http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/119_251/outlook-2010-transportation-1005656-1.html

 

Outlook 2010: Transportation

Waiting for Multi-Year Legislation

Transportation May Wait Until 2011

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

 

WASHINGTON — For cash-strapped state and local governments that have critical transportation infrastructure needs, but no money to pay for them, the coming year will be bittersweet.

 

Federal aid from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and possibly another job-creation bill will provide some transportation funding relief to municipal bond issuers, and some high-profile grants are expected to be announced this winter.

 

But it probably will be another year before Congress takes up new multi-year authorization bills for the sector, sources said in recent interviews.

 

Full story at link above:

I guess this is as good a place as any to put this

U.S. scrapped more cars than bought new ones in 2009

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans scrapped more automobiles than they bought last year as the ragged economy reduced demand and some major cities expanded mass transit service, according to a new report by the Earth Policy Institute (EPI)....

 

....The United States, the world's biggest petroleum user, "is entering a new era, evolving from a car-dominated transport system to one that is much more diversified," said Lester Brown, the president of the EPI.

 

While many cities like New York have had to cut mass transit services and raise fares during the recession, Phoenix, Seattle, Houston, Nashville and other cities have expanded or improved mass transit systems.

 

Cities are taking a variety of steps, like adding rapid bus lanes and light duty rail, to fight traffic congestion and air pollution. Some are raising parking meter prices and cutting down the required parking spaces per building, the report said....

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6044OV20100105

 

Wow!

But wait!....... There's more!

 

4,000,000 Fewer Vehicles on US Roads in 2009

 

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/06/4000000-fewer-vehicles-on-us-roads-in-2009/

 

    California, and specifically young people in California, are leading the trend. They are waiting until they are 17, 18, 19, 20, or 21 to get a license and a car, and they are doing it because they can't afford it.

 

  Fewer automobiles is fine with me, but the fact that it is being caused by the poor economy and Peak Oil is disconcerting.

 

  If you think the auto industry in the Midwest is hurting now, wait until we lose 80 million cars by 2030.

 

 

It's not just in California. Several young adults in my extended family here in Ohio have licenses but no cars. Two have graduated from college, can't afford their school loans while living on their own. So they live at their parents' house and drive their cars, often sharing rides to work with them.

 

Don't forget: the Baby Boomers start turning 65 years old next year. So we'll see fewer cars on the road as people retire, go into assisted living or die in addition to economic issues and peak oil.

  Yes, the older generations will stop driving. This is a well known trend. In previous years, the lack of old people driving was more than compensated by the increase in young people driving. Now, the older generation is not being replaced by younger drivers. That's the key.

I know lots of people 16-30 who don't drive or own cars or started driving again after a long hiatus. They simply don't want to deal with all the BS. Of course, it's one thing for a New Yorker to forgo an automobile, but these are Ohioans.

Cross-posted at the Cleveland RTA thread...

It's not just happening in Cleveland. Or in Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo.... And it's not just happening in Ohio. Welcome to a brave new America, or at least it better be....

 

Rough road ahead for public transit

By Mike Rosenberg/ Bay Area News Group

Posted: 01/10/2010 01:01:16 AM PST

Updated: 01/10/2010 01:01:16 AM PST

 

After enduring the most brutal year in the history of Bay Area public transit, train and bus operators are barreling down a track toward bankruptcy.

 

The near-inevitable result will be costlier and longer commutes for all, whether you ride or drive.

 

From BART to Caltrain to Santa Clara VTA, every Bay Area transit agency has increased fares and reduced train and bus service to plug deep budget holes. But the changes have produced fewer riders and even less revenue -- leading some to worry that the transit system has entered a death spiral.

 

Already, more than a million riders are spending extra money and time each day just to get around. And a staggering 66,000 daily riders have abandoned Bay Area transit in the past year, more than enough to pack 40 freeway lanes during rush hour.

 

Six major agencies -- BART, Valley Transportation Authority, Caltrain, SamTrans on the Peninsula, County Connection in the East Bay and Golden Gate Transit -- have lost at least 7 percent of their riders in the past year. Some officials fear they'll never get them back.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_14160305?nclick_check=1

Groups advocate change in gas tax focus

Clean air » Constitutional amendment is required to shift gas tax revenue from roads to mass transit

By Cathy McKitrick

Salt Lake Tribune

Updated:01/07/2010 11:19:36 PM MST

 

The Utah Constitution reserves gasoline tax revenues for highway construction and related purposes.

 

Clean air advocates hope to change that by allowing some of the money to be spent on mass transit.

 

"Everyone can recognize that our air quality is a serious problem," Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, said Thursday. "The medical research of the last 10 years indicates that it's a much more serious health hazard than was previously known."

 

As the Salt Lake Valley continues to fill with people and pavement, Moench's group is convinced that clear action has to happen sooner rather than later.

 

Full story at: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_14144028

Beyond Massachusetts. A New Coalition to Build Jobs.

By Eric Lotke

 

January 20, 2010 - 9:19am ET

 

Okay, there was an election yesterday but I’m not writing about it. I’m writing about something nobody noticed during the election.

 

Lots of people drove to the polls. People traveled by train, walked on sidewalks, or communicated by wireless. Everybody used infrastructure, but nobody noticed it. That’s the trick about infrastructure. Nobody pays attention until the levees overflow. Nobody notices the construction jobs that aren’t created until it’s too late to stop the flood (or save the election).

 

At 11:00 am this morning (EST) the Building America’s Future coalition is announcing its support for an important new piece of legislation, the National Infrastructure Bank. This legislation would create a development bank that pools public and private funds to finance infrastructure construction and repair. On matters ranging from schools to windmills to commuter rail, the bank would generate funds needed for investment and a reasonable return for investors — a classic win-win.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/beyond-massachusetts-new-coalition-build-jobs

^ The financial community noticed....

 

Senate Panel to Weigh NIB

Hearing Looms for Infrastructure Bank

 

Thursday, January 21, 2010

By Audrey Dutton

The Bond Buyer

 

WASHINGTON — The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing next month on the creation of a national infrastructure bank, chairman Christopher J. Dodd said yesterday.

 

The Connecticut Democrat joined a coalition of infrastructure bank proponents, including Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, at a press conference here to urge Congress and the Obama administration to create the bank.

 

The group, led by a group called Building America’s Future, also sent a letter last week to the president asking for his fiscal 2011 budget to provide at least $10 billion to capitalize a national infrastructure bank. The budget request is to be released early next month.

 

Full story at: http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/119_262/national-infrastructure-bank-1006259-1.html

Obama, Biden to visit Florida

 

TAMPA, Fla., Jan. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to announce a big jobs creation plan when he speaks Thursday at Florida's University of Tampa, officials said.

 

....

 

Several local leaders believe the announcement will involve stimulus funding for a high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando, the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times reported Tuesday.

 

Obama, Biden to visit Florida

 

TAMPA, Fla., Jan. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to announce a big jobs creation plan when he speaks Thursday at Florida's University of Tampa, officials said.

 

....

 

Several local leaders believe the announcement will involve stimulus funding for a high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando, the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times reported Tuesday.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/26/Obama-Biden-to-visit-Florida/UPI-41101264526518/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/28/president-obama-delivers-american-high-speed-rail

 

The White House Blog

President Obama Delivers on American High-Speed Rail

Posted by Secretary Ray LaHood on January 28, 2010 at 06:02 PM EST

Cross-posted from the DOT's Fast Lane blog.

 

I have looked forward to this day for a long time.

 

It is a great honor--a great honor--to have President Obama and Vice President Biden in Tampa, Florida, to announce our American Recovery and Reinvestment Act High-Speed and Inter-city Passenger Rail grants.

 

The investments we announce today make rail a viable transportation alternative in many regions. With this historic $8 billion investment by President Obama, we are jump-starting American High-Speed rail.

 

The bulk of today's awards go to new, large-scale high-speed rail programs--projects such as Florida, with $1.25 billion to develop a high-speed rail corridor between Tampa and Orlando with trains running up to 168 miles per hour--and California, with $2.25 billion to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco and points in between with trains running up to 220 miles per hour.

 

In total, 31 states and the District of Columbia will receive awards. In addition to 13 corridor investments, we are also awarding several grants for improvement projects and planning. These efforts on existing routes and emerging corridors will lay the groundwork for future high-speed and intercity rail development.

 

I've said it before, and I believe it even more today: this is an absolute game-changer for American transportation.

 

We will make passenger rail more efficient, providing better service in travel markets across the country.

 

•High-speed rail travel offers competitive door-to-door trip times

•It reduces congestion on key routes between cities

•It reduces transportation emissions

•And, most of all, it creates the jobs of the future, the jobs America needs right now

Look, I am very proud of what our transportation infrastructure helps us achieve every day. Moving hundreds of millions of people and millions of tons of goods from place to place. It's amazing.

 

But it's not good enough. It's the infrastructure of a previous century, one with plentiful energy and no sense of the role carbon emissions play in our health and the health of our planet. And it's not adequate for the growth of our nation's population, its commerce, its mobility.

 

We need an expansive, safe and energy efficient rail transportation network. We need to generate economic development. We need to reposition our infrastructure for the 21st century.

 

As we mentioned last April when we announced the program, our overall strategy has two parts: improving our existing rail lines to make current train service faster and identifying potential corridors for the creation of world-class high-speed rail.

 

Today's awards begin us down the path toward these goals.

 

Now, the particular investments we're making today--they make sense. We're connecting cities that are too close for efficient air travel but--with the highways connecting these cities nearly choked beyond capacity--too far for productive road travel. Cities like St. Louis and Chicago.

 

We know that people already want to travel between these cities; we're here to begin making that downtown-to-downtown travel significantly easier, faster, and more productive.

 

As I've mentioned on this blog before we received many more applications than we had funds to distribute. States and regions and communities across the United States are clamoring for high-speed service.

 

But some areas are just not ready. In some areas, investments to lay the groundwork for increasing the speed and reliability of current service have been deferred and deferred.

 

Today we're fixing that. We've made awards to states to improve existing track, repair tunnels and bridges, and increase the speeds of lines already serving passengers.

 

We can't just put faster trains on old tracks and send them across bridges that need repairs. So, with these targeted investments, passengers will see many benefits in the near term.

 

High-speed rail corridors will offer competitive door-to-door trip times. From Los Angeles to San Francisco, a 2-hour 40-minute comfortable ride from city center to city center will replace a 6-hour trek of fighting traffic to get out of one downtown and fighting traffic to get into another.

 

High-speed rail will create jobs now and for the foreseeable future. We have commitments from over 30 companies in the rail business to create or expand U.S. rail manufacturing should they be awarded contracts for portions of this money. These companies know high-speed rail, and they could become partners to those awarded rail grants.

 

What kind of jobs? Planning rail networks; designing, producing, and laying miles and miles of track; building, installing, maintaining, and operating equipment; constructing or upgrading stations, tunnels, and bridges; operating the routes.

 

It's pretty clear we're talking about a lot of jobs--tens of thousands. And let's be clear about this: that $8 billion will do its job-creation work right here in America.

 

High-speed rail reduces oil use and the environmental costs of the mobility we prize so dearly. Hey, I'm an old-fashioned guy who grew up in the Midwest--I love cars. But let's be realistic; cars are the least efficient method of travel we have, even with our fuel-economy standards. Rail ridership takes cars off the road.

 

Now, before we get too carried away with the very near future, I have to remind everyone about the past. The interstate highway system that we take for granted today did not materialize overnight. It has taken over a half-century, and we're still building onto the network.

 

But, the point is that today we can take it for granted. Our highways take us where we need to go, and the nationwide coast-to-coast system has been a model for the rest of the world.

 

And President Obama’s vision for high-speed rail mirrors that of President Eisenhower, the father of that Interstate highway system.

 

It's also worth pointing out that designing, building, expanding, and maintaining those highways has created job after job after job for decades. When completed, the highways brought people. People brought small businesses and more jobs.

 

We have no reason to expect that developing high-speed rail will not also be an engine of jobs and economic development.

 

And someday--tens of thousands of good-paying jobs from now, one reborn American manufacturing sector from now, and many federal-regional-state and public-private partnerships from now--we will be able to take for granted an efficient high-speed rail network that is equally the pride of our nation and an engine of growth.

 

Until that day, we do have some learning to do. I have seen high-speed rail working in Spain and just being introduced in Russia. Only last week, I heard lessons from the experience of developing a network in Japan.

 

These countries have all seen the future; these countries have all made the commitment that we make today with President Obama's initial investments in Florida and 30 other states.

 

And I assure you that one day, not too many years from now, ours will be the go-to network, the world's model for high-speed rail.

 

Today we embark on the first step of that exciting journey. Today, as promised, we change the game.

 

Ray LaHood is Secretary of Transportation

All, As no surprise President Obama’s FY 2011 budget includes $1 billion for high-speed rail, on top of the $2.5 billion allocated for FY 2010.

 

Worst case scenario? There will be $3.5 billion in federal funding for high-speed rail until September 30th, 2011. That requires a minimum 20 percent non-federal match, meaning that a minimum of another $4.375 billion will be invested in high-speed rail.

 

All of us will be working with Congress to increase the $1 billion amount for FY2011. Please speak up! Go to LinkingOhio.com to tell Congress to at least equal the FY2010 amount of $2.5 billion for HSR. Remember there are still $50 billion in requests pending. That doesn't include any requests likely to come out of the five-route Ohio Hub environmental planning for 90-110 mph trains. That planning could start as early as this spring.

 

All of this is on top of the $8 billion awarded last week which did not require a non-federal match but most applications provided matching dollars anyway.

 

These are remarkable times.....

When will we find out what that means for Ohio?

Not sure. I'm hopeful Indiana DOT will submit an application for money for environmental assessments for Chicago - Ft Wayne - Toledo - Cleveland as well as Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati environmental assessments. Then those corridors would be eligible for federal construction dollars.

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

 

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/02/america-breathes-a-collective-yes-for-highspeed-rail.html#more

 

America shouts a collective "Yes" for high-speed rail

 

Last week we announced the Obama Administration's high-speed and inter-city passenger rail grants. The media has gone through the awards and regional rail plans for using those awards productively, and I am pleased by the enthusiastic and positive response from all over the U.S.

 

America has embraced high-speed rail.

 

Over the past few days, I’ve heard transportation experts around the country collectively exhaling after waiting nearly a year to see how we evaluated the various proposals. State leaders are excited about what this means for their economic future. And the public is thrilled to see the U.S. move full speed ahead toward a 21st century transportation infrastructure that will rival systems in Europe and Asia.

 

"YES," they seemed to all affirm as they finally stopped holding their breath. "It's HERE."

"Yes," said Eugene Conti, head of North Carolina's Department of Transportation and Petra Todorovich, director of America 2050. Said Conti:

 

"This historic day is the culmination of more than a decade of work by state DOTs across the country. States stand ready to plan, build, and deliver. These projects represent the building blocks of our national intercity rail system. They will create good jobs and reinvigorate domestic manufacturing in the U.S."

 

"Yes," said Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jay Nixon of Missouri and Jim Doyle of Wisconsin and governors of other states that had submitted plans demonstrating substantial planning and state financial support. "You really can't underestimate how extraordinary this moment is," said Nixon. "This is a transformative step."

 

"Yes," said state Reps. Terri Austin of Indiana and Connie Pillich of Ohio and other legislators of those states who had bravely committed themselves to voting in favor of a new day for passenger rail in this country. Rep. Pillich focused on economic development: “Sharonville will see fantastic growth as the first stop in the Cincinnati area. It will become the gateway to Cincinnati.”

 

"Yes," said downtown-to-downtown business travelers whose in-transit time can be spent more productively in the seat of a train than behind the wheel of a car. "You can’t just look at the time alone," said Ken Prendergast of All Aboard Ohio, "because people are more relaxed and can be more productive on a train.”

 

"Yes," said Phineas Baxterall of US PIRG and Howard Learner of the Environmental Law and Policy Center and other environmental advocates who want to see anticipated growth in automobile carbon emissions curbed by keeping cars off the road. As the editorial board at the San Francisco Chronicle put it:

 

"A high-speed rail system for a growing state with already overstressed transportation systems and a commitment to reduce the carbon emissions that are threatening the health of the planet for our children and grandchildren certainly qualifies as a sound long-term investment."

 

"Yes," said entrepreneurs like Doc Dockery of Lakeland, Florida, who see opportunities for economic development around increasingly active downtown stations and along proposed new corridors. "This is a great day," said the 76-year old businessman who has championed rail efforts in Florida for many years.

 

"Yes," said the Dallas Morning News--even though Texas was awarded a relatively small grant.

But there was one surprisingly ill-informed “No.”

I was disappointed to see the Washington Post’s editorial yesterday, which pointed to a low-value project that did NOT receive ANY funding! And also to a project they like--the Northeast Corridor--that they claim was given short-shrift.

 

First, the last time a comprehensive environmental study was done on the corridor was over 30 years ago; any attempt to make major service improvements-–something the Administration absolutely supports--will require compliance with National Environmental Policy Act before significant federal investment can be made. Indeed, the Federal Railroad Administration has been working with the states and Amtrak to develop such a comprehensive plan, and looks forward to helping the nine corridor states and DC work through their local priorities to arrive at a consensus vision for investing in high speed rail.

 

 

 

Second, anyone who knows anything about rail in this country knows that no single segment has claimed a greater share of our limited passenger rail investment in the last 30 years than the Northeast Corridor. The Post might have noted this. In 2009 alone, the Federal Railroad Administration provided over $1 billion to Amtrak to make long overdue improvements to bridges, track and signal systems, just to keep the current services running safely and reliably. While much more is needed, there is a practical limit to how much can be spent at one time without taking tracks out of service during hours when critical commuter and Amtrak services must operate.

 

The Washington Post is not alone in media around the country expressing frustration that their rail corridors didn’t get most or all of the money--an understandable view of the start of a major new transportation program. Indeed, the outcry from those whose corridors did not receive funding this round is a good indication of America's desire for enhanced passenger rail service. But to take it a step further and claim that because one corridor didn’t get all of the funding, politics must have driven the decisions, is not only unfounded but harmful to the program.

 

For an example with a broader perspective, look again at the Dallas Morning News. Pointing to the state of Florida, with a Republican Governor and a GOP-controlled legislature, the Morning News recognized that Texas was bypassed for merit, not politics. There's no sour grapes there, only the reasonable demand that "Texas should get back into the competition."

 

And look at The Oregonian whose editorial board also took the long view although Oregon itself did not receive a major award:

 

"The money will reinvent the Portland-Seattle rail link, virtually all of it in Washington, and support more trains that will far exceed their current lumbering speeds .Even though we can't quite hear the cash register ring, this is a very good thing."

 

The reality is that States submitted $57 billion in projects competing for the $8 billion in available funding. The President has been steadfast in his direction to the Department of Transportation that we make merit-based investments as a downpayment on a new high-speed rail program for America. Most observers agree that $8 billion alone will not transform travel overnight, but that our first round of strategic investments can create and save real jobs in the near term while laying the foundation for a transformational new transportation program.

 

The states that were most successful were the states that have been carefully planning and investing significant state resources in passenger rail for the past decade: California, Wisconsin, Illinois and North Carolina. Florida is a noted exception as far as state investment, but the state has been doing good planning for several years.

 

The reality is that the Northeast Corridor states have been standing on the sidelines with regard to high-speed rail; they don't have a consensus plan for improving the high-speed service. Awarding a major grant to a set of states without a plan would be ill-advised.

 

Look, this Administration made good on its word by awarding grants based on merit.

And with President Obama's announcement of these strategic grants, the public and legislators and transportation experts understand for the first time that, "Yes; American high-speed rail is happening."

 

DOT Press Release:

 

DOT 20-10

Monday, February 1, 2010

Contact:  Olivia Alair

Tel.:  (202) 366-4570

 

$79 Billion Budget for the U.S. Department of Transportation Promotes Safety, Infrastructure Investment and Livable Communities

 

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today said President Obama’s $79 billion budget for the U.S. Department of Transportation continues strong levels of investment for safety, the department’s top priority, along with critical investments for infrastructure to generate economic growth and support livable communities.

 

“President Obama’s budget builds on an historic first year for this Department of Transportation,” said Secretary LaHood.  “In addition to making critical investments in our nation’s infrastructure, we jump-started high-speed rail across America, launched a campaign against distracted driving and proposed landmark transit safety legislation. This budget reflects our priorities and values by continuing to invest in safety, livable communities and an improved national transportation system.”

 

Secretary LaHood said the budget promotes safety in a number of areas, starting with a new $50 million incentive grant program to the states to combat distracted driving.  Since Secretary LaHood convened a national Distracted Driving Summit last fall, he has undertaken a nationwide campaign to put an end to the deadly epidemic.

 

The budget further advances traffic safety with $12 million to improve the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Five-Star Safety Rating System, which is used to rank the safety of new automobiles, and 66 additional personnel in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration assigned to highway and vehicle safety issues. 

 

Safety personnel will be added across agencies, with $7 million and 118 people for additional motor carrier safety inspectors; $14 million for the FAA to hire 82 new safety and certification inspectors and safety technical specialists; and $1.4 million to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to continue carrying out their action plan to address pipeline and hazardous material safety.

 

Aviation safety is a top priority, receiving $1.1 billion for NextGen air traffic control technology, an increase of $275 million, 32 percent, over the FY 2010 enacted levels.

 

The budget also places a strong emphasis on transit safety by including $30 million and up to 260 positions to support the Obama Administration’s Public Transportation Safety Program Act of 2009, which the administration proposed to congress last year to ensure a high and standard level of safety across all transit systems. 

 

Recognizing that a strong transportation infrastructure is an engine for future economic growth, Secretary LaHood announced that the budget establishes and provides $4 billion for a National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund (NIIFF) to issue grants and loans in support of projects that provide a significant economic benefit to the nation or a region. 

 

The budget includes an additional $1 billion for high-speed rail, coming on the heels of President Obama and Vice President Biden’s January 28 announcement of $8 billion in Recovery Act funds for states across the country to develop America’s first nationwide program of high-speed intercity passenger rail service. 

 

Secretary LaHood also highlighted the importance of livable communities, and providing greater choices for transportation users through the integration of transportation, housing and commercial development decisions.  This budget provides $527 million for livable communities by establishing an Office of Livable Communities, creating a program to improve local and state project planning and development capabilities, and funding programs that expand transit access for low-income persons.

 

A budget summary document is available at www.dot.gov.

 

 

END

 

Budget Highlights can be found at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/Budget.pdf

On board for fast trains

By the Monitor's Editorial Board The Monitor's Editorial Board – Fri  Jan  29, 3:19 pm ET

 

 

“There’s no reason that Europe or China should have the fastest trains,” said President Obama in his State of the Union speech.

 

Actually, there is one reason that might hold back America from having a much-needed high-speed rail system: a long-term government commitment to fund it.

 

True, the Obama White House has worked up a head of steam in favor of fast trains. It has already dedicated $8 billion to them in the 2009 Recovery Act. And it hopes Congress will spend another $5 billion over five years to keep this idea moving.

 

Together, that would be more than three times the annual budget for Amtrak – a sum as energizing to regular train users as a locomotive whistle.

 

But the new spending won’t complete even one train line that exceeds 150 m.p.h. – the definition of a fast train.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0129/On-board-for-fast-trains

From WIRED:

 

Did cars contribute to mortgage meltdown?

 

"In yet another analysis of the causes behind the current financial crisis, it turns out that vehicle ownership and a lack of access to public transportation may be just as predictive of mortgage foreclosure rates as low credit scores and high debt-to-income ratios.

 

Such are the results of a study, commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council, of foreclosure rates in San Francisco, Chicago and Jacksonville, Florida. The survey found mortgage holders were less likely to face foreclosure if they lived in "compact" neighborhoods with sufficient public transit to make owning a car optional. For example, a hypothetical borrower in the Chicago area with a credit score of 680, a debt to income ratio of 41 percent and a 20 percent down payment would be 2.7 percent more likely to default if the home is in a sprawling suburb instead of a compact urban area...."

 

Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/could-cars-have-caused-the-mortgage-meltdown/#ixzz0eUDWpnMl

^ Seems plain as day.  I hope we see more articles and studies like this.  Eventually people will start thinking about it.

“... because they are in high demand — partly because we have not been building as many of them over the last 60 years ...”

 

Perhaps that's true to some extent, but the shortage of decent homes in "convenient" neighborhoods exists largely because we have let existing city neighborhood infrastructure decline into disrepair and public order and safety decline into lawlessness as we redirected public resources into providing the insfrastructure and services demanded by well-connected developers who build and market sprawl.

 

Just this afternoon I drove through some neighborhoods that were pleasant within my memory, but where I don't go in warm weather any more, or after dark at any time of year. The city's clean-up efforts directed against the drug trade have resulted in the demolition of many vacant or boarded up homes, and sometimes in entire blocks of vacant land where honest, hard-working people once lived.

 

Those three-car garages in the countryside cost a lot. Even we who try to maintain a respectable, less-than-gentrified lifesyle in our established city neighborhoods pay for them.

^there are  a couple of neighborhoods in Cleveland that I've been in (lower east side) that seem eerily semi-rural now.  They were quiet with little traffic.  Lots of vacant lots.  Lots of trees and greenery (It was in the middle of the day in summer on the occasions I was in them).

 

The population of NE Ohio is the same now as it was in 1949.  All we did was spread out creating more infrastructure per capita to maintain.  It's no wonder communities are having such a hard time keeping up with everything from schools to streets to sewer and water lines...

 

I wonder if there is a way to find out how many miles of roads and streets, sidewalks, sewers and water lines and school buildings per capita we have now compared to back then.  That might be a real eye opener for people to see.

 

  Without the overall numbers, you can think of it this way.

 

  Suppose the typical dwelling in 1920 was a 3 story apartment that had 50 feet of street frontage and housed 3 families, each consisting of 2 parents and 3 kids. The same thing happened on the other side of the street. The population per foot of street is 30 people per 50 feet, which means that each person has to pay for 1.66 feet of street including water mains, gas mains, and sewers.

 

    Today the typical dwelling is a single family house with 100 feet of frontage and it houses one family of two people. The population per foot of street is 4 people per 100 feet. Each person has to pay for 25 feet of street.

 

    Even so, the cost of infrastructure is not that much compared to the cost of social services, the Iraq war, etc. Every dollar I spend on federal income taxes is one less dollar I have to spend on the local school district.

^there are a couple of neighborhoods in Cleveland that I've been in (lower east side) that seem eerily semi-rural now. They were quiet with little traffic. Lots of vacant lots. Lots of trees and greenery (It was in the middle of the day in summer on the occasions I was in them).

 

The population of NE Ohio is the same now as it was in 1949. All we did was spread out creating more infrastructure per capita to maintain. It's no wonder communities are having such a hard time keeping up with everything from schools to streets to sewer and water lines...

 

I wonder if there is a way to find out how many miles of roads and streets, sidewalks, sewers and water lines and school buildings per capita we have now compared to back then. That might be a real eye opener for people to see.

The New Metropolis does a far bit of what you're talking about: http://thenewmetropolis.com/

I was watching the local news tonight and came to a realization: having to drive everywhere is such a hassle that much of the local news is dedicated to things that have a negative effect on driving, especially when the weather gets dicey. The entire first half of the 10pm news was dedicated to driving. It's snowing, so they have to spend 10-15 minutes on road conditions. At the same time, there's a crawl at the bottom listing school/business/activity closings because most of them are auto-dependent. Then they had a segment on the Toyota gas pedal recall. After that was video of some car salesmen sneaking away in a Lamborghini and driving 150 on the interstate. I love working on cars (well, sometimes), racing them, watching racing and BSing about them, but I hate all this damn idle driving that most people (including myself) spend hours and hours doing per week.

I was watching the local news tonight and came to a realization: having to drive everywhere is such a hassle that much of the local news is dedicated to things that have a negative effect on driving, especially when the weather gets dicey. The entire first half of the 10pm news was dedicated to driving. It's snowing, so they have to spend 10-15 minutes on road conditions. At the same time, there's a crawl at the bottom listing school/business/activity closings because most of them are auto-dependent. Then they had a segment on the Toyota gas pedal recall. After that was video of some car salesmen sneaking away in a Lamborghini and driving 150 on the interstate. I love working on cars (well, sometimes), racing them, watching racing and BSing about them, but I hate all this damn idle driving that most people (including myself) spend hours and hours doing per week.

You just described the allegory of the cave. Don't repeat what you just said. It might burst a big bubble.

That's why young people aren't as excited about cars as their parents or grandparents were. To older generations, cars represented freedom or an escape. But too much of a good thing ruins it. Now, we spend so much time in/around cars that getting away from them is the new escape for many young people.

 

Don't take my word for it. See the blog below "Rebel without a car"....

 

http://www.ceosforcities.org/blog/entry/2635/rebel-without-a-car

Plus, you don't get laid for having a car anymore.

 

 

 

Scrabble, can you elaborate a little? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by allegory of the cave.

Scrabble, can you elaborate a little? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by allegory of the cave.

This is probably the simplest explanation I could find quickly: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

 

I'm sure there are videos online that explain it too.

 

Basically, most of contemporary American society lives in the cave and sees transit as car-oriented because that's what the puppeteers (policy-makers) want us to see when they make shadows from the light of the fire in the cave (false truth).  But once you leave the cave and see the sun (truth) all the shadows (fallacies) of the cave vanish.

 

When you came to the realization that the time we waste in idle traffic/auto-oriented development needlessly dominates too much of our lives, you left the cave and saw that things do not have to be the way they are.

Scrabble, can you elaborate a little? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by allegory of the cave.

This is probably the simplest explanation I could find quickly: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

 

I'm sure there are videos online that explain it too.

 

Basically, most of contemporary American society lives in the cave and sees transit as car-oriented because that's what the puppeteers (policy-makers) want us to see when they make shadows from the light of the fire in the cave (false truth). But once you leave the cave and see the sun (truth) all the shadows (fallacies) of the cave vanish.

 

When you came to the realization that the time we waste in idle traffic/auto-oriented development needlessly dominates too much of our lives, you left the cave and saw that things do not have to be the way they are.

You might want to describe it as Plato's cave for those of us that haven't thought about this since our intro to philosophy final a decade or more ago.

Scrabble, can you elaborate a little? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by allegory of the cave.

This is probably the simplest explanation I could find quickly: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

 

I'm sure there are videos online that explain it too.

 

Basically, most of contemporary American society lives in the cave and sees transit as car-oriented because that's what the puppeteers (policy-makers) want us to see when they make shadows from the light of the fire in the cave (false truth). But once you leave the cave and see the sun (truth) all the shadows (fallacies) of the cave vanish.

 

When you came to the realization that the time we waste in idle traffic/auto-oriented development needlessly dominates too much of our lives, you left the cave and saw that things do not have to be the way they are.

You might want to describe it as Plato's cave for those of us that haven't thought about this since our intro to philosophy final a decade or more ago.

Geez, ok!  Don't be so grumpy. ;)

This is a truly amazing video that was posted last week on YouTube.......

 

 

I am in awe. Please share it far and wide.

Neat video.  I wish there was as much attention on light-rail as there is on HSR/passenger rail and streetcars.  I suspect light-rail is a tougher nut to crack because that involves engaging the suburbs directly.

In Detroit, the Woodward LRT appears to be as sure of a bet as anything, since the project has a large amount of private financing for it. One of the financiers is Cleveland Cavs majority owner and Detroit billionaire Dan Gilbert.

Love the quote from the trucking association rep. Good idea. Have the government charge you less so we motorists can pay more even though your trucks damage roads many times more than we do....

 

Per-mile fee might not please Pennsylvania motorists

By Matthew Santoni

PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Monday, February 15, 2010

 

Charging motorists for every mile they drive could be more reliable than fuel taxes to pay for bridges, highways and transit systems, but would be hard to sell to motorists, according to a national policy group.

 

A RAND Corp. study released last week concluded there were good reasons to switch from charging gas taxes to charging fees based on how far each car or truck travels. The government gets most of the money for road construction and maintenance from gas taxes, but cars and trucks put more wear and tear on roads while inflation and better fuel efficiency make the fuel tax worth less and less, said Paul Sorensen, lead author of the study.

 

"It's really the miles traveled, rather than the amount of gas consumed, that's driving the maintenance needs," Sorensen said.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_667207.html

I always thought that heavier vehicles caused more wear and tear per mile and also used more fuel per mile, which made it more fair than a per mile tax.  With this per mile rate, a Prius owner and a Hummer owner apparently pay the same mileage rate, though the Prius causes far less road wear.  We'll be setting up a cost structure where those with small, fuel efficient cars have to subsidize the resource hogs.  I also don't understand the complicated ways that they plan on calculating this tax.  Why not just look at the odometer at registration time?  Are they worried about people tampering with it?  That's fraud.  Enforce the law, then.  And if they are going to get as complicated as all this, why not factor in how much wear a vehicle puts on a road per mile and factor that in to the equation?  I'm sure that the trucking industry and the auto industry would never let that happen- the rates will either be flat, or politically negotiated, not based on fair calculations.

 

What needs to happen is legislators need to sack up and raise the gas tax rate.  The article seems to indicate that this would be no less popular than this convoluted mess of an idea.

X:

 

A solid approximation would be that they just have a very low mileage rate but multiply it by the vehicle's weight.  Yes, I know that not all 1500-lb cars are exactly alike in terms of the wear and tear they put on the roads, but it would be a simple system, easy to understand, hard to game, and more accurate than anything equally simple.  (I think it would be at the peak of the f(x,y) curve in which x is simplicity and y is accuracy. :-))

I've been thinking the same thing as far as weight * milage. If we use that method to come up with a milage tax and add that to the gas tax that we've already got, it could raise enough money and be reasonably fair at the same time. I wouldn't want to totally replace the gas tax with a milage tax as that would encourage odometer tampering and end the encouragement for fuel efficency we currently have.

This has been commonly called a weight-distance tax. It has been discussed for decades as a possible way to accurately charge trucks for the amount of damage they to do pavement and bridges. The truckers have effectively killed this idea every time it has come up.

Hah!  Not surprised that they'd be against it, but I didn't think the truckers still had that much political power, especially during times of Republican ascendancy; the Teamsters Union isn't what it used to be, anyway, though they're definitely still there.

The Teamsters backed Nixon and Reagan.

Redirected discussion from the 3C thread.........

 

^ Does ODOT even conduct an environmental impact statement on road building? I doubt it.

 

Yes, they have to if it involves federal funding. But if the road investment shows that traffic will flow more freely as a result, that means there will be lessen air pollution emitted than before. But what road engineers often do is to avoid addressing the issue of comparing that investment to, for example investing public dollars in rail, transit, denser more walkable land use patterns that reduce car use, enhanced telecommuting, and other options. We tend to think only of those dollars as highway dollars -- even though any of the previously mentioned uses would similarly produce more environmental benefits -- and even better economic benefits.

Or how effective a draft document released to the public, knowingly, can turn the tables so easily.

 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on how we should see the 3C funded. I'm not in favor of stealing money from programs designed for highway use for rail use, and that's my final point.

 

OK, if we are to keep things pure, then what about non-user fees and taxes that go into highways, whether taxpayers drive or not? Keep in mind that nearly a million Ohioans do not have access to a private vehicle. An earlier post showed that after user fees (gas taxes, vehicle registraions, etc) were subtracted from the cost of building and maintaining Ohio's roads, the subsidy, paid out of general revenues (non-user) funds amounted to $1.2 billion in 2007. That's every year.

 

If we take your arguments to their logical conclusion, Interstates should be toll roads and the price of gas should substantially increase to cover this loss. It would probably take about a 30 cent per gallon increase to cover this. Then the non-user payments could be directed to things such as bikeways, transit, intercity rail passenger service and other issue instead of being sucked up by roads.

 

In reply to several posts, I've actually advocated tolling rural interstate highways, where there is a high percentage of traffic to justify the costs of repaying back the original federal appropriations (with inflation), to maintain those selected facilities. Interstate 71, between Columbus and Cincinnati, would be a great example.

 

But what you suggested and others have suggested is only a pipedream for the near-term; politics plays a great deal in how these situations are dealt with. It's a political gamble and suicide to say, "let's raise gas taxes by 30 cents to pay for rail that can't be supported any other way." Yeah, people may understand that rail needs subsidies, but they may not understand that to an extent, roadways are cash-whores themselves, not fully supported by their gas taxes. Federal appropriations via the Highway Trust Fund play a huge role in funding these roadways, and it's nearly impossible to get a majority on board to accept that or a gas tax increase to pay for something other than roads.

 

Good, wishful thinking, but politically unacceptable, which is what a lot of this is boiling down to.

This might be polically unrealistic, but at the risk of getting off topic, tolling of interstates, peak pricing, and charging by miles driven makes sense. At some point we will be forced to adopt these measures if we want to maintain our highways.

Well, I do agree with that -- don't get me wrong, they are great ideas, but I just don't see how it'll be justifiable to a public that'll vote down any politician that does that. We all know that there needs to be change, but nothing presented is really going to fly. I like the idea of charging by miles driven, via a GPS receiver installed in a car, but Oregon has tried to push that for years with no luck. But unless it is done nationally, as a wholesale replacement of the gas tax, it just can't work.

 

What I do find interesting and what I do support, is optional GPS receivers that allows insurance companies to give you variable rates depending on the number of miles you drive. Less miles, and within speed limits (or some reasonable tolerance) and your rates are lower.

 

I think that the 3C plan can be well executed, but it's all a big political game. Strickland may support it, but there are many politicians that aren't on board or are in holding, looking to see what happens when a new governor is elected. Dropping the draft plan was a fail waiting to happen and only gave the wrong impression, even if it was only a draft; and giving a timetable and a projected ETA only made it easy for people to figure out the average speed, which wasn't impressive at all. But that's in the past, now it's time to figure out how to handle the aftermath. A few good press releases and some editorials just won't cut it if a new incoming governor shelves the program, or if enough senators get on board to curtail the project.

I actually think the way to start tolling the interstates is with an autobahn lane - mostly it would useful for well-traveled rural intercity spots - 71 would be a prime example - but I could see 65 between Indy and Chicago as another example. Trucks would be verboten. I'd probably have it gated but no actual toll booths, you could only enter every few miles and your time spent on the road would be gathered with road sensors, GPS, and perhaps some extended version of the existing toll transponders. To use the lanes, I'd probably also include a special inspection with fees that okay your car for extended high speed travel.

 

There is variation on this which is the tolled truck lanes that Virginia talked about for 81, but I don't think changing the behavior of the general populace will come with pressure on the truckers.

 

The idea is that one lane would be high speed (I'd guess 100 mph, but even 85 or 90 mph. would be okay). However, the lane would tolled according to the full price of the lane - which would include construction costs, extra police and emergency that comes with higher speed, and a gas tax penalty that driving over 70/75 brings in terms gas usage in most cars.

 

The carrot is to give people the opportunity to get where they want to go ASAP, while at the same time beginning to condition the population to the full cost of the current road system. The fees would hopefully plug some of the larger holes in funding highways, especially in mixed urban/rural states like Ohio.

I really don't want to install a GPS on any of my vehicles.