Thursday, July 26, 2012

Highway Builders to Party Leaders: The Future Is “More Than Just Roadways”

by Tanya Snyder

 

Over the past two weeks, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association has sent letters to the Republican National Committee [PDF] and the Democratic National Committee [PDF], asking them to consider inserting a plank in their platforms about transportation. And they were clear in their letter that, despite being major cheerleaders for road-building, the future they see is multi-modal.

 

They also made a strong argument for transportation as a federal responsibility. To many, this is a no-brainer. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) likes to remind people of the example of the Kansas Turnpike, built in 1954, when transportation was left to the states. Oklahoma ran out of funding for the project — “So for the next 18 months, the turnpike ended in Amos Switzer’s field at the Kansas/Oklahoma border,” DeFazio said. “For months on end, Amos was left to fish drivers out of his field until the start of the interstate system that finished this badly needed roadway.”

 

Conservatives in Congress have been arguing the unthinkable: taking the country back to a state-based system where there’s no federal role in transportation. “We settled that debate with Dwight David Eisenhower,” DeFazio said.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/07/26/highway-builders-to-party-leaders-the-future-is-more-than-just-roadways/?utm_source=July+27%2C+2012&utm_campaign=Tracks-07-27&utm_medium=email

Can't find the article online, but I was reading the latest issue of Aviation Week and came across an article titled "French Uncertainties" in which the author discusses some of the reasons for Air France's recent financial troubles.  One interesting point the article made is that, "Air France has long considered the TGV high-speed train's growing route system as a serious competitor, but avoided acknowledging the obvious.  On short distances (less than 300 miles), airlines cannot compete efficiently and profitably against TGV's serving downtown points."

 

I found this very interesting considering it's coming from Aviation Week.  Even extremely expensive TGV lines are more economical than short haul passenger flights on distances less than 300 miles.  For reference, Cleveland-Cincinnati = 250 miles, Cleveland-Chicago = 345 miles, Cincinnati-Chicago = 296 miles, Cincinnati-Nashville = 272 miles, Cincinnati-Pittsburgh= 288 miles.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/08/advice-passing-massive-infrastructure-referendum/2945/

The damage to its reputation was soon confirmed, when credit rating agency Moody’s declared a "credit negative" for Atlanta and downgraded a bond rating for MARTA, the city’s strained transit authority. Moody’s message was pretty straightforward: "The Atlanta region needs major upgrades to its dated and limited transit system and congested roadways to maintain its long-term position as an influential economic center." It’s an ominous warning for other areas of the country facing similar investment challenges.

 

Now that's a threat. Improve transit or Wall Street will downgrade your city's bond rating.

The damage to its reputation was soon confirmed, when credit rating agency Moody’s declared a "credit negative" for Atlanta and downgraded a bond rating for MARTA, the city’s strained transit authority. Moody’s message was pretty straightforward: "The Atlanta region needs major upgrades to its dated and limited transit system and congested roadways to maintain its long-term position as an influential economic center." It’s an ominous warning for other areas of the country facing similar investment challenges.

 

Now that's a threat. Improve transit or Wall Street will downgrade your city's bond rating.

 

Whoa!

Wonder what Romney's policy will be toward transportation? His new running mate gives some indication (as does Romney's plan to kill Amtrak: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/article/Romney-threatens-to-eliminate-Amtrak-subsidy-if-elected-Enos-Schank-weighs-in-on-potential-implications--32113) based on his recent federal transportation budget....

 

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 11 Comments

GOP Budget Would Slash Transpo Spending, Entrench Oil Dependence

by Noah Kazis

 

With the release of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget proposal yesterday, right wing calls for massive cuts to transportation spending are now enshrined in the GOP leadership’s fiscal plan. Ryan singled out transportation as an area particularly ripe for cuts, criticized the use of gas tax revenues for projects that aren’t highways, and called for transportation spending levels to barely cover half of what President Obama requested in February.

 

Ryan’s budget calls for $704 billion to be spent on transportation over the next decade. That’s $318 billion less than if current spending levels were simply extended forward, according to House Transportation Committee Ranking Member Nick Rahall’s office, and $633 billion less than what Obama requested.

 

The proposal would also radically shift the balance of federal transportation spending toward highways. It promises to eliminate all new intercity rail projects unless they can be established as profitable private enterprises, for example. It also blames the highway trust fund’s deficits on non-highway spending, with “bike trails” specifically singled out. Of course, the real cause of the trust fund shortfall isn’t the minuscule amount spent on bikeways but the declining revenues from a gas tax that hasn’t even been adjusted for inflation since 1993.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/04/06/gop-budget-would-slash-transpo-spending-entrench-oil-dependence/

Interesting articles from Bloomberg:

 

Why Does Transit Cost So Much to Build in the U.S.?

 

With Manhattan's new Second Avenue subway expected to cost five times as much as comparable projects in Europe and Asia, Stephen Smith looks to transit-construction practices from abroad for lessons on how to contain costs in America.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-26/u-s-taxpayers-are-gouged-on-mass-transit-costs.html

 

As fewer people can afford to drive and more people take to the rails, transit and bikes, those who seek to preserve the status quo feel threatened.....

 

8/29/2012

GOP platform calls for ending Amtrak subsidy, high-speed rail funding

 

Yesterday at their national convention in Tampa, Fla., Republicans approved a party platform that calls for ending federal funding for Amtrak  and high-speed rail, and allocating more federal transportation dollars for highway projects instead of other transportation options, such as public transit, bicycling and pedestrian programs, according to national news reports.

 

The platform includes many measures that Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee pushed for during negotiations on the new, two-year $105 billion transportation bill that was enacted earlier this summer, news reports stated.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/GOP-platform-calls-for-ending-Amtrak-subsidy-highspeed-rail-funding--32233#

As fewer people can afford to drive and more people take to the rails, transit and bikes, those who seek to preserve the status quo feel threatened.....

 

8/29/2012

GOP platform calls for ending Amtrak subsidy, high-speed rail funding

 

Yesterday at their national convention in Tampa, Fla., Republicans approved a party platform that calls for ending federal funding for Amtrak  and high-speed rail, and allocating more federal transportation dollars for highway projects instead of other transportation options, such as public transit, bicycling and pedestrian programs, according to national news reports.

 

The platform includes many measures that Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee pushed for during negotiations on the new, two-year $105 billion transportation bill that was enacted earlier this summer, news reports stated.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/GOP-platform-calls-for-ending-Amtrak-subsidy-highspeed-rail-funding--32233#

 

Well that ought to settle it for any urban transit users who were thinking about voting for Romney.

GOP: You are free to travel any way you want, as long as its on government-subsidized highways.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012Comment here

Why Are American Infrastructure Projects So Expensive?

by Angie Schmitt

 

You could hear a collective gasp last month when Amtrak released a plan to upgrade service on the Northeast Corridor with a $150 billion pricetag attached. Many rail advocates expressed shock. The Amtrak plan is hardly an outlier: California High Speed Rail has been dogged by similar cost concerns.

 

While the high cost of rail building seems to generate the most attention, the problem isn’t just with projects that involve laying track. The state of Wisconsin is preparing to spend $1.7 billion on an interchange. Kentucky and Indiana are getting ready to spend $2.6 billion on a bridge. The Portland region will spend at least $3.2 billion on its own bridge/highway. And New York’s car-centric Tappan Zee Bridge replacement is projected to cost in the range of $5 billion. Part of the reason these projects cost so much is that they involved rolling major road widenings into what should be simpler infrastructure fixes.

 

In a recent piece for Bloomberg View, Stephen Smith touched on a factor that contributes to higher costs for both road and rail projects: how governments deal with private contractors.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://streetsblog.net/2012/08/29/why-are-american-infrastructure-projects-so-expensive/

Transportation and infrastructure are among the lowest priorities for the GOP (http://www.people-press.org/2012/01/23/public-priorities-deficit-rising-terrorism-slipping/?src=prc-number). But actions speak louder than polls....

 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2012

Corbett should shift gears on roads and transit funding

 

If Gov. Corbett keeps poking along in the slow lane in deciding how the state should fund critical transportation needs, the costs may include not just crumbling highways and bridges, but motorists avoiding the expensive Pennsylvania Turnpike.

 

News that the turnpike’s finances are threatening to buckle under $7 billion in debt needed to help pay for road and bridge repairs and transit operations represents a dire development. It should be more than enough to prompt Corbett to action, despite his unreasonable no-tax pledge, which also has forced deep cuts to social welfare programs.

 

While turnpike officials assure motorists there’s no immediate danger of a shutdown, there’s no doubt the sprawling toll road — along with the toll-paying public — faces unprecedented financial challenges without a new state plan to broaden transportation funding beyond toll revenue.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq_ed_board/Corbett-should-shift-gears-on-roads-and-transit-funding.html?text=med&c=y

Consider these GOP platform planks which have false and misleading foundations.....

 

"Amtrak continues to be, for the taxpayers, an extremely expensive railroad. The public has to subsidize every ticket nearly $50. It is long past time for the federal government to get out of way and allow private ventures to provide passenger service to the northeast corridor. The same holds true with regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country."

 

"Securing sufficient funding for the Highway Trust Fund remains a challenge given the debt and deficits and the need to reduce spending. Republicans will make hard choices and set priorities, and infrastructure will be among them. In some States with elected officials dominated by the Democratic Party, a proportion of highway funds is diverted to other purposes. This must stop."

 

"Infrastructure programs have traditionally been nonpartisan ... The current administration has changed that, replacing civil engineering with social engineering as it pursues an exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit."

This is predominantly why gas tax revenues are falling -- people are driving less! More fuel-efficient vehicles and spending a small amount gas tax dollars on transit, trains and bikes has far less impact. Road construction advocates want us to forget that people just aren't driving as much so we can keep tapping general taxes to expand a road network that is serving fewer people. We need to shrink the road network -- close lanes on lightly trafficked roads, close roads that parallel others, etc. -- to save the rest of the road network.

 

News from another ODOT....

 

 

Driving Less in Oregon

State transportation department reports that travel fell in 2011

Clark Williams-Derry on September 4, 2012 at 10:00 pm

 

It’s official now: the Oregon Department of Transportation says that vehicle travel dipped last year on Oregon’s state-owned roads.

 

And if you look at the numbers (spreadsheet link), total vehicle travel on state roads and highways dipped to its lowest level since 1997. This is total travel, mind you, not per capita travel.

 

This is largely a confirmation of trends that have been extensively documented. Last week, our report on gasoline consumption found essentially the same thing: we’re using less gas, mostly because we’re driving less. Oregon is ahead of the national curve, but very similar trends are afoot in Washington: at least on state-owned roads, traffic has been flat or declining for about a decade.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://daily.sightline.org/2012/09/04/driving-less-in-oregon/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Twitter

And from a few days ago. A $19 billion federal subsidy to the Highway Trust Fund in the next two years (after $35.5 billion in subsidies since 2008) still won't be enough.....

 

http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/083112HTFCBO.aspx

 

August 31, 2012

 

Congressional Budget Office Releases Updated Highway Trust Fund Estimates 

 

Based on its mid-year review of the federal budget, the Congressional Budget Office published its latest projection of the Highway Trust Fund between 2012 and 2022.

 

CBO estimates that the Highway Account will end fiscal year 2012 with a balance of $8.7 billion and that the Mass Transit Account will end FY 2012 with a balance of $4.7 billion. CBO also estimates that both accounts will be unable to meet obligations at some point in 2015, although the Mass Transit Account may have some difficulties in FY 2014, depending on cash flows into and out of that account. It is important to note that these figures reflect a $18.8 billion transfer to the Highway Trust Fund through the General Fund to help finance these accounts up until 2015.

 

These updated estimates did not include the effects of the earmark reprogramming action that the Obama Administration announced on Aug. 17 (see related story: bit.ly/AJearmark).

 

According to CBO, in comparison to its March 2012 baseline, there were minor changes attributable to the recently-enacted MAP-21 surface transportation legislation. These spending changes include a small increase in the Mass Transit Account and a small decrease in the Highway Account. In addition, CBO notes that estimated revenues have decreased somewhat due to the low interest rate credited to the Highway Trust Fund Balances.

 

The full Highway Trust Fund projection is available at bit.ly/HTFprojection.

 

 

Questions regarding this article may be directed to [email protected].

It doesn't look good for transit advocates that the Mass Transit account is >50% as much in the red as the Highway account.

The latest whimsical look at transportation, brought to you by the Institute for Real World Solutions!

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/52c7e6319a.pdf

Yep, we're spending way too much on choo-choos. Of the highway and aviation spending 50-75 percent of that has come from users, with a 50-percent and decreasing share from users in recent years. Of the passenger rail spending, 55-85 percent of that has come from users, with an 85-percent and increasing share from users in recent years......

 

 

Larger version available here:

http://www.northeastbizalliance.org/federal_spending.png

How about state and local funding too?  I'd love to see a similar graph showing ALL spending on those modes, and adding non-highway roads and local streets too.  That last one is the difficult part, but there's no way it's not a big number.  The trouble is that while you can fairly easily track federal, state, and even local expenditures on highways, aviation, and rails, because it all flows through a small number of government entities, tracking all the spending on local streets and roads would be a monumental task.  There's got to be a way to do it though, and it would be very illustrative of just how much money is spent on roadway infrastructure that gets no gas tax dollars, and very little state or federal funds (usually only earmarked for specific projects on a one-time basis). 

It's very difficult to compile all of that data. But it's important to acknowledge it, especially since local governments spend more general taxes on street/road/storm sewer costs.

^Add to that the cost of private streets, driveways, parking lots, etc. I bet the private portion of the system meets or exceeds the cost of the public portion.

Road/air subsidies: huge, growing & safe; Amtrak’s are small, shrinking & attacked

kjprendergast on September 21, 2012

 

Some graphics tell a story better than words. The above graphic from the Northeast Business Alliance does that very well. It shows how tiny our nation’s federal funding support is for rail and how out of control federal spending is for highways and aviation.

 

Yet rail is constantly under attack by so-called budget hawks who claim we’re spending too much on trains. And this year has seen a renewed assault. Why? For several reasons…

 

READ MORE AT:

http://allaboardohio.org/2012/09/21/road-air-subsidies-huge-growing-safe-amtraks-are-small-shrinking-attacked/

7 Things You Won't Believe Science Says Make You Happy

 

#3. Riding the Subway

 

The participants were so focused on being stuck next to stinky maniacs that they didn't realize how low-stress public transportation can be -- you're free to read, take a nap or just sit quietly with your own thoughts. When you're driving yourself through rush-hour traffic to work every morning, you pretty much stay tense and agitated for an hour or more, with no chance to relax.

 

Read more: 7 Things You Won't Believe Science Says Make You Happy | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_20035_7-things-you-wont-believe-science-says-make-you-happy_p2.html#ixzz27VzR09N1

 

 

 

 

TIFIA response is strong......

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2012/09/full-steam-ahead-for-innovative-tifia-project-assistance.html

Of course he favors it. He's not running for re-elections anymore. And does his later quote mean he doesn't support railroads continuing to own their infrastructure.....

 

LaTourette favors raising federal gasoline tax to meet road, highway needs

By JAY MILLER

11:00 am, September 28, 2012

Retiring U.S. Rep. Steven LaTourette said today that he would like to see an increase in the federal gasoline tax rather than the privatization of roads such as the Ohio Turnpike.

 

The Bainbridge Republican, a panel member at a City Club of Cleveland forum on infrastructure, bemoaned the inability of Congress to find acceptable compromise on what he said should be “a no-brainer” — a comprehensive, long-term transportation bill that keeps pace with the country's transportation network needs.

 

In particular, Rep. LaTourette said, Congress has not been willing to raise the federal gasoline tax, which provides the federal money for roads and other transportation projects. It has been fixed at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1994, and it needs to be raised — and perhaps indexed to inflation, he said.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20120928/FREE/120929824

As fewer people can afford to drive and more people take to the rails, transit and bikes, those who seek to preserve the status quo feel threatened.....

 

8/29/2012

GOP platform calls for ending Amtrak subsidy, high-speed rail funding

 

Yesterday at their national convention in Tampa, Fla., Republicans approved a party platform that calls for ending federal funding for Amtrak  and high-speed rail, and allocating more federal transportation dollars for highway projects instead of other transportation options, such as public transit, bicycling and pedestrian programs, according to national news reports.

 

The platform includes many measures that Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee pushed for during negotiations on the new, two-year $105 billion transportation bill that was enacted earlier this summer, news reports stated.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/GOP-platform-calls-for-ending-Amtrak-subsidy-highspeed-rail-funding--32233#

 

Think about it... if you're a middle-income (or below) individual or family and facing high gasoline prices and other costs associated with driving, or if you just want a lifestyle that doesn't depend on possessing a set of car keys..... why would you vote not only for Romney, but for almost any GOP incumbent or challenger running for Congress.  They are clearly not a party that gives a damn about any of us having options for getting to our jobs, eduction or anything else in our daily lives that involves the need to be mobile.

Even the car companies want to see the gasoline taxes rise slowly but significantly because the free market would dictate how well cars with high MPG would sell rather than government regulating fleet MPG. Small cars would become highly profitable rather than being necessary evils in the product line and it would allow the car companies to slowly adapt rather than having deadlines that require expensive R&D.

October 8, 2012, 8:40 AM

WHY IT MATTERS: Infrastructure

CBS News

The issue:

 

From bridges to broadband, America's infrastructure is supposed to be speeding along commerce, delivering us to work and piping energy and water into our homes and businesses. But just repairing all the breakdowns and potholes would cost tens of billions more than we're currently spending each year. Experts warn the resulting infrastructure and innovation deficit is jeopardizing our global economic competitiveness. Traditionally nonpartisan territory, spending for transportation and other megaprojects is now routinely caught up in politics, with Democrats and Republicans divided over how to pay for public works and which ones.

 

___

 

Where they stand:

 

President Barack Obama has favored stimulus-style infrastructure spending plans, talking up highway, bridge and rail repairs as job creators, and pushed for innovations like high-speed rail and a national infrastructure bank to finance projects with the help of private capital. But Republican opposition to increased spending and taxes has blunted many such plans.

 

Mitt Romney favors less involvement by the federal government in infrastructure, preferring to let states lead the way. Romney shuns the idea that public-works spending is a good way to jumpstart the economy, saying decisions on worthy projects should be based on need and potential returns. Romney also wants to privatize Amtrak by ending federal subsidies for the money-losing passenger rail system. He's OK with borrowing to pay for megaprojects if there's a revenue stream to pay the money back, like tolls or port fees.

Read more at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57527722/why-it-matters-infrastructure/

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2012

America's first Interstate to be abandoned--when and where?

 

  Sometime in the next 5-15 years, a remarkable event could occur. The first section of Interstate or interstate-quality highway will be abandoned somewhere in this country due to a lack of funds.

 

  It will probably be a short, lightly used section of road with a decaying, expensive bridge in the middle of it. The highway department responsible for closing that section of road will try to minimize the significance of the event by calling it a temporary closure. They themselves may not even realize at that moment the closure is permanent. But it won’t be the last abandonment. My home state of Ohio’s stagnant population growth makes it a likely place for this momentous event to happen here first.

 

  What’s even more remarkable is that it may be inevitable. There are many reasons why this will occur: rising construction costs, stagnant gas tax revenue from more fuel-efficient vehicles, high gas prices, a declining middle class, retiring Baby Boomers (75 million Americans) and car-apathetic young people (80 million Americans) that drove 23 percent fewer miles 2001-09 than did the prior generation.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2012/10/americas-first-interstate-abandoned.html

At least some states are reading the tea leaves correctly......

 

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10 Comments

MassDOT Secretary: “We Will Build No More Superhighways”

by Tanya Snyder

 

OK, everybody, pack your bags. We’re all moving to Massachusetts.

 

The Bay State’s transportation secretary, Richard Davey, has launched a “mode shift” campaign, saying in no uncertain terms that it’s time for people to get out of their cars and onto trains, buses, bikes, and their own two feet. His goal is to triple the share of trips taken by those modes, as opposed to single-occupancy vehicles, by improving transit service and active transportation amenities like lighting, sidewalks, curb cuts and rail-trails.

 

Here’s the part that gives me the shivers: “I have news for you,” Davey said at a news conference yesterday. “We will build no more superhighways in this state. There is no room.”

 

Massachusetts has 76,200 lane-miles of roadway, in a state that’s just 190 miles long. That’s a lot more asphalt than any other state in New England.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/10/10/massdot-secretary-we-will-build-no-more-superhighways/

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2 Comments

Five Factors That Will Determine Whether TIFIA Benefits Transit

by Phineas Baxandall

 

Phineas Baxandall is a senior analyst at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

 

Last week, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood touted  his department’s $545.9 million TIFIA loan to construct Los Angeles’ 8.5-mile light rail transit line along the Crenshaw corridor as “just one example of how DOT’s TIFIA credit assistance program extends the value of America’s transportation dollar.”

 

But will public transit financing really be the future of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program?

 

TIFIA has been politically popular partly because people see their own hopes reflected in its broad mandate to provide “innovative” financing through low-interest loans and lines of credit for transportation. Both chambers of Congress offered major increases to TIFIA, while virtually every other program in the last transportation bill saw cuts or level funding. From $122 million for the program last year, the new transportation law provides $750 million this year and $1 billion the next. Groups that had urged the elimination of dedicated federal funding for transit cheered TIFIA’s expansion, while Senate EPW Committee Chair Barbara Boxer triumphantly declared that TIFIA would leverage $50 billion in transportation finance and bring salvation for Los Angeles’s larger regional transit plans. Many transit advocates and metropolitan planning organizations point  to the new money as evidence that their long-fought efforts to improve the otherwise uninspiring  transportation law weren’t in vain.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/10/16/five-factors-that-will-determine-whether-tifia-benefits-transit/

Maybe America is not as advanced as we like to think it is.....

 

October 26, 2012, 5:55 AM2 Comments

A Developed Country Is One in Which Rich People Use Public Transport

By DARIO HIDALGO and MADHAV PAI

 

In a landmark ruling that overturns conventional traffic engineering approaches, the Delhi High Court last week advanced the idea that transportation facilities are for moving people, not cars, and should favor all users, not just the minority fortunate enough to use private cars. In addition, it advocated introducing measures that move people out of cars and into public transportation.

 

The ruling dismissed a petition demanding that the bus corridor from the Moolchand intersection to Ambedkar Nagar in New Delhi be scrapped to create more traffic lanes for private vehicles. The petition, filed earlier this year by Nyaya Bhoomi, claimed that the bus corridor was aimed at harassing commuters and was a waste of public money. It said it resulted in increased travel time for car users and longer idling time due to traffic jams, resulting in wastage of fuel.

 

The case received extensive media coverage and was widely debated, with several arguments for and against the bus corridor presented. Interestingly, the issue also sparked commentary on the inherent class divisions in Indian society, where the rich minority seems to possess a sense of entitlement over a majority of the public resources.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/a-developed-country-is-one-in-which-rich-people-use-public-transport/

A TRILLION FEWER DRIVING MILES?

MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2012

By Phineas Baxandall

Senior Analyst for Tax & Budget Policy

 

It’s now common knowledge that annual changes in the volume of driving no longer follow the old ways.

 

For sixty years, the number of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) rose steadily almost every year. Predicting more driving miles next year was a foregone conclusion, like predicting that the sun would rise or that computer chips would be faster. The only direction seemed to be up.

 

Then, after 2004 per-capita VMT turned downward, falling 6 percent, and leading to a decline in total VMT since 2007.

 

The most recent data are from July, traditionally America’s biggest month for driving. In July 2012, Americans clocked over 258 billion miles behind the wheel, a billion fewer miles than the previous July despite a slightly stronger economy and cheaper gasoline. In fact, you’d need to go back to 2002 to find a July when Americans drove fewer miles than July 2012.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/trillion-fewer-driving-miles

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Why Traffic Deaths Are More Common in Red States Than in Blue States

by Tanya Snyder

 

Public interest journalist Stuart Silverstein at FairWarning.org has uncovered the fact that red states (defined as those that went for Mitt Romney in the last election) have higher traffic fatality rates than blue states (those that went for Barack Obama). The correlation is striking, Silverstein says, but he’s at a loss to explain it:

 

The 10 states with the highest fatality rates all were red, while all but one of the 10 lowest-fatality states were blue. What’s more, the place with the nation’s lowest fatality rate, while not a state, was the very blue District of Columbia.

 

Massachusetts was lowest among the states, with 4.79 road deaths per 100,000 people. By contrast, red Wyoming had a fatality rate of 27.46 per 100,000.

 

The numbers are based on 2010 fatality statistics from the NHTSA.

 

READ MORE AND SEE THE CHART AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/11/20/why-traffic-deaths-are-more-common-in-red-states-than-in-blue-states/

Blue states tend to be more urban.  That means more people driving in cities where the speed limits are lower than on rural highways.  Therefore, the fatality rates are lower.

 

Stuart

 

Still truckin’ — but for how long?

As baby boomers age, nature of transportation likely to undergo another transformation

By  Joan Lowy

ASSOCIATED PRESS Saturday November 24, 2012 7:57 AM

 

 

WASHINGTON — Baby boomers — the giant bubble of people born from 1946 to 1964 — began driving at a young age and became more mobile than any other generation before or since.

 

When the 74 million boomers began raising families, they acquired “his” and “hers” cars, and helped spread a housing boom to the fringes of the suburbs.

 

Traffic congestion spiraled when female boomers began commuting to work like their fathers and husbands. With dual-earner families came an outsourcing of the traditional style of life at home, spurring the emergence of child care, the habit of frequent restaurant dining — and the appearance of more and more cars and other vehicles.

 

About 8,000 “leading-edge” boomers turn 65 every day and will continue to do so for the rest of the decade — a reality that could again reshape the landscape of transportation in the United States.

 

Read more at:  http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/life_and_entertainment/2012/11/24/still-truckin--but-for-how-long.html

As the friend who passed this along to me said, "I'm not sure if this guy has the right answers, but he's asking the right questions"....

 

What is the federal role?

Blog post by Charles Marohn on 20 Nov 2012

 

Last week I spoke at Cook County Active Living Summit in Grand Marais, MN. Grand Marais is in Minnesota's 8th Congressional District, which was represented for nearly four decades by James Oberstar, transportation advocate and powerful member/chair of the House Transportation Committee.

 

Representative Oberstar was there to talk about federal initiatives for biking and walking. He talked extensively about the Safe Routes to School program, Federal spending on trails and "alternative" transportation and the need to support the active living agenda. His remarks were well received; the crowd gave him a standing ovation.

 

While listening to him talk, I made the following comment on Facebook.

 

Listening to former Congressman Jim Oberstar talking about active living, biking and the safe routes to schools program. I believe that...he has good intentions.

 

Read more at:http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/charles-marohn/19176/what-federal-role

^ It was a wise man who passed this on to you.

People are starting to realize that it's time to stop partying like it's 1959.....

 

Arguably the greatest feat of civil engineering of the 20th century, the Interstate Highway System (along with the remainder of the nation's auto infrastructure) stands sacrosanct on the congressional agenda for federal transportation policy. With each passing year, Marohn writes, "nearly every elected official seems to agree that there is value in new highways."

 

But when the federal government channels money into highway construction projects, is it biting off more than local jurisdictions can chew? According to Marohn, "there is a one-way (emanating from Washington DC) tacit understanding that maintenance costs are a local concern." The consequence is that while aggressive expansion of the highway system leads to short-term economic growth, it becomes a white elephant for cities stuck with the maintenance bill decades down the line.

 

"While Our Federal Government is much like the company that boosts share prices in the current quarter so that the CEO can retire, cash out his stock options and take some cushy spot on a board of directors, only to have the entire thing explode in the next quarter. Did the CEO know the thing was going down? Maybe or maybe not, but it is far more likely that he was so focused on the current quarter that he didn't even bother to contemplate it."

Mica drops waiver bid, endorses Shuster

By ADAM SNIDER & BURGESS EVERETT | 11/27/12 9:30 AM EDT

 

MICA DROPS OUT: House T&I Chairman John Mica has dropped his bid to chair the committee in the 113th Congress in the face of term limits and has endorsed Rep. Bill Shuster, according to a Monday letter obtained by POLITICO. In the letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Mica says that Shuster has held two subcommittee leadership posts and “has both the experience and ability to assume this important position for our Conference.” Mica also wrote that it was a “great privilege and honor” to chair the committee for the past two years. Check out the letter: http://bit.ly/UowP7E

 

READ MORE STUFF

http://www.politico.com/morningtransportation/

^so no change expected in the pro-auto anti-everything else policy from the committee (not that I expected any.)

One fiscal cliff fix: Raise the gas tax

By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney November 28, 2012: 10:36 AM ET

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- As lawmakers race to negotiate a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff, some experts say one tax increase should be on the table: a gas tax hike.

 

Currently at 18.4 cents a gallon, the federal gas tax is used primarily to build and repair roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure. The tax raises about $32 billion a year.

 

But that's not enough. The government hands out about $50 billion a year to states and towns to help with road costs. The difference comes out of general funds or has to be borrowed. Meanwhile, the gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993.

 

"Establishing a sustainable resource base for transportation needs to be part of any grand bargain," said Emil Frankel, a former transportation expert in the George W. Bush administration and now director of transportation policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "In the short run, raising the gas tax is the best way to do that."

 

Read more at:  http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/28/news/economy/gas-tax/index.html

Stranded Seniors Need Public Transportation

Print this page

Posted November 26, 2012 in Living Sustainably

 

My parents are among the 8 million senior citizens in this country who are stranded by a lack of public transportation. If we want to spend time together over the holidays, I, or one of my daughters, will drive hundreds of miles to pick them up and drop them back home again. At least my parents have this option, imperfect as it is--many seniors do not.

 

Our car-dependent society poses a real threat to the health and well-being of millions of senior citizens today. Nearly 80 percent of our seniors live in car-dependent suburban and rural communities, according to a 2003 Brookings Institution study.  Half our non-driving seniors stay home on any given day because they have no public transit options. Non-driving seniors make fewer trips to the doctor, fewer visits to friends and family, and fewer trips to stores and restaurants, according to a 2004 study. Seniors who stop driving show more symptoms of depression and are less active outside the home.

 

By 2030, according to government projections, our 65-and-older population will more than double from 2000 levels to 72 million. (And by 2030, I'll be part of this demographic, too.) This generation has had a profound influence on how this country moves: they spawned the two-car family, the suburban exodus, and the traffic gridlock that followed. As boomers age, their travel patterns will change, and they could once again reshape how America gets around.

 

Read more at:  http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/stranded_seniors_need_public_t.html

It's a huge challenge we will be facing, for sure.  The right answer is to build more senior housing in areas that already are effectively serviced by transit, but I fear that instead we will blow through resources by trying to bring the transit to the nursing homes in Avon or Strongsville.  Or even worse, by expanding paratransit, which is ridiculously expensive per rider serviced.

It's a huge challenge we will be facing, for sure.  The right answer is to build more senior housing in areas that already are effectively serviced by transit, but I fear that instead we will blow through resources by trying to bring the transit to the nursing homes in Avon or Strongsville.  Or even worse, by expanding paratransit, which is ridiculously expensive per rider serviced.

 

I think you've hit on an important point.  It isn't just about increasing the reach and frequency of public transportation.  There has to be a concurrent development effort that creates housing nearer to public transportation and other needs.  Going through this right now in trying to find senior housing in Columbus for my Mom.  She's decided (at 89) that she doesn't want to drive any more, but still wants to be mobile. 

 

The majority of so-called "retirement communities have been built out in the "burbs" and are both less accessible to transit and way out of reach financially.  There are a slowly growing number of subsidized senior housing units that are in more mobility-friendly areas, but developers have been slow to reach out to that market.  And it must be growing, because the waiting list for most of these subsidized complexes is from 8 month to a year and a half.

Cross-posted from the freight railroads thread. This is a must read for anyone wanting an outstanding commentary "snapshot" on what is going on in American freight transportation today......

 

The Interstate 95 conundrum

Fred Frailey Sat, Dec 1 2012 12:10 AM

 

This is the whole interstate highway problem in microcosm. Our interstates are crowded and crumbling, and we lack the money to maintain and expand them.

 

Of course, Interstate 95 has a competitor from New Jersey to Florida: CSX. The railroad takes no position in the toll proposal, perhaps wisely. Clearly, it’s to the advantage of CSX to block tolls and starve the highway. By the way, that’s the likely outcome. It is politically possible to finance new limited-access highways with tolls. But I can think of few roads (actually, none at all) that were built as freeways and later turned into toll roads.

 

On the other hand, why isn’t CSX exploiting its crumbling competitor? Driving home to suburban Washington, D.C., traffic in the opposite direction south of the capitol city grinds to a standstill. Trucks seem to occupy half of the space — hundreds, thousands of them.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2012/12/01/the-interstate-95-conundrum.aspx?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TRN_News_Sub_121203_Final&utm_content=

 

That terrific chart is the very basis for the following interview (and the chart doesn't include other data points, such fewer cars trips as Millennials drive 23 percent fewer miles than the prior smaller generation, or Baby Boomers that started turning 65 years old in 2011, or the Middle Class earning the lowest living wage in 27 years in places like Ohio) from earlier this year........

 

“We’ve been talking about this since October of 2005,” says Gene Krebs, a former state representative who now heads Greater Ohio. He estimates a nearly $4 billion deficit for ODOT by 2017.

 

The department is funded by state and federal gas taxes. By his math, factoring in standards for more efficient cars and inflation, ODOT will lose seven percent of its purchasing power every year.

 

So, Krebs says, if the solution were to hike the gas tax, it would have to go up two cents every year.

 

http://wosu.org/2012/news/2012/01/20/whats-next-for-odot/

 

I don't think two cents a year is an unreasonable amount.  That's 20 cents over a decade, hardly a steep increase.

I don't think two cents a year is an unreasonable amount.  That's 20 cents over a decade, hardly a steep increase.

 

Agreed. Yet it's more than what elected officials or the voters are willing to approve, based on recent actions. Americans love their free stuff, until they realize they have to pay for it in other ways.

^Naw, they don't even realize they pay for it in other ways. For that matter, most of them don't realize they pay for it directly.