The point is the roads didn't come overnight, and the rail system can't be rebuilt overnight, and until there is a better reason to rebuild it, the money would be better spent.

 

Does the Federal Highway Act of 1956 ring a bell? Do you realize they spent almost $200 Billion in today's money on that? That was just one of many bills passed. They didn't sprout up over night but the money was authorized for them.

The point is the roads didn't come overnight, and the rail system can't be rebuilt overnight, and until there is a better reason to rebuild it, the money would be better spent.

What would you consider a better reason to rebuild it?

http://www.railwayage.com//content/view/748/121/

 

House streetcar champion pushes “fast start” bill

 

House Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), an ardent supporter of streetcars and light rail transit, has drafted the “Fast Starts Program Act of 2009,” designed to recapture “Small Starts” funding that Blumenauer and others say has been largely diverted to Bus Rapid Transit projects instead.

 

Language in the draft bill bluntly declares, “A delay in authorizing grants under the Small Starts program has created a backlog of streetcar projects requiring attention outside of that program.”

 

 

 

........

^ Cool.  As Austin Carr would say, get that weak stuff outta here!  No more BRT please.

The point is the roads didn't come overnight, and the rail system can't be rebuilt overnight, and until there is a better reason to rebuild it, the money would be better spent.

 

The roads were not built overnight. They have been built over 93 years of sustained federal spending and policy -- a policy that subsidized highway building all over the country, at the expense of the privately run, tax-paying railroads. It was federal policy and federal subsidies that created our costly auto-dominated society and the costly sprawl that continues to increase the size and cost of government. Ohio and the nation cannot afford the status quo of more highways and more sprawl. The spending to start up passenger rail in Ohio is a tiny down payment on the start of a return to balance. Rebuilding the rail network won't be done overnight and it won't be cheap. But in the long run, it will be cheaper for our descendents, who will have travel options and won't continue throwing bad money after good on a costly highway-only transportation system.

We aren't starting at zero for the rails, which we basically we for the road system. You can start to roll out basic passenger service with tweaks here and there, but you have to take that first step to embrace rail-based transit options. If it is affordable, reliable, and moderately quick, people will use it. Air is often neither affordable, reliable, or especially quick (esp. when you have to connect) and people use it constantly.

 

Fundamentally, rail is very city friendly form of transit compared to air and to a lesser extent cars.

We've discussed these issues a few times. This is one of the better statements of concerning the topics we all care about from a self-professed conservative pov.

 

http://thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.04.17.001.pdart

 

Why Conservatives Should Care About Transit

by David Schaengold

April 17, 2009

Public transit and walkable neighborhoods are necessary for the creation of a country where families and communities can flourish.

 

When President Obama nominated Congressman Ray LaHood as his Secretary of Transportation, most media outlets paid attention long enough to note only that LaHood was a Republican from Illinois and the single pro-life member of Obamas cabinet. Social conservatives, for their part, would rather have had an ally in the Department of Justice or the National Institute for Health. No one mentioned that it might be particularly appropriate that the cabinets one committed social conservative leads the Department of Transportation.

 

 

........

^This is an area where liberals and conservatives can agree. I think Mr. Shaengold misunderstands that "liberal-minded" people tend to like walkable communities and transit and locally-based economies for the same reasons he says conservatives should. 

 

Of course, I'm tired of the national obsession of pigeon-holing everyone in America as one or the other and nothing else.  I would have to say that a majority of Americans have ideas and beliefs that can be found all over this narrowly-defined political spectrum.  I know mine are. 

 

 

 

 

Good article. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I shared it because it spoke to why it seems so obvious that support for transit and walkable communities shouldn't be divided according to political ideology. The inanity of so many prominent conservatives on this issues drives this conservative nuts. 

I'm taking a conversation from the 3-C Corridor thread here.....

 

The ironic thing about that map is that each line was put on there through the efforts of each state Department of Transportation. The USDOT ultimately awarded the high-speed designation, which means only that it is eligible for some funds to help it develop toward high-speed. But the USDOT can't award the designations if a state didn't make the application. So for those who complain about the USDOT doing/not doing this or that, they have misdirected their commentary.

 

It is not merely ironic, it is sad. As a result, you don't have the Panhandle line and you have a big gap between Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

 

The notion of a federation of states needs to be reexamined in terms of the benefits to our nation as a whole. We should be thinking in terms of regional economies which span state borders, rather than clinging to the notion that any state is economically poised to go it alone.  That made sense when we were a fledgling democracy but it makes little sense, now.

 

 

 

Every emerging (or in this case, re-emerging) mode of transportation bubbled up from local and state efforts until finally the federal government could no longer ignore it. Canals were originally chartered and funded by states (Ohio was almost bankrupted by its two main canals!) but are now the responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Railroads also were chartered by states and their development stayed mostly in the  Northeast until federal land grants pushed them westward. Paved highways got their start in cities and later by counties and states. Anyone remember the great photograph of the Pennsylvania Turnpike whose pavement stopped at the Ohio state line from 1940 until the Ohio Turnpike was built in 1955? Amazingly, even the national airway system was "managed" by a disconnected, uncoordinated network of airport control towers. That didn't change until a number of mid-air collisions prompted the creation of the FAA and the development of a national air traffic control system in the 1970s (yes, that recent).

 

Once again, states have led the charge. If you look at the high-speed rail map, one of the most glaring omissions is actually LA-Las Vegas, which is one most promising rail-supportive travel markets. It's a 300-mile corridor, a brutal drive, too short to fly efficiently, yet ideally suited for fast trains. But it's split between two states, which is the first strike against it (even though one of the states, California, has been the nation's leader in rail development). And, competing private efforts to develop an unproven maglev train have distracted from more productive public-private efforts to fund proven rail technologies.

 

Some multi-state projects got on the map because one state took the lead in their planning, such as Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan or Maine. In some of those cases, one of the states along a route has had no involvement whatsoever in developing the planning or the actual service. Consider Maine's Portland-Boston service, where New Hampshire hasn't done jack to support the service yet they have several station stops along it. Or Michigan which has promoted its three routes into Chicago and pass through Indiana which has stops at Hammond/Whiting and Michigan City yet hasn't lifted a finger to enhance this service. One of the rare exceptions was the Cascades Corridor where Oregon and Washington have worked together for a long time on this.

 

As federal leadership on high-speed rail development matures, we'll see more interstate rail corridors get on the map, more states state get enticed in their development as they learn what their neighbors are enjoying, and thus we'll see more emerging projects.

Every emerging (or in this case, re-emerging) mode of transportation bubbled up from local and state efforts until finally the federal government could no longer ignore it...

 

As federal leadership on high-speed rail development matures, we'll see more interstate rail corridors get on the map, more states state get enticed in their development as they learn what their neighbors are enjoying, and thus we'll see more emerging projects.

 

Sure, but what I was arguing is that, perhaps, waiting for this to happen is not the best approach. Already we are seeing states "competing" for the stimulus dollars when what might make the most sense would be look at those projects which would serve the greatest good even if they crossed state boundaries. Of course, this presents some challenges because it requires state legislatures to work together. But the reality is that the notion of a "state" makes little sense when you have resources which extend beyond state boundaries.

 

How much of the Country is dependent upon the rail hub at Chicago, the Great Lake ports, the shipping ports at San Pedro or New Orleans? Can we really compare these to a route between LA and Las Vegas.

 

The California HSR might make great sense for California but what benefits would it provide to the other 49 (clearly, some, because there would be manufacturing and other services which might not be provided by Californians).

 

Consider the Keystone HSR Corridor. Would it be nice to have? Sure. But there are huge logistical problems with the 2/3 of the state West of Harrisburg and principal among these are the mountains. It would be a major expense, as well a a significant engineering problem, to make crossing these mountains (or going under them), practical. In fact, it was these same mountains that put an end to a canal from Philly to Pittsburgh (they used a railway to cross between the Chesapeake and Delaware Watersheds). Given the problems with this, does it really make sense to have this a designated HSR corridor when it would be more efficient to bridge the Midwest to the East Coast via a Northern route?

 

If the answer is "yes" it is that important, then it may make more sense to commit all of the resources to that project to get it done rather than to divvy up the resources with the resulting fragmentation in services.

 

I am not disagreeing with you as to how these corridors were designated. What I question is whether or not, from the perspective of national transportation policy and planning, it should be left to the states to proposed candidates for designation or whether it would be better to think regionally and nationally about key corridors where the opportunity to do the most good is apparent.

 

I just looked at how Western PA intends to spend its stimulus money. Most of the shovel ready projects were first conceived in the 1980s (some even earlier) and were based upon ideas that are no longer relevant. Practically none of them involve any kind of rail.

 

Makes me wonder how the corridor got its designation in the first place, or why it didn't just stop, in the West, at Harrisburg.

 

 

I think a competitive funding program makes a great deal of sense. And while you are entitled to believe that putting all the funding into one or two projects is the best way to go, I don't share that opinion. In a Democracy, government funding is always going to be split up among multiple projects to get something up and running on multiple corridors.

 

The reason is that someone is going wait no matter what. But why wait for perfection when you can have something now? If you fund lots of projects, you eliminate apathy, create momentum, erode skepticism that nothing will ever happen, generate ridership and energize a constituency to demand more and better service. And besides, there never is enough money to do what you want, even in the best of circumstances.

 

Also, how do you determine what projects serve the greatest good? This is one of the most difficult questions to answer because everyone has an opinion. Usually, the answer involves metrics (projected ridership, passenger miles, passenger miles per train mile, farebox recovery ratio, short-term avoidable cost, fixed costs, start-up costs, above-the-rail costs, state contribution, local/private sector contribution, etc. etc.) plugged into a cost-effectiveness calculation. But which metrics are used and what, if any, weight should be given to some metrics and not others? This is always a subject of much debate. Usually it's a moving target depending which political party is in power.

 

And what is a desirable service west of Harrisburg to Pittsburgh? Is it a high-speed train traveling at 200 mph (ever ridden the ICE on the rugged line between Frankfurt and Cologne -- it's very much like Pennsylvania)? Or is it upgrading the existing, well-engineered former Pennsylvania Railroad mainline which has some vacated track spaces, so it can handle passenger trains at 90-110 speeds? Put some tilt trains on that line and they could probably cover the 250 mile distance in just over three hours. Either way, it's a corridor with a lot of promise based on past studies. Too bad Pennsylvania isn't tapping any rail stimulus funds for anything (that I'm aware of). But that may not stay that way, considering the political power along this corridor (Murtha, Schuster, Specter et al).

 

And that's what matters (something that folks like Joe Vranich just don't understand). For any government-funded program to have a shelf life, it's got to benefit more than just the projects that "make sense" according to data (again, whose data?). And it's got to benefit as many projects as possible. This just can't escape the politics.

It does drive me nuts when folks argue if we don't have the perfect system that has full trains every day that we shouldn't do it. Well, I've driven on I-64 from Beckley to 1-81 and been practically alone for hours at a time, does that mean that road is unnecessary? If we actually had a system and we were fighting over whether it would be better to have high-speed rail in one place or another then I might listen to each side, but until we have basic service we don't have a frickin' clue which parts of the system will deserve more investment. 

I think a competitive funding program makes a great deal of sense. And while you are entitled to believe that putting all the funding into one or two projects is the best way to go, I don't share that opinion. In a Democracy, government funding is always going to be split up among multiple projects to get something up and running on multiple corridors...

 

And what is a desirable service west of Harrisburg to Pittsburgh? Is it a high-speed train traveling at 200 mph (ever ridden the ICE on the rugged line between Frankfurt and Cologne -- it's very much like Pennsylvania)? Or is it upgrading the existing, well-engineered former Pennsylvania Railroad mainline which has some vacated track spaces, so it can handle passenger trains at 90-110 speeds?

 

The Cologne-Frankfurt ICE cost about $6 billion Euros (in 2000 currency) and is less than half the distance from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. Today that would be more than 2/3 of the entire budget for HSR.

 

We are already seeing a growing resentment of some aspects of the stimulus package. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not going away, soon. Obama still enjoys a 60% approval rating but dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in the wars and the economy, especially if Korea and Iran continue to make progress on nuclear weapons, means that 2010 is up in the air right now.

 

Americans are an impatient lot (unlike the Germans). They rarely think in the long term. In my humble opinion, given that $13 billion over 5 years is not going to be enough to complete ANY of the HSR corridor projects, the focus should be on demonstration projects that pack a lot of bang for the buck. In addition, thinking politically, I would look at projects that benefit swing states, especially states that switched from red to blue in 2008. There are many reasons why those states switched from red to blue (including dissatisfaction with the Republican ticket), but that may not be the case in 2012 or even in 2010 when voters will have a chance to vote on whether they are better off in 2010 than they were in 2008.

 

Finally, as I said, if I saw state proposals which had the greatest potential for synergy, I would consider asking the states to submit joint proposals or consolidate existing proposals. For example, some parts of the Midwest High Speed Rail Project complement the Ohio Hub Plan. It might make the most sense to combine elements of both into a single award.

 

In 2012, perhaps sooner, we're going to have to have something to show for our efforts (unless gas prices surge and stay up). Diluting the funds too much might please some of the people all of the time, but it may not be enough to stimulate a long term change in our thinking.

 

 

 

I don't agree, but we'll see what happens.

I don't agree, but we'll see what happens.

 

Since, in my job, I have to do forecasts, I always do a best, middle and worst case scenario. From the point of view of my expectations, I expect no more than the worst case though I hope for no less than the best.

 

However, this report from the GAO sums up my concerns/feelings about this issue.

 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf

 

It recommends that any Federal HSR funding should follow a national vision/plan and not be composed of separate/unrelated projects. Further, it opines that the Federal share of such projects should far exceed the $1 billiion/year proposed by the Obama administration.

 

While the report indicates that the benefits may be great, and greater than anticipated, it also acknowledges that the same is likely true for the costs.

 

 

Here is some actual data on the US vs. Germany argument that we've  been having for awhile.

 

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/0416_germany_transportation_buehler.aspx?emc=lm&m=224541&l=2&v=661655

 

That is the summary with a link to a pdf of the full report.

 

America’s challenge

This report examines the key differences and determinants of travel behavior in Germany and the United States. Americans travel by car twice as much per year as Germans and use transit only a sixth as much. Differences in car reliance between the United States and Germany are not solely due to income or residential density. Germans in the highest income quartile make a lower share of their trips by car than Americans in the lowest income quartile. And Germans living in low density areas travel by car about as much as Americans living at population densities five times higher.

 

The result is a transportation system in the United States that is less sustainable than in Germany. The per capita carbon footprint of passenger transportation in the United States is about three times larger than in Germany. Although gas prices in the United States are half those in Germany, Americans spend five percent more of their budgets on transportation than Germans. In government outlays as well (federal, state and local), Germany spends less per capita on transportation than the United States.

 

German policies

German governments at all levels have influenced travel behavior through a series of policies enacted over decades. Pricing, restrictions, and mandated technological improvements help mitigate the harmful impacts of car use. Integration of public transportation at the metropolitan and national levels provide a viable alternative to the car. Targeted regional land planning policies encourage compact, mixed-use development, and thus keep trip distances short and feasible for walking or cycling. These policies were coordinated to ensure their mutually reinforcing impact.

 

Lessons for the United States

Public policy can play a major role in reshaping America’s transportation system. The German experience offers five lessons to the United States for improving transportation sustainability through changes in travel behavior:

 

    * Get the Price Right in order to encourage the use of less polluting cars, driving at non-peak hours and more use of public transportation

    * Integrate Transit, Cycling, and Walking as Viable Alternatives to the Car, as a necessary measure to make any sort of car-restrictive measures publicly and politically feasible

    * Fully Coordinate and Integrate Planning for Land Use and Transportation to discourage car-dependent sprawl and promote transit-oriented development

    * Public Information and Education to Make Changes Feasible are essential in conveying the benefits of more sustainable policies and enforcing their results over the long term

    * Implement Policies in Stages with a Long Term Perspective because it takes considerable time to gather the necessary public and political support and to develop appropriate measures.

 

A New Federal Approach

A window of opportunity for changes in transportation policy is opening in the United States. There is an impending transportation funding crisis, a deep recession, highly volatile energy prices, and imminent U.S. engagement in international climate change discussions. Moreover, the next update of the federal transportation law is due in the fall of 2009.

 

These opportunities require political commitment from Congress and the White House to a new set of federal policies. The focus should be on investing in infrastructure that supports the competitiveness and environmental sustainability of the nation, rather than funding unworthy pork barrel projects of individual states or districts. This will require a level playing field between all modes and a firm commitment to integrating transportation, land use, housing, and economic development plans in order to serve the projected growth over the next several decades.

^ Boy, it sure is fun being trapped in the '60s here in the States as compared to the other first-world countries.

One thing (of many) that jumps off the page to me is the estimated funding level of the upcoming federal transportation bill...that is estimated to be twice that of the last transportation bill from 2005.

 

Study: $50B need to fix aging rail transit systems

By JOAN LOWY 1 day ago

 

WASHINGTON (AP) More than one-third of the trains, equipment and facilities of the nation's seven largest rail transit agencies are near the end of their useful life or past that point, the government said Thursday. Many have components that are defective or may be critically damaged.

 

A report by the Federal Transit Administration estimates it will cost $50 billion to bring the rail systems in Chicago, Boston, New York, New Jersey, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., into good repair and $5.9 billion a year to maintain them.

 

 

..........

 

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gGoQn3mrT9x9KyTud3kjJutqEQhwD97T2B2G1

 

 

columbus/stories/2009/05/04/story15.html?b=1241409600%5E1821548  

 

Friday, May 1, 2009 | Modified: Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 8:00am EDT

Dim view of area transit options drives young workers frustrations

Business First of Columbus

- by Jeff Bell

 

Mike Easterday has a straightforward answer to community officials wondering what they can do to make Central Ohios transportation system more appealing to young workers.

 

I want to know I can use it to get somewhere, said Easterday, an accountant and member of a young professionals group in Columbus.

 

But thats not the case sometimes, said Easterday and others who were part of a panel discussion during ColumbusChambers recent Government Day program. They talked about bus routes and bikeways that dont get them where they want to go, and said they like the idea of building a passenger rail system in Columbus.

 

.........

I really don't understand why it's so difficult to get people on board to build better mass transit. People clearly want it, it adds to the life of the urban environment. Why don't higher ups get it??

The higher ups comment on different websites than we do.  They live in a different world altogether.

I am quite certain most of them have never ridden on any form of mass transit (other then the sterile and restrictive airplane) or if they have, they held their breath and closed their eyes the entire way.  We have a tendency to elect isolationists from every extreme into office. 

In my 30s I worked in a factory office with a bunch of car-dependent suburbanites, some of whom thought I was weird because I walked or rode a bike to work. When they learned that I rode a bus in bad weather, they treated me like I had cooties.

 

My arrogant-prick boss told me he wished I would drive, because he was afraid I would get shot in "that neighborhood." He wasn't particularly concerned about my well-being; neither of us made any secret of our mutual dislike for each other. The company had a hiring freeze on, and he didn't want to go through a hassle hiring and training a replacement.

Wow... So 88 percent of federal highway money will come from subsidies in 2010?!?! This is on top of last year's $8 billion bailout of the Highway Trust Fund. What was that, o' ye of the highway uber alles crowd? You say highways are self-supporting and rail is subsidized? I want to meet your elementary school math teacher and punch him/her in the mouth.........

 

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

 

NARP Hotline #603

May 8, 2009

 

The White House presented  its detailed federal budget for fiscal 2010 on May 7.  Amtrak would get $1.502 billion, a miniscule increase from the $1.49 billion in regular fiscal 2009 funding.  Amtrak has sought “$1.84 billion plus.”  (“Plus” refers to $144 million “below the line” in extra ADA station work funds, money Amtrak said it needs but did not formally request, similar to how Amtrak handled labor back pay a year ago.  Such “sotto voce” requests do not go down well on Capitol Hill.) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=aer8l9p.cMss Fortunately, there's still time to press Congress to fully fund Amtrak's full request. http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/main/act/  On the plus side, the budget makes good on the President's promise to deliver first annual $1 billion for high-speed rail. http://www.cq.com/document/display.do?matchId=78072039 ..

 

Perhaps the most significant feature of the transportation budget is the virtual abandonment of user fees to fund highways, a result of continuing increases in highway spending and the failure to increase revenues earmarked for transportation.  Indeed, gasoline tax revenues have fallen, and a May 6 federal report showed U.S. gasoline demand down 0.9% compared with the same period a year ago. 

 

The federal highways obligation limit would rise from $40.7 billion in Fiscal 2009 to $41.1 billion in 2010.  But the general fund contribution would rise from zero to $36.1 billion while the “user-fee based” Highway Trust Fund contribution would drop precipitously from $40.7 billion to $5 billion. 

 

Similarly, the transit formula and bus grants, which have been mostly “trust funded” would rise from $8.261 billion to $8.343 billion in 2010, with $3.3 billion of the latter coming from general funds. The budget boosts grants for rural air service and an air traffic control equipment overhaul.

President Obama proposes FY2010 budget appropriations for New Starts program, high-speed rail and Amtrak

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=20382

 

Last week, the Obama Administration released detailed FY2010 budget recommendations for all federal programs.

 

The Administration is proposing $10.3 billion for surface transportation programs, slightly higher than the FY2009 appropriation. The budget proposal assumes any transportation funding growth is subject to a new surface transportation authorization bill. The current surface transportation legislation is set to expire in September.

 

........

 

Oberstar's surface transportation bill outline proposes major USDOT changes

www.progressiverailroading.com

 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) is calling for a major U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) restructuring under the next surface transportation bill, according to BNA's Daily Report for Executives.

 

The bill's framework calls for creating a new undersecretary or assistant secretary for intermodalism who would meet monthly with all modal administrators. The bill's outline also proposes to consolidate the USDOT's 108 programs into four major formula programs: critical asset preservation; highway safety improvement; surface transportation program; and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement.

 

In addition, the USDOT and states would work to design six-year targets for four performance categories, with states submitting annual reports to the department and Congress.

 

The bill's framework also proposes to "level decision-making factors between highway and transit choices/projects," according to the outline. The federal government currently pays for half of transit projects, but funds 80 percent of highway and bridge work.

 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=20393

The bill's outline also proposes to consolidate the USDOT's 108 programs into four major formula programs: critical asset preservation; highway safety improvement; surface transportation program; and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement.

 

 

The surface transportation program needs to provide strong incentives to promote sustainable land use patterns or this will be a huge missed opportunity.

For Immediate Release

05/14/09

Contact:  Jena Longo - Democratic Deputy Communications Director 202.224.7824 

 

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=6e1be4c5-07d4-41e9-8fda-4f0655b31848&Month=5&Year=2009

 

Chairmen Rockefeller and Lautenberg Introduce National Surface Transportation Policy Bill  

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Today, Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller, IV (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, introduced The Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009.  This important legislation establishes a comprehensive and unifying mission for the nation’s surface transportation system. 

 

“The United States’ population is projected to rise to 420 million people by 2050, a 50 percent increase from the year 2000.  This growth will only exacerbate the congestion and mobility challenges that plague our national surface transportation system today.  We need to establish a blueprint for a 21st century surface transportation system,” said Chairman Rockefeller. “This bill does just that. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues on this blueprint as we move forward on reauthorizing and reforming the surface transportation programs.” 

 

“A national surface transportation policy for our country is long overdue,” Senator Lautenberg said.  “We need a transportation policy that reestablishes our leadership throughout the world when it comes to transportation – and meets our country’s transportation demands for generations to come. This legislation will establish a national policy that improves safety, reduces congestion, creates jobs, and protects our environment.”

 

BACKGROUND

The surface transportation programs authorized under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) enacted in 2005 will expire at the end of this September.  The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission created by SAFETEA-LU and other transportation policy experts have called for the creation of a cohesive national policy with performance-based outcomes, and a fundamental restructuring of the federal surface transportation programs.  The Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009 establishes the foundation for making these reforms.

 

This introduction of The Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009 follows President Obama’s proclamation of the week of May 10th as National Transportation Week in recognition of the importance of the transportation infrastructure to our nation’s economy and security.

 

Summary of The Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009

The Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009 would lay out a strategic, integrated plan that will address the challenges to our national infrastructure and federal programs. 

 

 

Major Goals of The Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009

•    Reduce national per capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis;

•    Reduce national motor vehicle-related fatalities by 50 percent by 2030;

•    Reduce national surface transportation-generated carbon dioxide levels by 40 percent by 2030;

•    Reduce national surface transportation delays per capita on an annual basis;

•    Increase the percentage of system-critical surface transportation assets that are in a state of good repair by 20 percent by 2030;

•    Increase the total usage of public transportation, intercity passenger rail services, and non-motorized transportation on an annual basis;

•    Increase the proportion of national freight transportation provided by non-highway or multimodal services by 10 percent by 2020; and

•    Reduce passenger and freight transportation delays and congestion at international points of entry on an annual basis.

 

 

Ignoring the Malthusian nonsense about U.S. population growth, the highlighted bullet points sound like Soviet era 5-year planning propaganda. 

I don't care what it's called. It's about time we had a clear vision, especially one that's actually sustainable, of where we want transportation to be in this country.

The goals are worthy, but how will this bill help achieve those goals?

This is the reauthorization of the six-year federal surface transportation law which guides spending and other policies affecting highways, public transportation, railroads, pedestrian facilities and bike paths. Each time since this landmark six-year cycle began in 1991 there have been some important changes to this framework, and this year is likely to offer some of the most dramatic given the erosion of the gas tax's ability to fund highway and public transit, climate change/oil supply concerns, plus the rising rail and public transportation ridership and the decline in driving.

Budget Green Summer Travel Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/cleaner_cars_pickups_and_suvs/greentravel/getting-there-greener.html

 

May 11, 2009

 

Summer vacationers can save money and lower their contribution to global warming at the same time, thanks to a handy travel transportation guide from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

 

"A summer vacation can be relatively inexpensive and 'green' if you know what to look for," said Jim Kliesch, a UCS senior engineer and primary author of the guide. "We've found that with a little bit of planning, consumers can save money with tips that save the planet, too."

 

UCS researchers calculated the amount of carbon dioxide -- the chief heat-trapping gas that drives global warming -- associated with travel in a variety of modes, including passenger cars, SUVs, planes, trains, and buses. Since trip emissions also depend on the number of passengers traveling, UCS evaluated trip emissions for solo travelers, couples and families of four. UCS concluded that while numerous green travel options are available, poor travel choices leave large amounts of carbon in a vacation's wake. For example, a poorly planned family-of-four vacation can result in more carbon emissions than are released by an entire year of the family's commute to and from work.

 

While UCS's analysis is focused on the environmental impact of vacation travel, the report does reveal a number of findings that can help the budget-conscious traveler:

 

Off-peak travel. Americans tend to favor Friday, Saturday or Sunday departures for trips, but these peak travel times result in higher emissions, gasoline bills and ticket prices. Travelers who plan to arrive and depart on a trip on Monday through Thursday can take advantage of lower airplane fares and avoid weekend and rush hour highway traffic. In 2007, airport delays were responsible for 8.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

 

Tacking an extra day or two onto a vacation can help you travel on off-peak days. That may be easier than many people think: Americans let more than a half-billion days of vacation go unused every year. Other tips include using a GPS system with real-time traffic alerts to save both time and carbon when driving. Some GPS manufacturers offer real-time traffic information with no extra charge, but others charge a subscription fee for the service. Consumers should consider the additional value of real-time traffic updates when shopping for a GPS unit.

 

Consider coach-only flights. UCS recommends that travelers who plan to fly consider budget airlines that exclusively offer coach-class seating. Because first-class seating takes up more space than coach seating, the average first-class passenger on a domestic flight is responsible for twice as much heat-trapping emissions as someone seated in coach. Some airlines have eliminated first-class seats. That can lower a plane's per-person emissions 10 to 15 percent and also allows the airline to reduce its fares. If traveling alone or with one other person, vacationers are usually better off flying direct in coach than getting behind the wheel of a typical vehicle, especially for trips of more than 500 miles.

 

Don't forget the bus. Motor coaches are generally the greenest vacation travel option. Compared with flying coach, a couple traveling on a bus will cut their trip's carbon dioxide emissions 55 to 75 percent, depending on the distance traveled. Compared to even a fuel-efficient hybrid car, a bus trip would cut a couple's trip emissions nearly in half. Bus travel is much less expensive than flying and can even be cheaper than driving. Some bus companies offer fares as low as $1 each way. Since there is no single online resource for booking tickets from different bus lines, travelers will have to search for those companies that serve their departure and destination cities. Additionally, many intercity buses now offer such amenities as wireless Internet connections and food service. Besides traveling from city to city, many tour operators offer guided bus services through National Parks, offering a lower-carbon way for vacationers to appreciate America's natural beauty.

 

Trains let travelers skip in-city travel expenses. Trains are another green option, especially those in the Northeast that run primarily on electricity. Trains emit 60 percent less carbon per passenger-mile than a typical car with a single occupant. And compared with a 500-mile trip on a small jet plane, a train emits roughly 30 percent less carbon. Trains also can save vacationers money when they are traveling between large cities. Train stations are often much closer to city centers than airports, allowing travelers to avoid renting a car or paying for a cab or shuttle into town. 

 

When driving, take more passengers. More passengers in a car translates into much less pollution per person traveling. That is because a car uses most of the energy from burning gasoline to move the vehicle itself. Additional passengers and luggage do not add that much relative to a car's weight. Of course the kind of vehicle you have will make a difference. For a given distance of travel, a large, inefficient SUV, for example, emits nearly four times the amount of carbon dioxide emissions of a highly efficient hybrid such as a Toyota Prius. The SUV also uses nearly four times the amount of gas, costing that much more at the pump.

 

For more information, UCS offers answers to frequently asked questions about the travel guide.

**********************************

I didn't know where else to put this. The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists is fascinating. According to the full report (see link), intercity buses have much lower CO2 emissions per trip than rail (for example, two people going 500 miles would have a carbon footprint of 170 lbs. by bus, and 430 lbs. by train).

 

I suppose intercity buses aren't serious addressed by national transportation policy because they aren't as cutting edge as high speed rail, or perhaps because they don't appeal to upper-income riders.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

I've also seen bus compare favorably with rail -- trains hauled by diesel-powered locomotives and with an average load factor. Electrically powered trains -- most high-speed trains are electrically powered -- perform better carbon-wise.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54S00220090529?sp=true

 

Car-driven society poses health risk for Americans

Fri May 29, 2009 8:46am EDT

By Matthew Bigg

 

ATLANTA (Reuters) - When Seema Shrikhande goes to work, she drives. When she takes her son to school, they drive. And when she goes shopping, to the bank or to visit friends, she gets into her car, buckles up and hits the road.

 

Driving is a way of life for Americans but researchers say the national habit of driving everywhere is bad for health.

 

The more you drive, the less you walk. Walking provides exercise without really trying.

 

......

New York is worse than ATL  and D.C!? Wow.

From the USDOT Secretary Ray Lahood's blog....

 

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/06/public-transportation-delivers-public-benefits.html

 

June 02, 2009

Public transportation delivers public benefits

 

President Obama was elected to harness a national will to do things better.  One thing I think Americans would like to see improved is how transportation serves the communities in which they live.

 

We love our cars, but sometimes there can be a better way to get to work or to the beach, or simply to the drug store.  And providing Americans with those choices can also be good for the economy.

 

In fact, each 1% of regional travel shifted from automobile to public transit increases regional income about $2.9 million, resulting in 226 additional regional jobs. Other economic benefits include increased productivity, employment, business activity, investment and redevelopment.

 

Cities with well-established rail systems have less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates, lower consumer expenditures on transportation, significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle mileage, and higher transit service cost recovery than otherwise comparable cities with less or no rail transit service.

 

Moreover, whether in Houston, Texas, or Portland, Oregon, rail transit systems not only provide economic, but social and environmental benefits.

 

Social benefits of transit include improved public health, greater flexibility in trip planning and accessibility for non-drivers.

 

Rail travel consumes about a fifth of the energy per passenger-mile as automobile travel. Electric powered rail produces minimal air and noise emissions.

 

Many criticisms of rail transit investment are based on inaccurate or incomplete analysis. For example, transit critics often cite operating costs. This overlooks the significant returns that rail transit offers. In 2002, for example, rail transit required about $12.5 billion annually in public subsidy. However, these costs were offset several times over by $19.4 billion in congestion costs savings, $8.0 billion in roadway cost savings, $12.1 billion in parking cost savings, $22.6 billion in consumer cost saving, and $5.6 billion in reduced crash damages.

 

Developing public transportation increases choices, for drivers as well as riders. Developing public transportation makes sense.

Here's the byproduct of a 50-year policy to keep gas taxes artificially low based on the assumption that today's expenses could always be paid for by tomorrow's growth in driving. Oops...

_________________

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_on_go_co/us_highway_money;_ylt=AvsGefGXx3umYlg9wFbLTrgDW7oF

 

Administration: Highway fund to go broke in August

 

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jun 2, 3:56 pm ET

 

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is warning lawmakers that the trust fund that pays for highway construction will go broke in August unless Congress approves an infusion of as much as $7 billion.

 

Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said at a hearing Tuesday that the administration has told senators the Federal Highway Trust Fund will need an estimated $5 billion to $7 billion to keep current construction projects going.

 

 

.........

Both panels recommended Congress find a new revenue source to pay for highway and transit programs.

 

Their top recommendation was to tax motorists based on how many miles they drive. That would require equipping cars and trucks with devices that use GPS technology to record not only how many miles the vehicle was driven, but whether the driving occurred on interstate highways or secondary roads and whether it was during peak travel periods. The device would calculate the amount of tax owed and the bill could be downloaded.

 

A mileage-based tax system would take about 10 years to implement.

 

I really hope that a mileage based system someday happens, but is combined with a gas tax, rather than replacing it. I think we ought to be taking more tax money from the gas guzzlers so as to give more incentive to use fuel efficient vehicles.

 

However the pessimist in me is saying that this will never happen (too many politicians unwilling to go on record voting for raising taxes) and congress will keep funding the Federal Highway Trust Fund from the general fund and we'll be paying for it with income tax, or increased budget deficits, at least for the foreseeable future.

It is that lack of courage and false belief that we can get something for free (or at a dramatically reduced cost) that has led us to this problem.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000003131635

 

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE

June 1, 2009 – 1:57 p.m.

 

Push for More Transit Funding Could Spark Transportation Spending Battle

 

For more than half a century, highway advocates have been the loudest voices on transportation policy, but that may change this year as some lawmakers push to include more funding for public transit in the next authorization bill.

 

The federal Highway Trust Fund now apportions about 81 percent toward roads and bridges and 19 percent to mass transit. Some lawmakers and transit advocates are mounting a significant campaign to level the funding distribution, which has highway supporters warning that such a funding shift could upset sensitive plans — including a possible increase in the federal gasoline tax — to boost trust fund receipts.

 

 

 

......

Ms. Kete of the usually credible World Resources Institute has repeated a myth that US cities  "are farther apart than in Europe ..."  There is also a vague reference to population density and rail corridors.  I think Ms. Kete needs to get properly up to speed before speaking on behalf of the World Resources Institute on this subject...

 

Ed

 

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009936.html

Worldchanging Interview: Nancy Kete on the Future of the American Transportation System

 

Sarah Kuck

June 2, 2009 3:30 PM

 

Article Photo

 

Nancy Kete, a program director at the World Resources Institute, knows that in order to create the bright green cities of tomorrow, we must reimagine how we move about and in between them today. For decades, heavy reliance on the automobile has shaped cities globally, but arguably most dramatically in the United States. To reverse this trend and its harmful side effects, we need a new vision of transportation that will work both for those already entrenched within this system and for those who are seeking to replicate it.

 

Helping developing nations seek out and implement alternative mobility solutions is one of the main goals of the World Resources Institute's Center for Sustainable Transport, EMBARQ. Although the team spends most of its time working on transportation systems in places like Mexico, Brazil, India, and Turkey, they often use their research and experience to influence other political leaders from their headquarters in Washington, D.C.

 

Kete, who is a senior fellow and program director at EMBARQ, recently spoke out about the Obama administration's plan to dedicate billions of stimulus dollars to constructing high speed rail. Kete warns that high speed rail is not a silver bullet solution, and urges the administration to proceed with caution, careful planning and a holistic solution that reflects regional needs. I recently spoke with Kete to discuss this and other issues surrounding the future of transportation in the United States.

 

Sarah Kuck: What does transportation look like now in most U.S. cities? And where can we go from here?

 

Nancy%20Kete.jpgNancy Kete: In most U.S. cities, except for New York particularly and a couple of others, transportation is dominated by car travel. There are a few cities that have a significant amount of trips on rail or bus transit. And then there’s intercity travel, which is dominated by air at this point, with some rail depending on where you are.

 

But the question is where do we go from here? And I think the right way to think about this depends on where do we want it to go from here? What do we want it to look like? Do we think that today’s situation is OK? And if not, what’s wrong with it?

 

We know from a climate perspective that we really ought to be emitting 80 percent less CO2 by the year 2050, at the minimum. And then we want to ask ourselves, “If we wanted transportation to carry its proportional share of that, what would the transportation system look like in 2050 if it was 80 percent less CO2?” It’s almost impossible to imagine that system having the amount of personal travel and the same land use patterns of the sprawl we have today. Even if all the cars people were traveling in were zero carbon, with clean engines, or powered by solar electricity – at a certain point you have so many vehicles on the road and you only have a certain amount of land you can use for all that technological solution, so you have to start to deal with the combination of land use and transportation together. Which is were transit and planning come in.

 

 

USDOT%20RAIL%20MAP.jpg

 

SK: A few weeks ago, you commented on the Obama administration's plan for High Speed Rail. What do you think the future of high-speed rail should look like in the United States?

 

NK: The answer is, it depends. One of the issues is that our cities are farther apart than in Europe or Japan, where the high-speed rail has worked really well.

 

So we have to be careful as we use the stimulus money for high speed rail to put it on corridors where there are enough passengers to justify all that embedded carbon. It will be very carbon intensive to build the rail and the trains. If they go often and they're full, then it's good. But a train running empty between Chicago and Minneapolis would be a worse outcome than a car in a carpool lane with a couple people driving.

 

But that said, air travel itself is very carbon intensive. We need to carefully pick the corridors that are shortest ones or the ones that are likely to have the highest demand. There are some less carbon intensive ways to connect our cities. You can do that with high speed bus, but if you really want to use high speed rail to connect people faster even than bus could, you would want to concentrate on cities that are reasonably close together to make sure you are going to have the demand for it. And you are going to have to make driving alone or driving more expensive, make it reflect the environmental and infrastructure costs of supporting the driving economy.

 

 

SK: What advice would you give the Obama administration?

 

NK: Do some really careful demand estimations for each corridor, and start with the corridors where there is a certain density, and a high demand for something other than driving and flying. Prove out the concept with truly high speed rail, and then as people see the benefit of it, the demand for it in other places might increase.

 

In addition, we have to think about tolls and higher fuel taxes to discourage driving on the same corridors that have a lot of congestion on the road so that you drive people appropriately to the transit option. And then the third thing is, the U.S. has a growing population. You want to make sure that growth occurs along these corridors so that you have more density and more riders. Not just to get the riders, but so that you have your infrastructure and your demand in the same place because that’s the only thing that will make it cost effective and carbon efficient. And all that’s called planning, and planning has to become not a dirty word.

 

Planning, pricing and investment all have to align together.

 

 

SK: What do people commonly misunderstand about how transportation works in the United States?

 

NK: Most people don’t know how much it costs them to drive their own car. We have these externalized costs associated with owning the car, which we don’t pay every time we drive, so once we own a car and we’ve paid those costs, we only see the fuel costs. And when fuel is cheap it looks really cheap to drive our car, and that’s just on the personal side.

 

If we made it clearer, like with pay-as-you-drive insurance, and with fuel prices that more accurately reflected the cost of building and maintaining the road system and protecting the fuel supply, which is related to keeping peace in the Middle East and keeping our access to a steady supply of oil and all the environmental costs..if the driver paid all those every time he/she filled the tank, we would be paying much higher costs all the time and would make different decisions about how much we drove our cars.

 

 

SK: Would that knowledge of the real costs of driving make people more willing to support public transportation measures?

 

NK: We saw that when gasoline was $4 a gallon last year, ridership on public transport went way up. And then once the demand for public transportation goes up, customers who want to use it, who are citizens, will then want better service. When a lot of people started using it for the first time or went back to it last year that they realized that this is easy, it can be good, it can be convenient. But a lot of people realized too that they needed to increase the quality of it. And then you had constituents for it, for the first time.

 

That’s the way you get better public transportation systems: by increasing the demand for it. I just think the way human nature is, it’s not very likely that people who never use it are going to be very passionate supporters of it for somebody else.

 

 

SK: Do you have a vision for what intermodal transportation will look like in the future?

 

NK: It is the right vision. It is much more holistic than thinking about Bus Rapid Transit or rail, or even walking and biking. Many people live so far from their home that they can’t do it just with non-motorized transport.

 

The heart of intermodality is information. For example, a smart card will allow you to integrate your fare so you have an advantage for using multiple parts of the system. And then you use the IT section of the system – you optimize the operations part of the system to make it easy for the consumer to get to where they are going as fast as possible -- that’s linking communication information and transportation all as one system, which is all doable.

 

In many places, though, the operations are managed by different companies, so institutional change has to happen. If we don’t merge companies, then there has to be different incentives for multiple companies to want to be operated together, or to redefine the companies so that they are all under one operator. Those are not small changes.

 

 

This article isn't as unfortunate as it the headline sounds. But I'm sure it will be taken out of context by the train haters...

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

 

Train can be worse for climate than plane

Updated 12:51 08 June 2009 by Catherine Brahic

 

True or false: taking the commuter train across Boston results in lower greenhouse gas emissions than travelling the same distance in a jumbo jet. Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is false.

 

A new study compares the "full life-cycle" emissions generated by 11 different modes of transportation in the US. Unlike previous studies on transport emissions, Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath of the University of California, Berkeley, looked beyond what is emitted by different types of car, train, bus or plane while their engines are running and includes emissions from building and maintaining the vehicles and their infrastructure, as well as generating the fuel to run them. (Table 1 on page 3 has a complete list of components that were considered).

 

.........

^ The Infrastructurist has a decent rebuttal of that article.

 

That New Study That Shows Planes Are Greener Than Trains? It Does No Such Thing

Bipartisan Policy Center releases surface transportation policy reform proposal

Progressivcerailroading.com

 

The Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP) recently unveiled a plan aimed at transforming federal surface transportation policy.

 

The group proposes to restructure federal programs, update the criteria for formulas and create a performance-based system that directly ties transportation spending to broader national goals, such as economic growth, connectivity, accessibility, safety, energy security and environmental protection.

 

"One of the principal current problems is trying to coordinate over 100 different transportation programs that Congress has authorized over the course of half a century, while dealing with an aging and declining infrastructure," said NTPP co-chair and former Sen. Slade Gorton in a prepared statement.

 

 

..........

 

 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=20609

Also, see the really big gas tax map of the U.S. at:

http://moneyfeatures.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/gasoline_map_4_2009-for-6-9-2009.jpg

 

http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/the-downside-of-lower-gas-taxes/

 

The downside of lower gas taxes

Posted by Two Cents Editors

June 9, 2009 5:15 pm

 

President Obama’s recent announcement that auto fuel efficiency standards are being sped up to require an average per-fleet fuel economy of 35.5 mpg for cars by 2016 (the previous goal was 35 mpg by 2020) has its environmental and geopolitical merits. Less green house gas emissions, less dependency on foreign oil producers is a very big win-win.

 

........

Please vote! The current tally is 36% for, 64% against.

 

More money for public transit?

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/more-money-for-public-transit.html

I just found this amazing map of the U.S. showing roadway congestion and, in some cities, noting the costs of congestion....

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200803/win-large.gif