My guess is that Obama has this concept that every trip length will fall into a nice niche, with the ideal scenario being that you drive your electric car to the other side of town, you take the train to the other side of your region, and that you hop on a plane to the other side of the country. The problem is, providing robust infrastructure for all three modes is super expensive even at European densities. Imagine what it would be for ours.

 

***

 

Long story short, America has already made its choice, and the choice is highways. You don't change it overnight because you have to capture the remaining benefit dollars from the highway investments that you made before you can go full-tilt into rail. If you try to jump the gun, you will bankrupt the country.

 

I don't think I fully understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that since Americans want roads we shouldn't spend the money to develop other modes of transportation?

 

Although I would like to see the country move to denser, carfree cities over the long term, I also agree that financially it can't and isn't going to happen overnight. Moreover, most Americans never ever want to give up their cars or their big lots and isolated living patterns. So we'll likely continue to bail out the car companies and move toward electric vehicles while clinging to the sprawl method of development for as long as we can.

 

I would add, however, that we can't go on this way forever. At some point it must end, and we should be encouraging a change before the change is required by circumstances beyond our control, such as super-high oil prices.   Sprawl will come to an end -- we'll either run out of space or energy first, not to mention all of the extra resources consumed to build (and maintain!) so many miles of roadway, sewer, water, electric, and communication lines so that more and more people can live isolated from one another in ever larger houses and manicured lawns.

 

So when you say "America has already made it's choice" I hope you're not saying we should continue on this path until we reach a crisis point. Yes, money will need to be spent to fix the inner belt bridge and maintain the roadways. But we should stop building new roadway since we're already heading past the point of being able to maintain all of the roadways we have, and we need to build up the alternatives in advance.

 

OK let my clarify that language. America has already made a choice. Everything changes eventually. But in the timeframe of even several generations, the highway choice might as well be the choice. I don't think many people, rail advocates or not, have a good quantitative grasp of how much road infrastructure we have to maintain. It costs money to maintain, but it also generates wealth by using it. If we just start dismantling or abandoning the infrastructure we already have, we are forfeiting the wealth-generation that it facilitates. And if we just start building new infrastructure on top of it, we risk overspending on infrastructure, reducing the increment of wealth generation per infrastructure dollar, and actually making ourselves poorer in the process. (You could call this "wasting money on trains," but you could just as easily call it "wasting money on highways," it doesn't really matter.)

 

I don't use this to justify the current state of things. In fact, if we want to change anything, it will take radical moves. This current political climate of please-every-stakeholder is going to result in wasting money or breaking promises.

 

Trains could easily replace planes. Planes are their own infrastructure, save for where they drop people off and pick them up. But it is going to take a hilarious amount of money to upgrade our rail system to handle trains that will travel fast enough to compete with planes. What's the current Obama number for high speed rail right now? $8 billion? That is truly hilarious. Do we want trains to go 200 MPH? Let's start at a trillion dollars.

 

I don't know of any rail advocates who want to dismantle highways and bridges. They cost a lot to maintain, and they DO generate revenue through their use (though not enough to maintain them). But it's our entire transportation system -- not just the highways -- that are an essential component of our economy.

 

A viable rail system is preventive maintenance for the highway system. Less wear and tear, ending the need to widen and expand. And we get a more-balanced transportation network, which will generate even more wealth, I think, than a highways-only approach.

 

As for air travel, what's hilarious is the notion that "Planes are their own infrastructure, save for where they drop people off and pick them up." (That's like saying trains are their own infrastructure, save for the track and the stations.) Without expensive, publicly subsidized airports and air-traffic control, planes are utterly useless.

 

What's more, nobody -- nobody -- is talking about replacing air travel with train travel. In fact, the two should be extremely complementary. Trains would be best used to replace the short-hop puddle-jumper flights that crowd the skies and airports and force passengers to fly from Columbus to Cincinnati in order to go to Connecticut.

Short-haul flights are also the biggest fuel-guzzlers and biggest cost for the airlines....which is why the airlines have been trying to pull away from serving those corridors....or contracting with smaller air carriers to do so.

 

For distances under 600 miles... I would rather take the train.

I've been trying to get a handle on a numerical model or range of models which may theoretically exist. That model is:  if we add X lane-miles to a crowded highway and it induces Y more traffic (as more lanes tend to do along with more car-dependent sprawl), what does that do to America's foreign trade balance of payments? Does it improve the equation and increase wealth in America? Or does it worsen it by sending more wealth overseas?

 

Here's another one.... Since driving is on the decline and thus gas tax revenues cannot keep up with maintenance costs, we cannot afford to maintain the current, massive scale of the highway system. That means more decayed highways, meaning more potholes, closed lanes, closed bridges and possibly even some closed roads. That translates into less driving and thus even less gas tax revenues, creating a feedback loop. But if we increase the gas tax that might also result in less driving and ultimately returns to the feedback loop after a brief period of highway reconstruction. Oh, and by the way, as the Baby Boomers age, that also means less driving and less gas tax revenues in the coming years.

 

I don't think our highway system will look anything like it does now in 10-20 years. In fact, scenes like this could become more common:

 

^ Ooooh, oooh, where is that?

Good article. Thanks!

 

^ Ooooh, oooh, where is that?

 

It the 7/11 Division Street bridge in Youngstown. It was replaced a few years ago when the new 7/11 connector was built to link I-680 with I-80.

"I must have missed the part where he factored in the capital cost of two airports and an air traffic control system."

 

I think that the point is that all of construction cost of existing infrastructure is a sunk cost. There was a time when we had a choice to build highways or high speed passenger rail. Today our choice is whether to maintain our highways or maintain our highways AND build high speed passenger rail.

 

  It might be easy enough to build a rail line from, say, Cincinnati to Columbus, but how is the passenger going to get from a Cincinnati suburb ro the Columbus suburb? Rent a car at one end?

 

    We're in a tough spot with regards to passenger rail transportation.

 

 

There's always a sunk cost in an existing transportation system. The problem is that we Americans think sequentially when it comes to transportation. We have transportation system dominated by water transportation. Then we have one dominated by rail. Then we have one dominated by highways.

 

The problem is that we have had dominant transportation modes. No mode can do all functions effectively. But when we have a multi-modal system, then each mode can do what each does best.

 

We're just in a transition point. This is why it doesn't make sense to go from 0 to 200 mph high-speed rail right off the bat. Other states have upgraded and expanded their rail systems steadily, promoted walkable development around stations, steadily added new transit routes to serve those stations, and continued to improved and expand those linkages.

 

We have a tendency to look at all that needs to be done to have a European-style, Asian-style, or even Northeast Corridor- or California-style rail/transit network. Yet don't acknowledge all the interim steps they took to get there.

 

Advance in that journey of 1,000 miles by taking the next step. Don't look so far ahead or you'll scare yourself into hiding in the status quo...

"I must have missed the part where he factored in the capital cost of two airports and an air traffic control system."

 

I think that the point is that all of construction cost of existing infrastructure is a sunk cost. There was a time when we had a choice to build highways or high speed passenger rail. Today our choice is whether to maintain our highways or maintain our highways AND build high speed passenger rail.

 

  It might be easy enough to build a rail line from, say, Cincinnati to Columbus, but how is the passenger going to get from a Cincinnati suburb ro the Columbus suburb? Rent a car at one end?

 

We're in a tough spot with regards to passenger rail transportation.

 

 

You bring up a good point, and something I have always thought of.  In order to make high speed rail work, you need to make it inconvenient to drive.  In Ohio, I can go from Cleve to Col in 1 hour and 45 minuts no problem.  Very little traffic, go straight to my meeting from my house.  I can do the same thing with Cincy in 3.5 hours.  I probably would not take a train if it was offered to me at this point simply because it may be more inconvenient and timely.  I, for one, would love to see rail dominate our transportation landscape.  My current thought is, cities need to develop around rail versus rail developing around a city.  I always wonder, why do we not have TOD at Woodhill/Shaker, or around 150th/I71, or at Brookpark or at 65th etc.  It makes me angry that we don't and why do we have tobuild more rail to get TOD when we already have rail with no TOD. 

Why are you so threatened by my opinion?

It's just an opinion. As long as gas is still available and reasonable, I'm not taking a train to Cleveland.

 

And I'd like to have some options or, barring that, an end to public subsidies for modes of transportation that contribute to 40,000 deaths/year from auto accidents (not to mention deaths from smog and pollution), millions of dollars in property damage, urban sprawl which has economically crippled many Midwestern downtowns and wars in the Middle East. Let the people who want roads pay the full cost.

 

As for gas available and affordable, think about a future in which it is neither and practical alternatives for personal transportation are non-existent or unaffordable. Some believe that this future is not far off.

 

If they are right, and our optimism is unjustified, shouldn't we start preparing, now? When gas prices were $4/gallon, people abandoned driving in droves but, for many, there were no practical alternatives. That translated into an economic ripple effect for the many businesses that depended upon travelers. If, as you have suggested, our economy depends upon the roadways, I'd conclude that we have too many eggs in one basket for our own good.

 

And I'd like to have some options or, barring that, an end to public subsidies for modes of transportation that contribute to 40,000 deaths/year from auto accidents (not to mention deaths from smog and pollution), millions of dollars in property damage, urban sprawl which has economically crippled many Midwestern downtowns and wars in the Middle East. Let the people who want roads pay the full cost.

 

That's a pretty extreme view.  You just talked about how we put all our eggs in one basket with highways and roads, but you seem to be advocating putting all those eggs into the rail basket.  We need a robust TRANSPORTATION system.  Road, rail, water, and air transport should all be supported appropriately by the government.  The problem, as I see it, is that the government can be short sighted and does put all of their eggs in too few baskets.  But the answer certainly isn't to abandon the roads and highways like they did with the rails.

And I'd like to have some options or, barring that, an end to public subsidies for modes of transportation that contribute to 40,000 deaths/year from auto accidents (not to mention deaths from smog and pollution), millions of dollars in property damage, urban sprawl which has economically crippled many Midwestern downtowns and wars in the Middle East. Let the people who want roads pay the full cost.

 

That's a pretty extreme view.  You just talked about how we put all our eggs in one basket with highways and roads, but you seem to be advocating putting all those eggs into the rail basket.  We need a robust TRANSPORTATION system.  Road, rail, water, and air transport should all be supported appropriately by the government.  The problem, as I see it, is that the government can be short sighted and does put all of their eggs in too few baskets.  But the answer certainly isn't to abandon the roads and highways like they did with the rails.

 

Read the first part more closely. What I am saying is that barring reasonable options to taking a car everywhere, I'd like to see the road users pay the full cost just as the users of rail do now. In other words, a level playing field.

 

I did not suggest abandoning the roads but, in fact, a bi-partisan commission of the USDOT suggested what I am suggesting which is to eliminate the gas tax and go to a metered service by which you would pay a tax on every mile that you drive and this tax would fully fund the system of roads and highways. That seems not only fair but reasonable; hardly extreme.

 

But you continue to compare the highway system with a passenger rail service, as if the highways are not used for commerce.

But you continue to compare the highway system with a passenger rail service, as if the highways are not used for commerce.

 

I do no such thing. Do you only read what YOU post.

 

Look at your signature line: If things really run in spite of the government, not by aid of it, how is it that you have no trouble accepting government subsidies that allow you to drive well below the actual cost?

 

Another fact is that even with road subsidies, until the economic downturn, the amount of freight shipped by intermodal rail was increasing far faster than the amount of freight shipped by truck indicating that a more market based approach to freight involves the cooperation of rail and road. And, in fact, if oil prices head up which, inevitably they will, and if Congress adopts a metered rate to replace the current gas tax, then you'll see even more freight shipped, at least in part, by rail.

 

I acknowledge that roadways continue to be important to commerce but that their role and their share of the marketplace is declining because of innovations in other forms of transportation and coopertation between former competitors.

 

And all that I am saying is that the same can happen for passenger transportation as is happening with freight, with some investments in a system which was cannibalized during the railroad reorganization in the 70s.

 

Your Charleton Heston-like "you'll have to take the roadway out from under my cold, dead tires" is practically cartoonish.

 

No one is even talking about that (just like Heston wasn't saying what people thought that he was saying).

 

But you continue to compare the highway system with a passenger rail service, as if the highways are not used for commerce.

 

But you continue to compare the highway system with a passenger rail service, as if the rails are not used for commerce.

 

From today's Washington Post, an Op Ed piece by Carlos Lozada:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101775.html

 

 

Regarding Christopher Steiner's "$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better"

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446549541

 

A quote (to stay within the limits of fair use):

 

Each chapter forecasts our lives at a different price per gallon. At $6, public transportation becomes "the belle of the ball," with subways overflowing and new train routes proliferating. Driving deaths and obesity both plummet. Say goodbye to the little yellow school bus -- unaffordable.

 

At $8, "the skies will empty" as the airline industry contracts and ticket prices spiral upward. Vegas goes back to being just a desert.

 

Other tidbits:

 

$14/gallon, Wal-Mart goes belly up due to high overseas shipping costs.

 

$20/gallon, HSPR becomes the transportation mode of choice.

 

Some have already predicted that $20/gallon will be between 2018 and 2024. That gives us 10-14 years to get the alternatives in place.

 

 

But you continue to compare the highway system with a passenger rail service, as if the rails are not used for commerce.

 

While I can't see Dan's messages anymore, I can see yours UrbanSurfin. Here's some data FYI....

 

U.S. Freight Haulage Market Share, Revenue Ton Miles of Freight (2008)

 

Railroads 41.2%

Trucks 30.7%

Water 14.1%

Pipelines 13.6%

Domestic Air 0.4%

 

Source: http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/Statistics.pdf

USEPA promotes transportation choice and smart growth in Growing Smarter, Living Healthier: A Guide to Smart Growth and Active Aging  guide

 

 

Contents

Growing Smarter, Living Healthier cover graphic

 

http://www.epa.gov/aging/bhc/guide/

 

    Introduction

 

    1. Staying Active, Connected, and Engaged

    Where and how we choose to live can affect our health and well-being

 

    2. Development and Housing

    Healthy neighborhoods offer diverse housing choices, gathering places, and ways to connect

 

  3. Transportation and Mobility

    We can build choice back into our transportation system — and make it easier for people of all ages to get around

 

    4. Staying Healthy

    Finding healthy food, keeping active, and getting help when you need it can be easier in an age-friendly community

 

    5. Conclusion: Next Steps

    How you can get involved and act

Please see the following message from the American Public Transportation Association:

_________

 

Special Alert: Senate climate change bill under development.

Contact Senators to urge support for transit investment!

 

Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) is developing a new climate change bill and plans to introduce it after Congress returns in September.  The U.S. House of Representatives approved its version of a climate bill, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” (H.R. 2454, “Waxman-Markey” or “ACES”) on June 26.  The House-passed bill makes transit a limited eligible expense under a state energy grant program, but it fails to provide guaranteed transit investment.  APTA members need to contact their Senators to discuss climate legislation. Under a pending proposal known as CLEAN-TEA (which is described below), the Senate climate bill would allocate 10 percent of the Senate bill’s emission allowances for new investment in transit and other strategies that reduce vehicular emissions. A 10 percent allocation would be worth approximately $10 billion annually.   

 

 

In preparation for Senate action, APTA has developed a new policy paper and set of recommendations for the climate bill. The paper summarizes the contributions of public transportation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the revenue implications of a cap-and-trade program and important details regarding the House-passed climate bill.  The transportation sector produces one-third of carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States, and transportation is responsible for approximately 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption, but transit is eligible for less than $1 billion a year of allowance revenue under the Waxman-Markey legislation passed by the House. This level of funding is not acceptable given that the sale of emission allowances from fuel consumed for road and highway use will generate more than $22 billion annually by 2015, according to EPA estimates.

 

 

APTA is working closely with several Senators on the EPW Committee to increase the level of transit investment in the new climate bill.  Last year’s Senate bill (“Lieberman-Warner”) would have provided up to 2.75 percent of emission allowances for transit, worth an estimated $3 billion in new annual funding.  In preparation for a committee markup, Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have joined Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) as co-sponsors of S.575, the Clean Low-Emissions Affordable New Transportation Equity Act (CLEAN-TEA). If added to the climate bill, CLEAN-TEA would set aside 10 percent of emission allowances for transportation investment and institute comprehensive transportation planning efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A 10 percent allocation of emission allowances could be worth approximately $10 billion annually under the ACES cap-and-trade program.  APTA supports CLEAN-TEA and urges members to ask their Senators to support of transit investment. 

 

 

For APTA's Policy paper and recommendations for climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, click here <http://www.mmsend54.com/ls.cfm?r=53278430&sid=7300265&m=806575&u=APTA&s=http://www.magnetmail.net/images/clients/APTA/attach/APTA_Policy_Paper_and_Recommendations_Senate_climate_legislation_8_31_09.pdf> .

 

Summary of APTA Recommendations

 

Recommendation #1:  Climate change legislation must provide substantial new investment in public transportation and high-speed and intercity passenger rail that supplements existing federal transportation funding.

 

Recommendation #2:  Include the “Clean, Low-Emission, Affordable, New Transportation Efficiency Act” (CLEAN-TEA, S. 575) within the Senate climate bill.

 

In support of CLEAN-TEA, APTA has prepared an analysis of the potential emissions reductions from dedicating 10 percent of emission allowances to surface transportation investment.  Current research indicates that CLEAN-TEA could reduce on-road emissions by up to 14 percent under a climate bill. To view the analysis, click here <http://www.mmsend54.com/ls.cfm?r=53278430&sid=7300266&m=806575&u=APTA&s=http://www.magnetmail.net/images/clients/APTA/attach/Emission_reduction_under_CLEAN_TEA_8_17_09.pdf> .   

 

Recommendation #3:  Establish dedicated formula funding for public transportation that promotes energy efficiency in transit operations, expands levels of service, and prevents service reductions related to a cap-and-trade program.

 

APTA has developed a concept program to show how formula funds could assist agencies with reducing energy cost and expanding emissions savings from transit service.  To view the concept program, click here <http://www.mmsend54.com/ls.cfm?r=53278430&sid=7300267&m=806575&u=APTA&s=http://www.magnetmail.net/images/clients/APTA/attach/TIGGER_formula_description.pdf> .

 

ACTION ALERT and SAMPLE LETTER:

 

APTA members need to contact their Senators, particularly members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Finance. When you talk to your Senators, please ask the following:

 

• Urge the Senator or their staff to contact Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) of the Environment and Public Works Committee and other Senate leaders to express support for transit investment in a Senate climate bill.

 

• Explain that transit investment will bring climate revenues back to your state and will accelerate emission reductions from the transportation sector.

 

• State support for transit formula funding within the climate bill and offer examples of how funding could improve transit service in your community (e.g. new hybrid or alternative fuel buses could expand service and reduce operating costs).

 

• Ask your Senator to co-sponsor CLEAN-TEA (S. 575) which would set-aside up to 10 percent of emission allowances for transportation investments, including transit. 

 

A sample letter for your use is provided below: 

 

Dear Senator __________:

 

I strongly urge you to support public transportation investment in climate change legislation. The transportation sector is responsible for nearly one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In contrast, public transportation can significantly reduce emissions from vehicle travel.  Transit use last year prevented the emission of more than 37 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, a level of savings equivalent to the electricity used by 4.9 million households.

 

Climate change legislation provides an excellent opportunity for needed investment in transportation strategies that conserve energy and reduce carbon emissions, but the House-passed American Clean Energy Security Act (H.R. 2454) fails to guarantee any funding for transit.  I urge you to support the CLEAN-TEA legislation (S. 575) sponsored by Senators Carper, Specter, Cardin, Gillibrand, Lautenberg and Merkley.  CLEAN-TEA would dedicate 10 percent of allowance revenue to public transportation and other transportation infrastructure improvements.  This level of investment could reduce on-road emissions by 14 percent under a climate bill. 

 

Feel free to use any of the following ideas to personalize your letter.

 

• Explain how new funding could be used to achieve increased ridership goals, thus reducing emissions. 

 

• Offer an example of how new formula funding for energy-efficiency improvements could improve transit service and reduce operations costs (new rolling stock, facility upgrades, etc.)

 

• Explain how your organization/business will benefit from investment in public transportation, creating jobs in the state -- $1 billion of transitinvestment supports 30,000 jobs;

 

• Explain that the sale of emission allowances from fuel consumed for road and highway use will generate more than $22 billion annually by 2015,according to EPA estimates, but little revenue in the House bill will be reinvested in improving our transportation system;

 

• Explain that a cap-and-trade program will increase energy costs for transit providers above the $3 billion that is currently spent annually on fuel and electricity.  The House bill provides billions of dollars of investment in energy technology and offers free allowances to numerous private industries, but no offsets to costs incurred by public transportation agencies are provided.

 

Americans are now riding transit in record numbers: 10.7 billion trips in 2008, the highest level of ridership in 52 years, but almost half of the population does not have access to any transit service.  Climate change legislation offers a unique opportunity to improve our transportation system while reducing a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.  I urge you to contact Chairman Barbara Boxer, of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and urge her to support more public transportation investment in climate legislation.

Some have already predicted that $20/gallon will be between 2018 and 2024. That gives us 10-14 years to get the alternatives in place.

My best guess is that while rail could be part of the alternative, do not expect a big step backwards.  Personal conveyances will always be favored by over public.  The answer is in how we power them.

Some have already predicted that $20/gallon will be between 2018 and 2024. That gives us 10-14 years to get the alternatives in place.

My best guess is that while rail could be part of the alternative, do not expect a big step backwards. Personal conveyances will always be favored by over public. The answer is in how we power them.

 

...a big step backwards?  I'm not sure that's what rail represents.  I don't doubt that personal conveyances are a necessary part of the transportation system, but big-picture-wise a move toward the center, toward alternatives to personal conveyances, seems to be in order at this time.  Right now video games are favored over outdoor activities, so does that mean we should just roll with it and charge headlong into Wall-E world?  Not really.

I would guess the VAST majority of people do not think group/public transportation is desirable.  I understand the efficiencies, but where will the demand to support these initiatives come from?  $8 a gallon gas would force action, but I am just not sure those forces will move in the direction you want.  I could be wrong.

I would guess the VAST majority of people do not think group/public transportation is desirable.  I understand the efficiencies, but where will the demand to support these initiatives come from?  $8 a gallon gas would force action, but I am just not sure those forces will move in the direction you want.  I could be wrong.

 

The vast majority of kids don't want to go outside.  Therefore, the vast majority of kids should not have to go outside.  Ever.  Just play video games.  Whatever our basest, most nonsensical and destructive whim might be, that is precisely what we should do.  Because we're all 5 years old.

So you know better and just expect people to believe your answers are what is best for all of us?

So you know better and just expect people to believe your answers are what is best for all of us?

 

Of course not.  Your answers are clearly best for all of us.  I was merely suggesting that the discussion should probably not end at "what is everyone's first impulse?"

I guess you kinda blew off the first sentence in that last paragraph....

 

Americans are now riding transit in record numbers: 10.7 billion trips in 2008, the highest level of ridership in 52 years, but almost half of the population does not have access to any transit service.

 

So you know better and just expect people to believe your answers are what is best for all of us?

 

Of course not.  Your answers are clearly best for all of us.  I was merely suggesting that the discussion should probably not end at "what is everyone's first impulse?"

::)

I didn't say my answers are best, I just predicted things are not going to go in the direction you would like.  Also, it's not an "impulse" to desire a private, secure, less exposed mode of transport.

I guess you kinda blew off the first sentence in that last paragraph....

 

Americans are now riding transit in record numbers: 10.7 billion trips in 2008, the highest level of ridership in 52 years, but almost half of the population does not have access to any transit service.

 

Good to hear numbers are up.

I don't have much to add to this discussion but have a question.  I have very strong Libertarian leanings but understand the concept of external economies where government subsidy/taxation is appropriate.  I am also a very strong supporter of public transportation, and use it currently.  The anti-public transportation people baffle me, there position makes no sense economically for sure.  What I am wondering is considering that I am politically disinclined to support government intervention is my support of public transportation primarily driven by early personal experience? When I think of public transportation I do not think of Seattle Metro (which I currently use).  Instead the vision that pops into my head is the Shaker Rapid circa 1970.  Cheap, Fast, Fun, economically viable.  Who wouldn't like that? Is it those kind of experiences that the non-transit people need to convince them and if so how do we do that or are those days just gone? 

I guess you kinda blew off the first sentence in that last paragraph....

 

Americans are now riding transit in record numbers: 10.7 billion trips in 2008, the highest level of ridership in 52 years, but almost half of the population does not have access to any transit service.

 

What does "highest level" mean? The US population has grown so much in the past 52 years that I don't know this is saying much. Per capita, it's still a marked decline.

 

 

Is it those kind of experiences that the non-transit people need to convince them and if so how do we do that or are those days just gone? 

 

I haven't seen any studies, but I would think that positive rail experience is sorely lacking in the US population generally.  I've had great experiences on rail systems in Europe and Asia and would prefer to travel by rail than drive or take a bus. 

 

Yet very few of my friends seem to have ever traveled by rail, and many have only traveled by car or plane.  That's probably typical for the US.  Perhaps we'd all be better off if everyone had to travel outside the US at some point in their late teens or early 20s, just to get a feel for how this country compares and what is available elsewhere.  For the capitalists, consider it checking out the competition.

 

As has been suggested elsewhere with regard to high speed rail, maybe we do need to get at least one high speed rail line running in the US so that more people can experience it for themselves.  If the experience is good, support will grow quickly.  Although if those early-adopters do a poor job running the trains, the barriers will be raised even higher.  For travel in the midwest and to the east coast I would be happy just to see more frequent and more on-time passenger rail options rather than true high speed rail.  100mph along the 3C corridor or to Chicago would be fantastic. 

"Highest level" refers to the total number of trips. This growth has happened despite the portion of the nation's population with access to public transit (especially quality transit) has dropped significantly. The Census' American Community Survey has some good data on this. Furthermore, since 2004, driving has declined each year while public transit ridership has increased. That's a structural change given its multi-year time period. A temporary change is that all travel declined thus far in 2009 due to the economy.

 

 

I don't have much to add to this discussion but have a question. I have very strong Libertarian leanings but understand the concept of external economies where government subsidy/taxation is appropriate. I am also a very strong supporter of public transportation, and use it currently. The anti-public transportation people baffle me, there position makes no sense economically for sure. What I am wondering is considering that I am politically disinclined to support government intervention is my support of public transportation primarily driven by early personal experience? When I think of public transportation I do not think of Seattle Metro (which I currently use). Instead the vision that pops into my head is the Shaker Rapid circa 1970. Cheap, Fast, Fun, economically viable. Who wouldn't like that? Is it those kind of experiences that the non-transit people need to convince them and if so how do we do that or are those days just gone?

 

Well, the purely libertarian solution would be to fund neither the Shaker Rapid nor the Seattle Metro nor the Department of Transportation.  However, politics simply won't allow that.  There are massive numbers of suburbanites now, and as a group, they're not so stupid as to miss the implications of ending public funding of road construction and maintenance.

What I am wondering is considering that I am politically disinclined to support government intervention is my support of public transportation primarily driven by early personal experience?

 

There are many forms of libertarianism and not all of them are anarchistic. In many cases, people claim to be libertarians who are actually fiscal conservatives who have grown tired of the excesses of the Republicans who pretend to be so but actually are in favor of government intervention when it suits their ideology.

 

Paul Weyrich was a fiscal conservative who, nonetheless, found strong economic arguments for funding rail transit.

 

Being a fiscal conservative and supporting public transportation are not inconsistent, especially when you consider the economic cost of the alternatives.

 

Being a fiscal conservative and supporting public transportation are not inconsistent, especially when you consider the economic cost of the alternatives.

 

Also, most "fiscal conservatives" freely support infrastructure spending on roads, so if autocentric transportation infrastructure is fair game, there's no rule that says that rail-centric infrastructure is somehow all that different.

^ That is an important fact that for some reason has to be reiterated over and over to a large portion of the U.S. population. Maybe one day they'll understand.

Alarming news: Senator John McCain has just proposed 20 amendments to a transportation funding bill that have one common theme: Breaking a federal promise to fund long-planned public transportation projects.

 

As one news report said, "McCain's targets range from a light rail project in Sacramento, California to a bus-rapid-transit system in Washington state to a rail extension linking Washington, D.C. to Dulles International Airport in northern Virginia." Other projects, both urban and rural, would be cut in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, North Carolina, and Utah.

 

Aside from one small, token bridge project, McCain's hit list would leave billions in highway earmarks alone.

 

Senators are expected to vote TODAY on these amendments: Please write your senators now and tell them to vote NO on this assault on clean, oil-saving transportation projects - and to encourage their colleagues to do the same.

 

And that's not the only threat.

 

Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has proposed seven additional amendments to block the Department of Transportation from spending any money on clean transportation. Sen. Coburn would completely bar communities from using their federal funding to support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

 

We have to stop this today: Tell your senators to vote against the McCain and Coburn amendments and stop this assault on communities that are building a transportation network for this century, rather than the last one.

 

Thank you for your commitment to a clean, safe, 21st century transportation system!

 

Sincerely,

 

Ilana Preuss

Outreach and Field Director

Transportation for America

This thread has been cleaned. I deleted many articles posted by still-active. It hurt to do so much deleting, but this and other threads need to be returned to active duty ASAP. I don't have time to edit so many articles so they conform to the terms of use.

The immediate response to my email below (POSTED HERE ON UO YESTERDAY) about the attack on clean transportation from Senators McCain and Coburn was truly amazing. And - thanks to activists like you - some of the worst amendments have already been defeated.

 

But now Senator Kit Bond is desperately lashing out at high-speed rail - we hear he's poised to offer yet another destructive amendment to the DOT budget. We must act fast if we're going to beat this back too - the vote is expected today.

 

Tell your senator: vote NO on Kit Bond's proposal to slash high-speed rail funding, then forward this message to your friends to spread the word!

 

Sincerely,

 

Ilana Preuss

Outreach and Field Director

Transportation for America

Tea Party Protesters Protest D.C. Metro Service

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/tea-party-protesters-protest-dc-metro-service/

 

GOP Rep Who Suggested D.C. Metro Hurt 9/12 Turnout Voted Against Metro Funding

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/stimulus-package/gop-rep-who-suggested-d-c-metro-hurt-912-turnout-voted-against-metro-funding/

 

Tea Partiers Mad About Not Getting Metro Service They Didn't Want To Pay Taxes For.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2009&base_name=tea_partiers_mad_about_not_get

 

More proof that the Wingnuts are Stupid

http://brendancalling.com/2009/09/17/more-proof-that-the-wingnuts-are-stupid/

Those read like articles from The Onion, but nope, that's just the world we live in.

From the Streetcar thread:

 

Most metro systems in the US have massive amounts of wasteful spending.  I don't see how it's stupid to point that out when your stated goal is to point out wasteful government spending.  COAST is one organization who I disagree with on this one issue.  Talk about the issue, don't try and make enemy with an entire half of the country.. that's only going to hurt the case for the streetcar.

 

Since when do the teabaggers speak for half the country?

I bet they do

Those read like articles from The Onion, but nope, that's just the world we live in.

 

The main message of these protests isn't "we don't want to pay taxes" it's more along the lines of being against wasteful spending.  A poorly run transit system is wasteful spending.  One that is run well is a good example of public spending.  That is the opinion of many conservatives (me, for example).  I am in full support of mass transit, but I don't have a problem with pointing out wasteful spending within it.

The main message of these protests isn't "we don't want to pay taxes" it's more along the lines of being against wasteful spending.  A poorly run transit system is wasteful spending.  One that is run well is a good example of public spending.  That is the opinion of many conservatives (me, for example).  I am in full support of mass transit, but I don't have a problem with pointing out wasteful spending within it.

 

Bullsh!t. Do you seriously think there's a single person in the US who is in favor of wasteful government spending? Even the most left-wing socialist wants the government to run efficiently and use its resources wisely. If these nutjobs really cared about "wasteful government spending", then where were they when Bush was shoveling trillions of dollars into a black hole in Iraq, or writing billions in blank checks to the same Wall Street players who ran the economy into the ground?

 

I didn't see Rep. Kevin Brady nor any teabagger mention a single thing about WMATA's supposedly wasteful spending. He was upset because his train was too crowded... And this is after he voted against additional funding for Metro, which is already severely underfunded.

 

Yeah, these people seem very concerned about wasteful spending at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. :roll:

 

The teabaggers do not represent the majority of Americans, nor even the majority of mainstream Republican voters. They represent the tin-foil-hat Ron Paul / Lyndon LaRouche / John Birch Society wackos who jerk off to Ayn Rand novels and are convinced that Obama was born in Kenya and that he wants to pull the plug on granny. These are the people who scream "keep government out of Medicare!" with no apparent sense of irony. They are the 20% of the population who are too sociopathic, too crazy, and/or too stupid to cope in modern society, and society is rapidly moving forward without them. And now that a successful black man -- the personification of everything they hate about modern America -- has been duly elected by a clear majority and is fulfilling his campaign promises, their rage is boiling over.

 

rant

 

 

Trains being overcrowded is a result of poor planning on the part of a transit authority.  That's poor use of funds.  If there's a massive event planned and ridership is expected to increase they should run more trains.. the MTA in New York during a Mets game is one example, SORTA in Cincinnati during events is (at least, was) another example.  And yes, there are people who can turn a blind eye to wasteful spending so long as it helps accomplish a certain agenda.  Bush and Obama have both been guilty of this.

 

By the way, 5 minutes on Google and I could make a similar photo of nutjobs on the left.  You can't pick a few stupid signs being held and characterize an entire group of people by it.

I love how you repeatedly assert that Metro's crowding problems are the results of "wasteful spending" without offering a single shred of evidence to back up that claim. Can you cite specific examples of Metro wasting money? Or is that just a convenient right-wing talking point to be used against any public agency regardless of the facts?

 

I hate to break it to you, but Metro is overcrowded all the time. The teabaggers were simply experiencing what every commuter in DC experiences every single day. In order to reduce crowding on a transit system, you need to do one or both of the following:

 

1) Run longer trains.

 

Metro is limited by the number of railcars it has available on hand, and can run a maximum of 8 cars per train. Many, if not most, Metro trains are already 8 cars long. Metro simply doesn't have enough equipment to run 8-car trains all the time. They've ordered new railcars (no thanks to Rep. Brady), but it will be several years before they're built and put into service.

 

2) Run trains more frequently.

 

To run trains more frequently, you need to have more trains available to run, as well as crews to run them (that means lots of overtime pay if you're running extra service for a special event), more yards to store them in, more maintenance shops to maintain them, and a signaling system that can accommodate more frequent headways. All that stuff requires lots of money, yet Rep. Brady voted against funding for Metro.

 

Thankfully, the stimulus plan passed without his vote, and Metro is now rehabbing its 4000-series railcars and ordering new 7000-series railcars to replace older equipment and reduce crowding on the system. They're also upgrading station facilities and repairing elevators and escalators, which are approaching the end of their mechanical lifespan system-wide.

 

Could Metro have run service at rush hour levels in order to accommodate the teabaggers? Sure, if they had the money to pay all the extra overtime that would entail, and if they felt the extra service was necessary. Clearly they felt that that the teabagger protest didn't warrant additional service, and they were probably right. Just because a few out-of-town visitors can't find empty seats and have to stand doesn't mean Metro needs to completely re-work its weekend service patterns.

 

And judging by the girth of the typical teabagger, maybe they should've used CSX instead of the Washington Metro for their transportation needs.... Or if they're such hardcore believers in the magic of the free market, maybe they should have simply avoided public transit altogether and coughed up an extra few bucks for a taxi.

 

rant

 

 

Trains being overcrowded is a result of poor planning on the part of a transit authority.  That's poor use of funds.  If there's a massive event planned and ridership is expected to increase they should run more trains.. the MTA in New York during a Mets game is one example, SORTA in Cincinnati during events is (at least, was) another example.  And yes, there are people who can turn a blind eye to wasteful spending so long as it helps accomplish a certain agenda.  Bush and Obama have both been guilty of this.

 

By the way, 5 minutes on Google and I could make a similar photo of nutjobs on the left.  You can't pick a few stupid signs being held and characterize an entire group of people by it.

but it's so much fun to try and sway public opinion by demonizing "the other" when your arguments can't. :wink:

No amount of facts or rational argument will ever change the teabagger's minds, nor yours. It's usually not even worth the effort to try. If somebody really wants to believe the earth is flat, nothing will ever convince them otherwise.