No amount of facts or rational argument will ever change the liberal'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.

 

Something you state isn't any more of a fact that something anyone else states.  Try and be a bit more open minded and understanding of opposing viewpoints or debates like these won't get anywhere.

No amount of facts or rational argument will ever change the liberal'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.

 

Ah yes, I knew it was coming. The last argument for right-wing ideology when all else fails: The old I know you are but what am I? defense. They can't have a debate based on facts and reason because they'll lose and they know it. All they're left with is "but but but you liberals are just as bad!!"

 

Something you state isn't any more of a fact that something anyone else states.

 

Umm, no, that's not how it works. Here's a free lesson in Logic 101:

 

Facts are things that can be backed up with objective evidence, and they are not open to debate:

 

The sun rises in the east.

The earth is round.

The capital of Ohio is Columbus.

The Washington Metro is overcrowded.

 

Opinions are things that are subjective, and cannot be objectively proven one way or the other:

 

Blue is a prettier color than green.

Skyline makes the best chili.

The Reds are losing because their pitching sucks.

Metro's overcrowding is a result of wasteful government spending.

 

However, even though an opinion is something that cannot be objectively proven one way or the other, we can cite facts as evidence to support of our opinions, and those opinions that have the greatest factual evidence to back them up are considered the most valid. Opinions without facts to back them up, or opinions that are backed up by "facts" that are untrue are invalid.

 

An example of a valid argument:

 

Fact: The Reds have lost 80 games and won 68 games so far this season.

Opinion: I think the Reds are a having a bad season.

Evidence: The fact that the Reds have a 68-80 win-loss record so far.

 

An example of an invalid argument:

 

Fact: The Reds have lost 80 games and won 68 games so far this season.

Opinion: I think the Reds have a good shot at winning the World Series this year.

Evidence: The fact that it's September and the Reds are undefeated so far.

 

See how that works?

 

People who have a track record of consistently backing up their opinions with well-researched facts are considered more credible than people who have a track record of not backing up their opinions with any facts, or backing up their opinions with "facts" that turn out to be untrue.

 

(Side note: these untrue "facts" are called lies, and the people who knowingly cite them in their arguments are called liars. Opinions put forth by liars generally have no credibility, and other people are justified in having negative opinions about a liar's personal character.)

 

People with little or no credibility are generally not taken seriously by people with credibility. When people with little or no credibility complain (i.e., express an opinion) about not being taken seriously by those with credibility, this further erodes their own credibility.

 

So, if you're going to express the opinion that "Trains being overcrowded is a result of poor planning on the part of a transit authority", then you should be prepared to present factual evidence in support of that opinion. So far you have not. I, on the other hand, have presented factual evidence in support of my opinion that trains being overcrowded is not a result of poor planning on the part of a transit authority, but the result of a chronic lack of adequate funding.

 

Try and be a bit more open minded and understanding of opposing viewpoints or debates like these won't get anywhere.

 

I know the right-wing viewpoints because I spouted them myself for the first few years of my adult life. Then I gained some more life experiences and formal education, which forced me to change my opinions to fit the facts of the world. But some people find it more convenient simply make up their own facts so they don't have to change their opinions. (See my side note about credibility above.)

 

You claim to want a rational debate, but you still haven't cited a single example of wasteful Metro's supposedly wasteful spending, nor refuted a single point I made about running longer trains or providing more frequent service. Therefore, you have very little credibility in this debate so far.

 

 

Overcrowding on transit doesn't necessarily mean inefficiency. It is actually quite common. See Tokyo's rail system -- regarded as one of the world's most efficient but also one of its most crowded. And it's like that every day -- not just for special events.

 

Large protests are common in D.C. so I doubt the Metro did anything out of the ordinary to handle the crowds. I've been in D.C. when there were large protests and didn't even know they were going to happen. I didn't find out about the protests until getting to a Metro station and seeing the crowds and asking someone why there was such a crowd on the weekend. Not everyone knew the answer!

 

Anyway, it is not always possible to add more trains. But without knowing all the facts about what portion of the D.C. metro's fleet was available, if additional crews could be put on overtime and stay on budget, etc. etc. I couldn't comment on whether Metro did its best or not. But I can say I expect to see overcrowding on any transportation system during a large event.

 

To me, this is all much ado about nothing.

 

pointless rant

 

 

You're arguing with yourself.  My point was made that the protesters have a legitimate leg to protest against metro because of wasteful spending; I'm not protesting with them but I'll take their side because you're too closed minded to accept their opinion as legitimate.  I agree with KJP that overcrowding doesn't always equate to inefficiency.  The issue of inefficiency is an overarching problem of most government agencies (You made want to read this as a backup for that argument http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1831.cfm), and that's what is being pretested against.  One could say that every transit agency in the US is inefficient to varying degrees, and back it up with facts supporting the opinion that all government spending is inefficient, and have a valid argument.  I don't know why you dismiss them and call them names so often. 

 

To me, this is all much ado about nothing.

 

Exactly.

pointless rant

Blah blah blah blah ....gubment is bad, mmkay.... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ....gubment is inefficient, mmkay.... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

 

If you're going to characterize my argument as a "pointless rant" without bothering to address a single one of my points, and accuse me of being "closed-minded", then don't act so shocked now or anytime in the future when you get the same treatment from me.

 

The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank with a clear political agenda against any government spending at all, just like COAST but on a national level. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you should find more credible sources to back up your assertions.

 

I dismiss the teabaggers and call them names most of them are too stupid to realize how hypocritical it is to rely on public transit and complain about overcrowding on their way to a (ostensible) protest about government spending when that overcrowding is a direct result of inadequate funding. How many of them also collect Social Security checks and rely on Medicare? When you act stupid and say stupid things to the news media, sensible people will dismiss you as being stupid. Deal with it.

 

I dismiss the teabaggers and call them names....

 

Yes, very mature.

Here is WMATA's Approved Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 (PDF).

 

Please cite the parts that are wasteful and inefficient, and state your ideas for how it could be improved.

^ Your rant was completely off topic, and insulting at that.  I don't need a lesson in what facts and opinions are. 

 

As for protesting, I think you're again missing the point.  Just take a glance at the report I linked to and you'll see that in most cases there are plenty of facts to back up the claim that transit is inefficient because it is government funded, and that privately run business models almost always deliver a better product/service for cheaper.  It's the common opinion of many right wingers that transit in this country sucks because it relies so heavily upon public funding and has no need to survive economically. 

transit is inefficient because it is government funded, and that privately run business models almost always deliver a better product/service for cheaper

 

That sentiment may be an article of faith among the libertarian fringe, but it's patently untrue for those of us in the reality-based world. But I love how wingnuts think that if they keep repeating it, it somehow becomes true.

 

If a private business model is so superior, then why haven't a group of investors stepped in to buy the Washington Metro and run it? I'm sure those investors would be happy to make a profit by running subways and buses, and Washington-area taxpayers would be happy to relieve themselves of that tax burden. Why do private traction companies like the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation or the Chicago's Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad no longer exist if they were so superior? What happened to all those private fire companies who would get into street brawls over who gets to put out a fire and bill the property owner for services rendered? If private enterprise is so good, then why do health insurance companies spend 30 cents of every premium dollar for profit and overhead, while Medicare delivers superior coverage while only spending 3 cents for administrative overhead? And everybody knows that private mercenary firms like Blackwater are far superior at fighting wars than our own military. :roll:

 

It must be nice to still live in Ayn Rand's fantasy world, young man... I remember sitting in my mom's basement reading The Fountainhead, too, and thinking about how wonderful it all sounded. Enjoy it now, before you've spent too much time out in the real world and grow out of it. Maybe.

transit is inefficient because it is government funded, and that privately run business models almost always deliver a better product/service for cheaper

 

That sentiment may be an article of faith among the libertarian fringe, but it's patently untrue for those of us in the reality-based world. But I love how wingnuts think that if they keep repeating it, it somehow becomes true.

 

If a private business model is so superior, then why haven't a group of investors stepped in to buy the Washington Metro and run it? I'm sure those investors would be happy to make a profit by running subways and buses, and Washington-area taxpayers would be happy to relieve themselves of that tax burden. Why do private traction companies like the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation or the Chicago's Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad no longer exist if they were so superior? What happened to all those private fire companies who would get into street brawls over who gets to put out a fire and bill the property owner for services rendered? If private enterprise is so good, then why do health insurance companies spend 30 cents of every premium dollar for profit and overhead, while Medicare delivers superior coverage while only spending 3 cents for administrative overhead? And everybody knows that private mercenary firms like Blackwater are far superior at fighting wars than our own military. :roll:

 

It must be nice to still live in Ayn Rand's fantasy world, young man... I remember sitting in my mom's basement reading The Fountainhead, too, and thinking about how wonderful it all sounded. Enjoy it now, before you've spent too much time out in the real world and grow out of it. Maybe.

 

Private transit no longer exists because they were all consolidated by local governments, or put out of business by the automobile business that used to be far more efficient than mass transit.. but has sense ceased to be.  Now that we're seeing a shift back towards mass transit, I would love to see experiments with private run operations again.  The reason we haven't seen anyone try to purchase a metro system is because the current operations are far too gone to be successful privately.  They've relied on taxpayer dollars and no incentive to deliver the service for too long.  It'd be difficult to reverse that trend, from an investor standpoint. 

 

The basic idea is that there are very few services that are better provided outside the realm of a free market.  Police protection, fire, military, etc.  Mass transit may not be one of these things, and I'd be interested to see private agencies in today's world.

 

You're last paragraph is out of line.  I've got a college degree, have worked in the "real world" for two years, and am currently working on a masters and nearing my NCAARB accreditation.  Your experience has been within part of the inefficiency and is clearly clouding your judgment.  I've never read the Fountainhead, either. 

Margaret Thatcher thought the UK's passenger trains would be better off being run by private business. You may want to read up about how well that little experiment of hers turned out.

 

And yeah, I've spent my share of time in the real world, too. 14 years working at various architecture firms in four major cities, with public, corporate, and nonprofit clients, while simultaneously working my way through school part-time and paying for every dime of it with money out of my own pocket. At my current job, I have the same job title and level of responsibility as registered architects with masters degrees from Harvard and Columbia. Education is important, but having a college degree or three doesn't mean your shit still doesn't stink.

^ The point being, he doesn't have a degree, but thinks he is just as good an architect as those that do.  At that age, I would hope you could pay for your own education.

That's not true. I'm better than a few who have degrees.

 

And I didn't have mommy and daddy pay my way through college.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the D.C. Metro has posted guidelines or regulations governing when special service is required, or is it up the discretion of local administrators?  For example, do they look for a certification from the police department that an event is likely to draw a certain threshold of visitors?  Is there a petition process for event organizers to request additional service?

 

As for the public vs. private debate: a private company would likely be charging more at the point of service because it would not enjoy the public subsidy that the existing system does.  Its total costs might be lower, but the prices consumers would see at the point of sale wouldn't be.  Similarly, it might well be happy to provide additional service for a large event--but the event would also almost certainly have to come up with money to pay for that additional service.

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.

 

 

Weyrich was an exception in that he recognized conservative-based reasons for supporting light rail and while there are other conservatives who get it, they are a distinct minority. Most libertarians or conservatives don't take the time to look beneath the surface and make snap judgements that are not fact-based.

 

It never ceases to amaze me that Cato, Reason and Buckeye Policy Institute continually go after those "evil" transit systems or Amtrak, while ignoring the huge taxpayer support highways enjoy, that the size of that support dwarfs that for transit or rail (over $100 billion-$29 bil highway, $9 bil to prop up the highway trust fund or the tens of billions spent to prop up the automakers). They also miss the fact that what we have now is not a free market outcome, but the result of massive government intervention on behalf of the automobile, which destroyed privately owned and operated railroads and transit system in the process.

 

This dogmatic, knee-jerk bias runs counter to their stated free market philosophy, which would mandate that users pay the full costs of driving. This means toll highways, peak pricing, pay parking everywhere, higher gas taxes to make up other costs such as elimination of any general fund or property tax support for roads, yet we seldom hear this. Instead we continue to hear calls for transit and rail funding cuts, continuing this double standard.

 

This purist approach will price many out of their autos and when that happens, how do they get to work? Wide areas of the country has no public transportation, so that is not an option. Also, if we don't have a balanced transportation system we run the risk of the consequences of being dependent on foriegn oil.

 

Yes, we should have an efficient transportation system, but we must balance that against the social needs of he country and national security considerations. Conservatives need to take the time to study issues.

That's not true. I'm better than a few who have degrees.

 

And I didn't have mommy and daddy pay my way through college.

 

Off topic, but scholarships pay for almost all my education, and a loan pays for the remainder.  My parents don't have anywhere near enough to pay for my education, and I don't want to incur to much debt to start out.. which is the reason I had to turn down grad school at Columbia and go to UC for 1/10th the price.  Either way, expertise, experience, and education aren't prerequisites to have an opinion - common sense is.

 

Anyways, as to the private vs public issue and the comparison to cars.. I've always felt mass transit relies to heavily on general tax dollars, while roads essentially tax the users only via the tax on gas, auto registration and titles, and tax when you purchase a vehicle that will be used on the roads.  Meanwhile transit caters to its users by charging them less than the actual cost, and charging people who don't use it more of the cost.  I think that's where the animosity a lot of people have against transit begins, and I'm sympathetic to that to a degree.

Anyways, as to the private vs public issue and the comparison to cars.. I've always felt mass transit relies to heavily on general tax dollars, while roads essentially tax the users only via the tax on gas, auto registration and titles, and tax when you purchase a vehicle that will be used on the roads.  Meanwhile transit caters to its users by charging them less than the actual cost, and charging people who don't use it more of the cost.  I think that's where the animosity a lot of people have against transit begins, and I'm sympathetic to that to a degree.

 

That's a common assumption, and as you state, it accounts for the antipathy of a lot of taxpayers toward public funding of transit.

 

In fact, the dedicated tax revenues fall short of covering the costs incurred by our car- and truck-dependent transportation network. The last figures that I could cite were between $8 and $10 billion in General Fund dollars, mainly from income taxes, at federal, state, and local levels that went into building and maintaining transportation infrastructure for cars and trucks. Those figures don't include the costs of attempting to mitigate environmental damage from emissions and runoff.

 

My information is several years old and I can no longer cite the sources, but perhaps BuckeyeB or Gildone can provide more current info.

I think I have something to add.  I am a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party (called the Loosertarin party by some be case we always loose!).  I am philosophically opposed to government intervention when the private markets can efficiently manufacture and distribute goods and services.  I also understand the concept of economies that are external to the supply and demand system, natural monopolies and Promotion of  the General Welfare.  In each of these circumstances, some government intervention is not only desirable, it is necessary.  I re comend that those of you who consider yourselves conservatives review these concepts.  You will find a thourough discussion of these topics in any macroeconomics textbook. 

Transportation has always been a government function, from Roman highways up through U.S. history: the National Road, the canals, the locks and dams, the federal highways beginning in 1916 and the Interstate highways beginning in 1956, and the airports and air-traffic control.

 

Historically, the only exception was transit, particularly rail. For the most part, private companies built the rails with private capital. But through much of that time, at least through the last century, they were heavily regulated and taxed. Transit systems were privately run, except that, because they were beholden to cities for their rights-of-way, the cities had final say on any fare increases. Intercity rails were taxed on their rights-of-way and faced lots of other regulation as well.

 

This worked for a while, until the federal government started massive subsidies of automobile travel, beginning in 1916 (a huge step for a movement founded, ironically, by the bicycle lobby in the 1890s). These were general dollars -- other than modest gas taxes (fought at every step by the growing auto and engineering lobbies), no user fees built the extensive federal road network that aimed to connect every county seat. Likewise, major work on the Interstate system began before the Highway Trust Fund. While the federal and state governments subsidized the hell out of their competition, railroads continued to be heavily regulated and taxed (you might say they were railroaded).

 

That's the short history (leaving out only the massive government subsidies of the airline industry, which would never, ever, have made a profit if they had to pay for their own infrastructure): Transit and rail are newcomers to subsidies, and receive far less than their competitors, yet are the very ironic whipping boy for uninformed people who like to whine about transportation subsidies.

 

Read: 20th-Century Sprawl: Highways and the Reshaping of the American Landscape, by Owen Gutfreund

I don't have much that's recent right at my fingertips, but I can add that historically highway users only accounted for 65% of funding for roads. Everything else came for non-users in the form of general revenues, proprty taxes, etc.

 

Urbansurfin is essentially correct. Historically railroads and transit were not funded by government. Also, when the Interstate Highway system bill was passed by Congress, they voted $25 billion in GRF money (in 1955 dollars) right out of the treasury to start things off.

 

We have never had a cohesive transportation policy in this country. Government catered to powerful interests and the have-nots starved. That didn't start to change until Sen. Moynihan got the first ISTEA bill passed in 1991.

 

 

It seems to me that if user fees and dedicated taxes fully covered the cost of highway infrastructure, America's bridges and roads wouldn't have become so deteriorated that billions in stimulus dollars won't be enough to fully catch up with all the deferred maintenance and repairs.

 

Railroads were given large swathes of the country by local gov'ts and even the feds, which was in lieu of direct spending - the states had just gotten burnt by their direct investment in the canals.

^ True. Railroads had that significant help at the start, then used private capital (much from Europe), and they were reviled. Then populists reined them in and the heavy regulation started. But the heavy government hand continued on the railroads long, long beyond the need to do so. In fact, the current growth in rail freight occurs as rail regulation continues and truck deregulation continues.

The way I heard it, to build a railroad connecting Omaha and the Missouri River with California, the Central Pacific and Union Pacific each received one section of land (1 square mile, or 640 acres) for each mile of track completed. The sections alternated between the two sides of the track. It was a good deal for the government because the land had little commercial value without access to population centers and the government's cash was going to fight the Civil War when the Central Pacific started construction in 1863. It was a good deal for the railroads because completion of their work resulted in the land increasing in value. It was a bad deal for the Native American people.

 

I don't know of any other significant amounts of railroad that were paid for with land grants; most were built with private capital. A lot of early railroad ventures were highly speculative, and in many cases investors badly underestimated the costs involved and badly overestimated the revenue traffic. Some failed before they ever ran a train, and some were abandoned soon after opening. A lot of investors lost their shirts, so it's easy to understand why the government had to sweeten the pot substantially to get anyone to take on such a huge risk - more than 1600 miles of railroad across wilderness, desert, and mountain ranges, all built with hand labor.

Those land grants weren't free, though.  In exchange, the railroads had to give the government preferential shipping rates.  If I recall correctly from Steve Goddard's book:  Getting There, there were hearings on this in Congress in the 1930s and it was determined that the railroads, through the preferential rates, had paid the government back several times over. 

Of course, we came so close to having a nationalized rail service during WWI because there was a monumental failure throughout the system. Had Wilson not had a stroke, I'd expect that we would have had it fully nationalized during the post-war strikes in 1919 and 1920 and who knows how history would have been different.

It seems to me that if user fees and dedicated taxes fully covered the cost of highway infrastructure, America's bridges and roads wouldn't have become so deteriorated that billions in stimulus dollars won't be enough to fully catch up with all the deferred maintenance and repairs.

 

 

Like I said, this country has never had a unified, cohesive transportation policy and despite progress made since 1991, it still does not. There are rumblings that legislators, such as Rep. James Oberstar want to change this, but it is yet to happen.

 

But suppose we were given a clean slate and told to draft our own transportation policy. What would that look like? I can think of a couple of major points:

 

a) That all user fees, gas taxes and other transportation funding go

    into a single fund.

 

b) That disbursments from this unified fund would be based on:

 

    > Economic development and job creation per dollar spent.

    > Energy efficiency, favoring modes which reduce dependence of

      foriegn oil.

    > Environmental considerations. Green modes go to the head of

      the line.

    > Land use considerations. Reduce or eliminate more sprawl.

    > Cost considerations (most bang for the buck).

    > Upgrading existing vs. new (fix it first).

    > Promotion of transportation choices wherever possible.

    > Local input in decision making process.

 

If we did things based on this sort of criteria, it's a safe bet we'd have a LOT more transit, intercity rail passenger service and walkable neighborhoods than we do now. We'd also see a lot less new highway construction.

I like this^. But I have a few problems with your first bullet item: "Economic development and job creation per dollar spent." I definitely would not put that at the top of the list, but probably would include it somewhere. I think if we place that item too high, too many people will try to use it to justify new, sprawling, truck-oriented distribution warehouses and other status quo-type projects. On the other hand, if we base our transportation decisions on all the other criteria you list, we will end up creating lots of jobs anyway.

 

How about ranking it lower and calling it "Economic development consistent with policy goals?"

Economic development will always be at the top of any elected official's list, at least one who wants to be a re-elected official. But you can have sustainable economic development that recycles resources rather than just consume or destroy them. I'm sure there's an environmental term for this.

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2009/Pages/091002_millar_statement.aspx

 

APTA Applauds Transportation Provisions In Boxer/Kerry -- Statement By APTA President William Millar 

 

"The ‘Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act’ introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) this week potentially offers important new funding to expand access to public transportation and improve our daily travels while reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and oil consumption.  APTA supports their efforts to move our nation toward a vibrant clean energy economy while controlling global warming. 

 

The bill introduces an innovative plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and petroleum consumption within the transportation sector, a much needed element in energy and climate legislation. Transportation is responsible for 28 percent of GHG emissions in the United States and approximately 70 percent of domestic oil consumption.  If funded and enacted, the bill’s plan for transportation will help improve transit service throughout the country and implement other important strategies. 

 

The ‘Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act’ outlines potential direct investment in transit systems to expand and improve service in both urban and rural areas.  Public transportation provides a great solution to address climate change.  Transit use last year prevented the release of more than 37 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of electricity consumption by 4.9 million households.  The bill would also create a competitive multi-modal program to fund transportation projects indentified by new regional and state planning efforts to reduce vehicular emissions.  This program could advance significant projects such as light-rail systems, bus-rapid-transit (BRT) installations, and subway extensions that improve land-use, spur private investment and significantly reduce transportation-related emissions in metropolitan areas.

 

In addition to benefiting the environment, these investments could be a significant source of employment.  Every $1 billion invested in federally aided public transportation capital projects supports approximately 30,000 jobs. 

 

We strongly urge the Senate to provide robust funding for transit and transportation investment in future versions of the ‘Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act’."

Build This: A Real Infrastructure Policy for America

Mike Signer

Chair, E3 Initiative, Progressive Policy Institute

Posted: October 28, 2009 02:44 PM

 

Imagine boarding a sleek new bullet train and rocketing from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA in under an hour. Imagine creating thousands of durable new blue-collar jobs to build and maintain railways, construct and fine-tune railcars, and help design the electrical grid that would support high-speed rail. Imagine a new architecture for concentrating development around sophisticated new urban centers -- and a hungry new customer for clean energy.

 

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-signer/build-this-a-real-infrast_b_337269.html

You've probably heard of the Lundberg Survey. Well, this is from a member of the family who created it decades ago......

 

Gasoline Price Causing Big-Vehicle Sales

by Jan Lundberg, oil-industry analyst

05 November 2009

 

The retail price of gasoline in the U.S. is extremely low, not just compared to the summer of 2008. Subsidies both direct and hidden create a true cost at least a few times higher than the visible price. The actual cost is paid largely through income taxes (such as for wars in the Middle East and domestic infrastructure), in the purchase of goods and services associated with "free" parking, and even medical care for car/fuel related mortality and morbidity. When the average gasoline price is $2.66 a gallon, according to news reports on the most recent Lundberg Survey, the message to the consumer is "Buy that big vehicle."

 

Additionally, taxes on gasoline are several times lower in the U.S. than many other countries enjoying a better lifestyle than that of the U.S. "Our" incentive to drive more and put more carbon in the atmosphere is the de facto policy of the U.S. corporate state. So "our" participation in the U.N.'s Copenhagen meeting on climate change in December is a sham for that reason, among other reasons.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=543&Itemid=1

Interesting proposal from Cong. DeFazio (Oregon) on how to better fund transportation...

 

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Streetsblog

The Wall Street Transportation Tax: Predictably Unpopular On Wall Street

by Elana Schor on November 10, 2009

 

As Congress mulls over solutions to the nation's transportation funding gap, with an eye to passing new infrastructure legislation to reverse the rising unemployment rate, Rep. Pete DeFazio's (D-OR) proposed tax on oil futures is picking up new fans in high places.

 

DeFazio's legislation would levy a 0.2 percent fee on oil futures and a 0.5 percent fee on oil futures options, and a broader version introduced earlier this year would impose a 0.25 percent tax on all stock trades -- a compelling option for a White House wary of voter frustration with the financial bailout and in need of new revenue-raising ideas.

 

Full story at:

 

http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/11/10/the-wall-street-transportation-tax-predictably-unpopular-on-wall-street/

Transit, road contractors expect less business in 2010, coalition poll shows

Progressiverailroading.com

 

About 80 percent of road and transit contractors expect a construction market decline next year despite the effects of stimulus dollars because the multi-year transportation reauthorization bill remains stalled in Congress, according to a survey recently conducted by the Transportation Construction Coalition (TCC).

 

Nearly 70 percent of the 527 respondents said they received stimulus-funded contracts this year. However, 63 percent said they laid off employees in 2009 because of adverse business conditions and 44 percent expected to lay off additional workers.

 

More at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=21991

 

An excellent column from today's New York Times about the continued lack of action on our nation's transportation infrastructure.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/opinion/17herbert.html?_r=1

November 17, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist

What the Future May Hold

By BOB HERBERT

 

What will the United States be like in 20 years when today’s toddlers are in college or trying to land that first job or maybe thinking about starting a family?

The answer will depend to a great extent on decisions we make now about the American infrastructure.

 

This came to mind as I was reading about yet another closure of the problem-plagued San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, which is more than 70 years old. In 20 years, will today’s toddlers be traveling on bridges and roads that are in even worse shape than today’s? Will they endure mammoth traffic jams that start earlier and end later? Will their water supplies be clean and safe? Will the promise of clean energy visionaries be realized, or will we still be fouling the environment with carbon filth to the benefit of traditional energy conglomerates and foreign regimes that in many cases wish us anything but good?

This isn't exactly shocking news, except for who is saying it. And that should scare the hell out of any department of transportation, road builder or transit agency that depends on gasoline taxes....

__________

 

 

BP CEO: Gasoline Demand Peaked in '07

 

November 22, 2009 - NEW YORK -- Gasoline demand in the U.S., which has been hit hard by the recession, will never return to 2007's peak, BP PLC Chief Executive Tony Hayward said in a report by The Wall Street Journal.

 

Contributing to his prediction of lessened demand is greater use of biofuels and increased engine efficiency, according to the report.

 

"We will never sell more gasoline in the U.S. than we sold in 2007," Hayward said in an interview with Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.csnews.com/csn/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004044967

BP actually keeps some of the best data on energy consumption and is often the source of the data used in academic research and publications.  They release a summary of the data each year in 'BP Statistical Review of World Energy'.  The data and its trends are pretty incredible (ex: last year energy usage fell 3% in the US while rose at 8% in China). 

 

Their research department has also been very forthcoming with more in depth data which I have needed recently in some research.  If you are at all interested in energy usage/production the BP report is a fascinating piece to at least skim through.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622

 

BP actually keeps some of the best data on energy consumption and is often the source of the data used in academic research and publications.  They release a summary of the data each year in 'BP Statistical Review of World Energy'.  The data and its trends are pretty incredible (ex: last year energy usage fell 3% in the US while rose at 8% in China). 

 

Their research department has also been very forthcoming with more in depth data which I have needed recently in some research.  If you are at all interested in energy usage/production the BP report is a fascinating piece to at least skim through.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622

 

 

The research department for each division is incredible.  It's ridiculous how much information they manage.

 

When they were in the landmark building, they were better organized than the national library.

Builders of roads expect dim '10

Monday,  November 23, 2009 2:56 AM

By Marla Matzer Rose

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

A difficult year is expected to be followed by a worse one next year for the companies that build roads and bridges in Ohio.

 

An overwhelming majority of Ohio and national firms say they're likely to lay off workers and put off any major equipment purchases in 2010, according to a survey by the Transportation Construction Coalition, a Washington-based trade group.

 

Read more at:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2009/11/23/transport_construction.ART_ART_11-23-09_A8_D4FOE92.html?sid=101

New Report: U.S. Road Funding From Non-Road Users Doubled in 25 Years

WorldChanging Team, 25 Nov 09

by Elana Schor

 

 

The myth that U.S. roads "pay for themselves" thanks to user fees is a subject that's likely familiar to many Streetsblog readers -- but just how much of the nation's highway funding is provided by charging drivers?

 

The answer may surprise even active critics of the current asphalt-centric transportation system. Between 1982 and 2007, the amount of federal highway revenue derived from non-users of the highway system has doubled, according to a study released today by Subsidyscope.

 

Analyzing Federal Highway Administration data dating back to 1957, the dawn of the Interstate system, Subsidyscope researchers found that non-users of the highway system contributed $70 billion for nationwide road construction and maintenance in 2007. In 1982, by contrast, highway contributions from non-users totaled just $35 billion (in 2007 dollars).

 

Read more at: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010807.html

An excerpt from an excellent essay on "Automobility & Freedom by trnasportation blogger Tod Litman:

 

".......driving often does seem to provide unrestricted mobility - but it is ultimately an immature vision, like a child rebelling against household rules. True freedom is not simply selfish indulgence, it also also responsibility to avoid harming other people.

 

Automobile travel contains contradictions: it increases freedom in some ways, it reduces it in others:

 

1. Driving is expensive, so motorists must work more hours or have less money to spend on other goods, a loss of time or fiscal freedom.

 

2. Automobile-oriented land use development disperses destinations, so the faster speeds and direct travel off automobile travel is offset by increased distances, resulting in little or no overall time savings.

 

3. Non-drivers lose freedom, due to reduced travel options (degraded walking and cycling conditions, reduced public transportation and taxi services) and more dispersed land use patterns.

 

4. Crash risk. Fear of crashes reduces people’s (particularly children, people with disabilities and low incomes) walking and cycling mobility, and accident injuries and deaths cause severe losses of freedom, as well as economic costs.

 

5. Automobile travel depends on public resources and subsidies, and imposes non-market externalities. It deprives people of freedoms. For example, consumers are often forced to pay for roads and parking facilities regardless of how much they use them: they lack the freedom to say “no” to such costs or to choose alternatives investments and travel options that they may prefer. Similarly, the freedom to drive a noisy motorcycle conflicts with residents’ freedom to enjoy quiet. "

 

Read his full essay at:

 

http://www.planetizen.com/node/41688

 

Glad to see the president & CEO of a major city's chamber of commerce writing this piece....

 

Begin rail's new era here

Miami Herald, December 3, 2009

BY BARRY E. JOHNSON

[email protected]

 

In 1956, Congress enacted the Federal-Aid Highway Act establishing the United States interstate highway system. Under the act, the federal government provided 90 percent of the cost of constructing the system and the states 10 percent. As a result of its participation, Florida today has an interstate system that includes I-95, I-75, I-4 and I-10, as well as shorter connecting routes.

 

During the period beginning with interstate highway development in the 1950s to 2000, Florida went from the 20th most populous state in the nation to the fourth and Florida's 1950 population of 2,821,000 grew by more than 5 ½ times to 15,982,000, while the U.S. population did not quite double.

 

No Disney World

Imagine, instead, if in the 1950s Florida had decided not to participate in the interstate highway system or had not appropriated the funds to pay its share of the cost of the highways planned for Florida. Florida's interstate highways would not exist and, as a result, Disney World and the Kennedy Space Center may not have come to Florida. In that event, Florida, as we know it today, would not exist.

 

READ THE REST AT:

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1362888.html

The only thing I like about Florida is Miami, Miami Beach and Ft. Lauderdale.

 

Absolutely no mention of Flagler eh?

Even with the sprawl and other problems that the Interstates enabled, Johnson makes some very valid points about the significant and positive economic impacts of that 50's-era transportation investment and why it was so critical for states to pony up their share.

 

Why some of our current decision-makers have such a hard time understanding the same concept of investment & return-on-investment when it comes to rail and transit is frustrating and puzzling.

 

Interestingly, I think Johnson's op-ed is a good way to pro-actively counter the rail critics who seem to have a "highways-only" mentality.

Capital and construction projects are nice, but without operating funding they can be meaningless. Eg: Lorain County Transit just bought new buses with stimulus money, but those will be put in storage starting Jan. 1 due to the LCT shutdown resulting from a local funding shortfall....

______

 

APTA, Oberstar call for transit funds

Thursday, December 03, 2009

 

If the American Public Transportation Association and House Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar are correct, the answer to the nation's jobless rate and economic woes is funding for transit. APTA wants $15 billion for public transportation, while Oberstar wants $69 billion for highway and transit projects.

 

APTA called on Congress to invest at least $15 billion in public transportation citing it's recently completed survey of public transit systems nationwide, which identified more than $15 billion in public transportation capital projects that can be started in 90 days. It is estimated that this investment in public transportation would support and create more than 450,000 jobs. The vast majority of public transit systems also identified additional needs beyond $15 billion for federal assistance to avoid employee layoffs and service cuts.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/apta-oberstar-call-for-transit-funds.html

Freight Trucks Pose Challenge To Highway Planners

 

Published: December 6, 2009

 

CINCINNATI, Ohio —Commercial truck traffic is expected to soar over the next 10 years, leading to further highway congestion unless the U.S. greatly improves its infrastructure, experts say.

   

Ohio is trying to take freight traffic off the roads by expanding the use of rail and barge shipping. The state is using $3.6 million in federal stimulus funds to raise five bridges along a rail line between Cincinnati and Columbus that would allow clearance for double-stacked containers.

   

In Cincinnati, a group of investors wants to build a $26 million public port on the Ohio River that would take containers off barges and put them directly onto trains.

 

Full story at:

http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/article/freight_trucks_pose_challenge_to_highway_planners/27844/

This press release is from Illinois Congressman Dan Lipinski. And I wouldn't call the Highway Trust Fund "near-insolvent" when it is getting its third (and largest) bailout in three years. It is most certainly insolvent......

 

 

240 DER A-31

 

Transportation

 

House-Passed Jobs Bill Includes Measures To Prop Up Depleted Highway Trust Fund

 

The House late Dec. 16 narrowly approved a legislative package (H.R. 2847) that includes $37.3 billion in transportation infrastructure funding and pumps additional money into the depleted Highway Trust Fund, though final action on the measure will be put off until early 2010.

 

House members voted 217-212 to pass a bill (H.R. 2847) Democrats argued would further job-creation efforts through a variety of small business hiring incentives, clean water and energy initiatives, and additional federal spending on transportation and other infrastructure projects that largely mirrors February's economic stimulus package (Pub. L. No. 111-5) (see related report in this section).

 

The measure also transfers $19.5 billion from the general treasury into the near-insolvent Highway Trust Fund that reimburses states for road and transit work. Of that funding, $14.7 billion will go to the highway account and $4.8 billion will head to the mass transit account.

 

The bill also makes several changes to Internal Revenue Service code that are designed to increase the balance of the depleted Highway Trust Fund. It removes a ban on the fund earning interest on its balance, a provision that was written into a 1998 transportation policy measure. The Highway Trust Fund has lost around $8 billion in the 11 years since it was stripped of interest-collecting ability, according to several stakeholder calculations.

 

It also would change how exemptions from the motor fuel tax are paid for. Municipalities and public transportation operators, among others,pay the federal fuel tax rate of 18.4 cents per gallon but are then able to receive refunds on the tax, which have been paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. The measure proposes to shift that burden to the general fund, providing the trust fund with an extra $1.7 billion per year,according to a statement from House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.).

 

Those two tax code changes were proposed by Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) in legislation introduced in May (92 DER G-5, 5/15/09).

 

One-Year Policy Extension

 

In addition to the $37.3 billion in spending, the measure extends current transportation policy through Sept. 30, 2010, which could signal the death of a two-year plan hatched by Oberstar and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) that would shift nearly $125 billion into surface transportation programs (236 DER A-1, 12/11/09).

 

The Senate was expected to push for a one-year extension over the House's two-year proposal, according to a Senate document (237 DER A-18, 12/14/09). But the Obama administration continues to press for an extension through March 2011, six months longer than the House proposal.

 

But with the Senate consumed by a lengthy health care debate, the legislative package will not be taken up on the other side of the Capitol until early 2010.

 

In the meantime, the House easily passed a Department of Defense funding bill (H.R. 3326) that extends transportation policy through February 2010, setting up a January battle with the Senate over the length and content of the next policy extension. But with current policy set to expire Dec. 18, the House also passed a one-week continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 64) as a backup if the Senate is unable to approve the DOD bill before week's end.

 

Funding Details on House Bill

 

The House's jobs package includes $27.5 billion for highway and bridge projects, the same amount provided in the stimulus package. Half of the highway money must be spent within 90 days, a shorter timeframe than was used in the first stimulus package.

 

Also tracking the levels of the earlier stimulus, the new bill includes $8.4 billion for transit. That figure is comprised of $6.15 billion for formula-based capital grants, $1.75 billion for rail modernization, and $500 million for the new starts and small starts programs that fund transit construction. Transit agencies can use up to ten percent, or $615 million, of the funding to pay for operational expenses. Federal support for operations is typically banned for areas with more than 200,000 residents, though the first stimulus also contained a ten percent allowance for operations.

 

The bill also provides $800 million for Amtrak, $500 million for airport upgrades, and $100 million for the Maritime Administration's Maritime Guaranteed Loan program to support shipyard modernization.

 

Also part of the measure is $5 million for an Office of Expedited Project Delivery that would work to speed the approval and construction of major infrastructure projects. The office, which has not yet been created, is included in a six-year policy rewrite approved by a House Transportation subcommittee.

 

The legislation also includes will include around $11 billion in non-transportation projects, bringing the infrastructure portion to around $48 billion.

 

The federal government would pay the full cost of funding projects, as was done in the stimulus package. States typically have to pay for 20 percent of the cost of road work.

Infrastructure Politics Veering Right

By Zach Rosenberg  December 18, 2009

 

Tea Partiers once again descended by the busload on Washington D.C., to rail against government spending. Although the protest clearly was aimed at the health insurance reform bill sitting on the Senate floor, the conversation invariably revolved around the deficit, congressional overspending and the general inefficiency of everything the government does.

 

Transportation infrastructure rarely came up during Tuesday’s rally, but the stagnant economy and transportation-heavy American Recovery and Reinvestment Act raised nearly the same level of ire among Tea Partiers as the bill they were there to protest. Whether the Tea Party Movement represents a coherent political movement is open to debate. But it clearly taps a vast wellspring of fiscal conservatism and suspicion of government that could have implications for our crumbling infrastructure. We’re already seeing this in fights over transportation money the federal government has promised to the states.

 

Increasingly, infrastructure investment and mass transportation are framed by the liberal-conservative divide, turning relatively straightforward municipal issues into cultural and ideological battles. With our transportation infrastructure literally falling apart — the American Society of Civil Engineers puts the repair bill at $2.2 trillion — the United States faces an interesting dilemma.

 

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.wired.com:80/autopia/2009/12/infrastructure-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

Trapped by their own creation.....

 

Older drivers face choice between safety and mobility

By Ashley Halsey III

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

 

For 60 years, Mary Schaaf has had a driver's license, and now, at the age of 86, she finds she's driving more than ever.

 

That's because her friends are not. One by one, they have surrendered their car keys, their independence overtaken by fading eye sight, slowing reflexes and physical infirmities that make navigating the fast-paced roads of Montgomery County too risky.

 

They turn to Schaaf, who drives on, undaunted by the years or the "erratic" younger drivers who share the roads with her.

 

"I pretty much feel comfortable driving in this area because I've been driving here a long time," she said.

 

The generation that gave birth to suburbia and the two-car garage is reaching the age at which driving, for many, no longer seems like such a swell option. As Americans grow older -- one in five will be 65 or older by 2030 -- many are finding that the world that lured them away from city life is losing some of its appeal.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122901256.html