I would schedule myself to do this, I have no clue. I this I was half awake when I did.

But doing all this in a day has given me a nice comparison.  For inter-city travel, the Amtrak was a whole hell of a lot easier than the airplane.  The hassle at the airport was terrible and my plane was delayed by a little rain.  The Amtrak was smooth, easy, and had outlets so I could use my computer while riding.  The taxi was about as hassle free as the amtrak, but far less smooth and ungodly expensive.

In Cleveland the three modes I took were the same price thanks to a unified system with an all day pass.  They were all pretty hassle free, but the bus was much less smooth than the trains.  I couldn't read anything on the bus.  The light rail and heavy rail were about the same for service, on time and easy to ride.  But one difference I noticed is that the light rail was right next to the street and was really convenient to hop onto.  The heavy rail required walking through a big station to go upand over the tracks.  One gripe I have about the rail system in Cleveland is that I never figured out if you're supposed to pay when you get on or off.  It seems to be different with every station and is not clearly marked. 

Really the easiest mode was my bike, but that's not really feasible everywhere.

 

Anyway, just thought I'd share.  My vote is light rail in the city and Amtrak service between cities. 

 

PS- I've tried Greyhound between cities before and it is NOT worth it.  The service is horrible and schedules are meaningless.

One gripe I have about the rail system in Cleveland is that I never figured out if you're supposed to pay when you get on or off.  It seems to be different with every station and is not clearly marked. 

 

Join the discussion on that very topic here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4504.msg300165.html#msg300165

Was not sure where to post this since its policy but it is all about transportation.  Thought this study was interested and since it is from Brookings might be tossed around in the political arena.

 

The Brookings Institute recently released a study calling for transportation policy reform and a change in the way Americans view and plan for transportation.  The whole study can be found on their website and is titled "A Bridge to Somewhere: Rethinking American Transportation for the 21st Century".

 

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/06_transportation_puentes.aspx

 

While much of the presented information seems obvious to most transportation enthusiasts perhaps those that do not have as much knowledge will be swayed by this study (Congress, for example).

I suppose this could've gone in the Latourette campaign thread. Too bad there isn't one!

 

District 14 Congressman Steve Latourette is a rail supporter. So is his opponent Bill O'Neill.

 

So now we have Congressional candidates fighting over who is more pro-rail and pro-transit. Now I feel as if the issue of better train service is like the little homely girl with the pigtails who couldn't get any boys to ask her out. But now suddenly they're fighting over her. Is it because she's gotten prettier or because the other girls have gotten uglier?? ...

____________________

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 27, 2008

CONTACT: Justin Barasky                               

440.476.4419 - cell

[email protected]

 

O'Neill Announces Bipartisan Support for Commuter Rail in Northeast Ohio

Elected officials from Lake, Cuyahoga, Geauga and Ashtabula counties call

for federal investment in regional rail project, saying 'Let's get to work'

 

Willoughby, Ohio - Democratic congressional candidate Bill O'Neill, supported by a number of elected officials from all parts of the 14th congressional district, issued the call this morning for an investment in commuter rail line that would connect the region and revitalize Northeast Ohio's economy.

 

The project, based on a 2001 study by the Northeast Ohio Area-wide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), would consist of two lines – the Lakeshore Line, which would run through Mentor, Painesville, Ashtabula and Conneaut; and the Aurora Line, which would run through Shaker Square to Solon and then on to Aurora and Mantua.

 

"Families in northeast Ohio need a better, quicker and cheaper way to get to work, particularly with gas exceeding $4 a gallon." O'Neill said. "They also need high-wage jobs, and more time with their kids. And we all need a cleaner environment. A commuter rail project will not only improve the quality of life in Northeast Ohio, but it will go great lengths toward bettering our economy, creating jobs, attracting new businesses, and reducing the everyday stress and burden on thousands of area commuters. It will also begin the process of reducing our dependency on foreign oil."

 

A 2001 NOACA feasibility study concluded that commuter rail lines in Northeast Ohio were not just feasible, but cost-effective and could be a significant boost for the economy. Upon arrival, the study estimated that each line would take about 7,000 cars off the road daily. In his remarks this morning with an abandoned rail station in sight, O'Neill again asked why nothing had been done.

 

"The answer is simple," he said. "Commuter rail has never had a champion from Northeast Ohio in Congress. That has to change, and when elected I will be that champion. This is a jobs issue, this is an economic issue, and this is an environmental issue. I pledge to you all assembled here today, send Bill O'Neill to Congress and I will take the NOACA feasibility study off the shelf, I will dust it off, and together we will make sure it is implemented."

__________________________

 

Remarks he made at the old Willoughby train station this morning:

Prepared Remarks of Bill O'Neill

Candidate, US Congress, OH-14

June 27, 2008

Willoughby, Ohio

 

                Good Morning. I would like to thank everyone who is in attendance this morning, particularly some of my friends and elected officials, labor leaders and business leaders from throughout Northeast Ohio. (Name two or three) I have convened this event in front of this wonderful old abandoned rail station for the purpose of celebrating our past and announcing my vision for our future in mass transit in Northeast Ohio.  For the reality is that they are tied together.  We used to have rail transit to this very site.

 

                As a candidate for the Congress of the United States, I have learned that voters want their elected officials to provide a vision for the future and programs that bring that vision into reality. But more importantly, they demand that our leaders actually lead in times of uncertainty.  And to that end, it is essential today that I speak with clarity.

 

                Working men and women in Northeast Ohio are caught in the crossroads of diminishing job opportunities and ever increasing difficulty in getting to the jobs that they can find.  It is not uncommon for a working person to spend a full QUARTER of what they earn to get to work and that is simply not acceptable.  With gasoline at $4.00 a gallon and climbing it has just become economically impractical to spend two hours a day on a congested freeway to get to your job.

 

                The primary role of government is not to create jobs, but to foster an atmosphere where American companies have the incentive and opportunity to grow -- and employ more Americans.  In 1950, that meant freeways, as President Eisenhower unveiled his playbook in 1954 to pave the way to job and the suburbs.  That playbook no longer works, yet seemingly our leaders in Washington seem to be too narrowly focused on progress through pouring more concrete.  It's time to compliment our highways with high-speed commuter rail.

 

                Some seven years ago in 2001 NOACA completed a feasibility study which clearly demonstrated that a commuter rail line along the North Shore was not only feasible, but an economically good idea as well. It is estimated that the "Lake Shore Line" could take a full 7,000 cars off the road daily.  We stand here today in front of the abandoned rail station in Willoughby, which significantly I note has been moved...and we stand directly between two rail lines which literally used to link Lake county to downtown Cleveland.  They are active lines with excess capacity.  There is no reason for this region to be without rail service to University Circle, downtown Cleveland, and Cleveland Hopkins airport.  No reason at all. 

 

                Today I challenge everyone in attendance to answer a simple question.  What is stopping us today?  Why does the Red Line of the RTA start at Public Square and stop in East Cleveland and not Mentor and beyond?  Why does the Blue Line of the RTA start at Public Square and stop at Warrensville Heights, and not Solon and beyond to Hudson?

 

                The answer is simple.  Commuter rail and its more popular sibling light rail have never had a champion from Northeast Ohio in Congress. That has to change, and I am that person.  And so I pledge to you all assembled here today...send Bill O'Neill to Congress and I will take the NOACA feasibility study off the shelf...I will dust it off...and together we will DEMAND THAT IT BE IMPLEMENTED.

 

                Much talk has surfaced  recently about high speed rail and the Tri-C corridor and I also want to speak clearly about that subject.  There are limited federal dollars available, and I believe it is essential that before we spend billions on a dream system that would, even under the most optimistic scenario, not be up and running for a decade, we should first spend money on an existing system that will have a real and immediate impact on jobs in Northeast Ohio.

 

                The time for commuter rail is here.  It is a jobs issue, it's a growth issue, it's an environmental issue.  Let's get to work!

 

                Thank you and I will now answer any questions you may have.

O'Neill Announces Bipartisan Support for Commuter Rail in Northeast Ohio

Elected officials from Lake, Cuyahoga, Geauga and Ashtabula counties call

for federal investment in regional rail project, saying 'Let's get to work'

 

I live in this district and I didn't even know the name of the guy that was running against LaTourette.  I'd like to see some more of his policies.  LaTourette has been a decent representative but he continues to side with the President instead of being the true moderate he was before Bush came on board.

http://webmail.east.cox.net/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.boston.com%252Flifestyle%252Fgreen%252Fgreenblog%252F2008%252F07%252Fmass_clamor_for_mass_transit.html

 

Mass clamor for mass transit

 

Posted by David Beard, Boston.com Staff July 5, 2008 12:15 PM

 

By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist

 

Michael Dukakis says he is not itching to be the next transportation secretary, but if Barack Obama wins the White House and needs a bullhorn for high-speed rail travel back on the Amtrak board of directors . . .

 

"Obama is starting to talk about it more and more," said the former Massachusetts governor, who, after his failed presidential bid in 1988, has become to mass transit what Jimmy Carter is to Habitat for Humanity. Dukakis was a Clinton appointee to the Amtrak board. Mass transit "ought to be an absolute key part of an economic platform. It's jobs, it's about a first-class future. The people are way ahead of the politicians on this."

 

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

 

Derrick Z. Jackson can be reached at [email protected].

I wish they'd stop comparing what we're spending on rail vs. the Iraq war. It's not an either-or situation. I'd rather see them compare what we're spending on rail vs. highways and aviation. It helps counter the fallacy of "free market" transportation.

too many still see mass transit/rail as a luxury, not a necessity that it truely is, huh?!

http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=1372

 

TRANSPORTATION: Altered habits may mean drastic changes to highway reauthorization

(07/07/2008)

Josh Voorhees, E&E Daily reporter

 

Shifting American transportation habits fueled by soaring gas prices are helping to paint an uncertain picture for the forthcoming reauthorization of the current national surface transportation law.

 

"The American attitude toward energy and transportation has fundamentally changed, and it's not going to change back," said Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.

 

He said lawmakers are feeling the heat to ensure that when the current transportation law -- the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU -- expires Sept. 30, 2009, its next incarnation should reflect the public shift.

 

The emphasis on changing the national transportation strategy was clear in a report issued earlier this year by a bipartisan commission of federal and regional transportation officials (Greenwire, Jan. 15).

 

While the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission made headlines for recommending a dramatic increase in the federal fuel tax, the heart of the report called for sweeping changes to the nation's surface transportation policy -- from instituting user fees on highways to building a more effective passenger rail system to link major cities and growing urban regions.

 

"There is increased pressure to re-examine the formula used to allocate funds for transit," said Brackens, who served as an assistant to Vice President Al Gore assistant during the Clinton administration.

 

Even those analysts who discount current trends as the short-term result of temporary fuel spikes say the upcoming authorization will likely drastically alter the national infrastructure strategy.

 

"Right now, I see Washington leaning that way," said Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. "It is clear that the Democrats are enamored with rail and other collective forms of transportation."

 

Already this year, lawmakers have held a series of hearings to begin outlining SAFETEA-LU's successor. While the vast majority of industry officials and national and regional planners have called for massive increases in federal funding, many have also stressed that just as important is a clearly defined national plan.

 

"Given these types of challenges and the federal government's fiscal outlook, it is clear that the federal government cannot continue with business as usual," Patricia Dalton, managing director of physical infrastructure issues at the Government Accountability Office, told a House panel in May (E&E Daily, May 9).

 

Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag joined Dalton in urging lawmakers to ensure that what will be a substantial infrastructure investment is not wasted. "Throwing money at infrastructure projects doesn't get you what you want," he said.

 

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is continuing to push for increased freedom for states looking to deal with their own area-specific transportation problems. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters has said the federal government needs to give state transportation departments increased decisionmaking flexibility so they can capitalize on outside investments. The department estimates that more than $400 billion is available in the private sector.

 

"The federal government must give states the flexibility to take advantage of technology to cut congestion and embrace more equitable and effective funding systems to unleash the greatest new wave of highway and transit investment this country has ever seen," she told a group of state transportation officials last month.

 

Jockeying for position

 

National surface transportation is a big money business. SAFTEA-LU guaranteed nearly $250 billion for the nations roadways and public transit. Its reauthorization is expected to provide even more. As a result, everyone from the railroads to road builders are jockeying for position to maximize their own potential share of federal funding.

 

Given recent trends that have seen more Americans eschew the privacy of their own cars and trucks for less expensive mass transit alternatives, many believe public transportation, both intra- and inter-city, is a likely candidate to receive increased federal attention.

 

"Freight and passenger rail are overlooked," said Bruce Agnew, policy director at the Cascadia Project, a Seattle-based think tank. "That's where they can make a huge investment. America's rail system is the next Interstate Highway System."

 

Last month, House lawmakers easily approved a mass transit bill that would authorize $1.7 billion in extra funding to help public transportation systems better deal with rising fuel prices and increased capacity (Greenwire, July 2). Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) called the legislation "a sign of things to come for the upcoming reauthorization."

 

Virginia Mill, a spokeswoman for the American Public Transportation Association, said her organization is still finalizing its recommendations to lawmakers, but "it's safe to say we are hoping for more money."

 

The Association of American Railroads, which represents North America's largest railroads and Amtrak, is also looking to capitalize on the increased attention. Some analysts have predicted that freight movement will nearly double by 2035.

 

As a result, AAR recently launched a campaign to rebrand itself as a "green" alternative capable of picking up the slack for the fuel-squeezed trucking industry. AAR officials, print and TV ads claim freight trains move a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel.

 

The campaign began last year in 14 different markets but recently has been limited to only Washington, D.C. -- a consolidation meant to get the most political punch per dollar.

 

The railroads are not the only ones positioning themselves to benefit from what will likely be a several-hundred-billion-dollar authorization.

 

A coalition of road builders and construction contractors teamed up last month to launch their own outreach campaign urging lawmakers to make infrastructure investment a greater national priority (E&ENews PM, May 23).

 

"We have a transportation system that is overworked, underfunded, increasingly unsafe and without a long-term plan," said Tom Donohue, president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of a dozen organizations behind the Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition's "FasterBetterSafer" campaign.

 

Looming funding shortfall

 

The complexity of the nation's transportation debate is compounded by severe funding shortages.

 

The portion of the Highway Trust Fund that finances the bulk of the nation's highway work is projected to close the next fiscal year several billion dollars in the red. Industry and federal officials fear that such a deficit could slow or even stop transportation projects as states grow uneasy about federal reimbursements.

 

The American Society of Civil Engineers said a $1.6 trillion investment is needed for national infrastructure repair and maintenance. Of particular concern are bridges, half of which were built before 1964. According to the Department of Transportation, one of every eight bridges is structurally deficient.

 

The highway account, which relies heavily on federal taxes on gasoline and diesel, had nearly $11 billion at the end of fiscal 2004. But inflation and static fuel tax rates, coupled with increased fuel economy in automobiles, have hurt. Revenues have not kept pace with spending.

 

Last month, House appropriators rejected a controversial White House proposal that would have temporarily transferred money from the mass transit account to the highway account (E&ENews PM, June 20).

 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Olver (D-Mass.) said such a move would have been short-sighted because the mass transit account faces its own looming shortage and will likely become insolvent by fiscal 2012.

 

"This shortfall is not this committee's making, nor is it this committee's responsibility to make up the difference," Olver said. "SAFETEA-LU overcommitted the dedicated revenues available for surface transportation, and I am hopeful that the appropriate authorization and tax writing committees will be able to make up the shortfall as we continue to move this bill forward."

too many still see mass transit/rail as a luxury, not a necessity that it truely is, huh?!

 

Luxury? More like last resort, for most people.

 

I was on the High St. bus going downtown a few days ago and this guy in a wheel chair was drunk and talking smack to the bus driver. It was the funniest thing I've ever seen. The handicapped dude wouldn't shut up. "Oh, now you're gonna run over this little kid walking across the street!?"

 

What's the bus driver going to do, make a handicapped person get off several miles from where they're suppose to be? LOL

 

If sufficiently drunk or obnoxious, COTA drivers are allowed to ask a passenger to leave the bus or have them removed.  They are more or less considered the rubber-tired version of the "captain" of a ship.  Many of the drivers know the "regulars" very well and know the harmless oddballs from those who are truly over the top.

 

But this is more of a topic for the COTA thread.

There's several places I could've put this. But this is probably as good as any......

 

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news.shtml#Feature1-7-8

 

July 7, 2008

Obama reaffirms passenger rail support

 

In a letter to United Transportation Union President Mike Futhey, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has pledged to “push for Amtrak, commuter rail, and public transit system funding, ensuring strong employment levels well into the future.” He also promised to “preserve the sanctity of the Railroad Retirement and Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA),” The UTU, which originally backed Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the nomination, was quick to make its peace with Obama and earn the prized “personal letter,” which is dated July 5.

 

In the letter, Obama reaffirms his previously stated support for Amtrak—he is a co-sponsor of the Passenger Rail Investment and Innovation Act of 2007—and adds transit rail funding to the list. His broader statement on railroads, part of a background paper called “Strengthening America’s Transportation,” also supports the development of high-speed passenger rail and a strengthening of rail freight capacity “because our demand for rail transportation has never been greater, leaving many transportation hubs stretched to capacity.”

Good to know this.  I get asked about this a lot.

Only an emergency will create a modern passenger rail system

By F. K. Plous

 

At last somebody said it in public: The only way you can change anything in this country is a crisis. The speaker was Amtrak CFO William H. Campbell, and the occasion was the Railway Supply Institutes Amtrak vendor forum in Washington on April 30.

 

Former Amtrak Vice President-Government Affairs Tim Gillespie said the same thing years ago. I had asked him when the U.S. would finally fund a real passenger rail program. Not until theres an emergency, he said. The U.S. Congress is not a long-range planning commission. Its a legislature, and it only acts when theres a crisis. If youll check out the record youll find that every federal transportation initiative was adopted as some sort of emergency measure.

 

 

..........

 

 

Editors note: A crisisthe nations freight railroads escalating, crippling losses operating passenger trainsled to the creation of Amtrak in 1971. Another, bigger crisisthe bankruptcy of the Penn Central System and other eastern railroads, at the time the largest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history, one that almost resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobsled to the formation of Conrail and, ultimately, the 1980 Staggers Act, which partially deregulated the rail industry.

 

http://www.railwayage.com/A/xpov.html

Americans Demand More and Better Options

7 July 2008 - 5:00am

Author: Parris Glendening

 

(Former Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening says that Americans are tired of feeling like victims and are ready for innovative changes in how they live and get around.)

 

We Americans are a resourceful lot. Faced with soaring gas prices, we are doing everything we can think of to ease the hit to the household budget.

 

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

 

 

Parris N. Glendening is President of the Smart Growth Leadership Institute. Prior to his current role, Mr. Glendening spent eight years as Governor of the state of Maryland, where he made the environment, especially smart growth education and inclusiveness, the heart of his agenda. He led the creation of a groundbreaking smart growth initiative that focused on using the entire $23 billion state budget as an incentive for smart growth.

 

http://www.planetizen.com/node/33842

I can't disagree with most of what he says, but I don't think drilling off-shore or in ANWR is going to provide the price relief he believes. Yet we're all just guessing on that since it's predicting the human reaction to a future event. So my guess is that approving the drilling will cause prices to drop in the short term. But once the realization hits that these oil reserves will generate relatively small and short-lived contributions to the bottom line of already declining domestic production, the price will return to high level. This, of course, assumes America's economy isn't already on life-support by then.