Kentucky says "We're trying to support the dirt-road and river-ferry lobbies!"

 

Kentucky fuel tax decrease to cost state $129 million

Tax drops 4.3 cents on Jan. 1

Published  11:49 AM EST Nov 19, 2014

 

State Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock says a revenue loss of that magnitude is "crippling," meaning less money for road and bridge projects.

 

MORE:

http://www.wlwt.com/news/kentucky-fuel-tax-decrease-to-cost-state-129-million/29819122

 

Excellent news for anyone in Ohio waiting on Kentucky to step forward and rebuild the Brent Spence. 

Excellent news for anyone in Ohio waiting on Kentucky to step forward and rebuild the Brent Spence. 

 

And yet Kentucky folks have been opposed to using tolls to help finance construction of the bridge.

 

So if they're reducing gas tax revenues and opposed to tolls, do Kentuckians expect roads to grow naturally like their blue grass?

Transportation town hall focuses on bikes, peds and public transit

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on November 25, 2014 at 7:00 AM, updated November 25, 2014 at 7:12 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The transportation experience in America is changing, but the way we build transportation is stuck somewhere back in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, when the country was creating a massive interstate highway system.

 

That's according to the keynote speaker at a town hall Monday night in Cleveland that examined Northeast Ohio's transportation networks and how they might be shaped to create more livable communities.

 

"If you want your kids to stay in the area, you are going to build neighborhoods where people can get around both inside and outside of their cars," said Beth Osborne, former acting U.S. assistant secretary of transportation and now a vice president of the advocacy group Transportation for America.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/transportation_forum_talks_int.html

UPS chief and other business leaders urge Congress to pass a bill that helps both commuters and freight

19 Nov 2014 | Under Campaign Blog | Posted by Stephen Lee Davis | 1 Comment | atlanta, business, Chamber, congestion, freight, UPS

 

David Abney, the recently hired chief executive officer of UPS, recently penned an editorial in Bloomberg/BNA that provides an illuminating look inside the priorities of the booming freight company — based in the same city where we hosted a policy breakfast on metro freight movement just two weeks ago.

 

Abney’s comments put a bright line under the importance of Congress updating our country’s outmoded freight policy in the next federal transportation authorization.

 

He argues that Congress still needs to update the federal program from its roots in a 20th century “highway bill” to a truly 21st century “transportation bill” that knits all modes of transportation together. “My sense tells me that to truly impact America’s transportation infrastructure problem, we can’t approach it just from the standpoint of ‘trying to fix our road’ or ‘trying to fix our ports,’” he said. “Instead, we need to think first about the real end goals: 1) getting to and from our destinations and 2) making those commutes as quick, efficient and cost-effective as possible.”

 

When we were developing our policy platform a year ago based on the feedback we were hearing in meetings around the country, a consistent theme — especially when meeting with local chambers of commerce or metropolitan business leaders — was that moving freight and people was often one of their top priorities. Forget about the usual simple debates between spending on maintenance versus new road capacity, or whether a particular area should build this rail line or that highway; chambers especially seem to grasp that a) freight movement is critically important to the local (and national) economy and b) you can’t make a plan to move people that doesn’t also account for the movement of stuff, and vice versa.

 

MORE:

http://t4america.org/2014/11/19/finding-creative-ways-to-move-both-freight-and-commuters-is-a-top-issue-for-metropolitan-business-leaders/

When some "new Federalists" argue that they want federal transportation funding to be controlled/spent by state or local governments, either they don't know it already is or if they do know, then they're lying and have some other ulterior, destructive agenda....

 

Pew States ‏@PewStates  17m17 minutes ago

Why all levels of gov't are struggling w/ #transportation funding: http://ow.ly/FJS0O  #NCSLforum pic.twitter.com/JrEvh04LBX

 

Note that while road lane-miles were increased by 310,000 from 2002-2012, driving flattened out in the same time. If roads were free-market transportation, would lane-miles have increased?

 

Meanwhile, Amtrak ridership grew 50% since 2000 yet system mileage declined. What if we saved the money from unnecessary new lane-miles and invested in rail transportation investments grew in lockstep with use?

 

 

 

 

Any idea what the "Data for 2007 and later years may not be comparable to previous years due to changes in methodology" footnote is about?

Any idea what the "Data for 2007 and later years may not be comparable to previous years due to changes in methodology" footnote is about?

 

Usually, that means the Census Bureau did some busywork they now have to justify.

NOTE: I see in Pepper Pike's profile in today's PD, that among transportation choices, public transportation was listed at ZERO.  I wonder if that's just the fact that there are no bus or train lines within the city?  I'm certain there are a number of Pepper Pike residents who drive into the Green Rd. Rapid station for the trip into downtown.

 

Pepper Pike, Ohio, demographics, other city information

 

http://places.findthehome.com/l/75485/Pepper-Pike-OH#businesses&s=3ooT7h

Any idea what the "Data for 2007 and later years may not be comparable to previous years due to changes in methodology" footnote is about?

 

Since they don't count everything, especially for the American Community Survey, they use sampling and mathematical modeling to estimate data sets for larger populations. Their sampling and modeling changed in 2007, so data estimated before 2007 may not compare with data estimated after 2007....

 

Design and Methodology

Issued April 2009

American Community Survey

 

The 2008 release of the ACS Design and Methodology Report. This ACS Design and

Methodology Report is an update of the first unedited version that was released in 2006. We

released that draft version because of the need to provide data users with information about the

first full sample year of the survey. The version released in 2006 provided design and methodology

information for the 2005 ACS only.

 

This version of the ACS Design and Methodology Report includes updated information reflecting

survey changes, modifications, and improvements through the end of 2007. Many portions of

each chapter have been revised. We hope that data users find this report helpful and that it will

aid in improving the public’s understanding of the ACS statistical design and the methods it uses.

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/survey_methodology/acs_design_methodology.pdf

Transpo jokes: "the fact that there is a highway to hell and only a stairway to heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volumes" #nbs15

 

Engineers reverse the flow of the Chicago River, dam the Colorado & send people to the moon with vacuum tubes, yet... http://t.co/YWEyKyV5Mb

Marnie Primmer ‏@TranspoMarnie  13m13 minutes ago

While 76% of voters say they don't have any choice but to drive, 63% want better mobility choices but only 34% want to ditch car. #TIC15

An ideology of individual autonomy & against the common good is destroying our infrastructure & thus America's future http://t.co/tpGv06te7q

All Aboard Ohio ‏@AllAboardOhio  22m22 minutes ago

Wow. So the alternate plan is to sprinkle some seeds & water into the soil, then watch roads & rails magically grow?

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/244597-bill-filed-to-eliminate-the-gas-tax

NSFW, but definitely worth watching!

 

JOHN OLIVER REINVENTS AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE AS AN EXCITING ACTION THRILLER

http://www.fastcocreate.com/3043075/john-oliver-reinvents-americas-infrastructure-as-an-exciting-action-thriller

Not specific to the U.S., but it was nice to see Pope Francis mention transit and city planning in his latest encyclical:

 

"The quality of life in cities has much to do with systems of transport, which are often a source of much suffering for those who use them. Many cars, used by one or more people, circulate in cities, causing traffic congestion, raising the level of pollution, and consuming enormous quantities of non-renewable energy. This makes it necessary to build more roads and parking areas which spoil the urban landscape. Many specialists agree on the need to give priority to public transportation. Yet some measures needed will not prove easily acceptable to society unless substantial improvements are made in the systems themselves, which in many cities force people to put up with undignified conditions due to crowding, inconvenience, infrequent service and lack of safety."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/the-popes-wise-advise-on-traffic-parking-and-public-transit/

US: Poll Shows Divide Over Increasing Money for Transit

BY JOAN LOWY AND EMILY SWANSON ON JUN 23, 2015

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — A slight majority of Americans prefer living in a single-family house in the suburbs or a rural area with more land, even if it means driving long distances to get to work or run errands, according to a poll by The Associated Press-GfK.

 

However, a significant minority, 44 percent, would choose an apartment or smaller house in an urban area that comes with a short drive to work or the opportunity to use public transportation, bike or walk. The split also has a political aspect: Sixty-seven percent of Republicans and 53 percent of independents prefer suburban or rural living, while 55 percent of Democrats prefer urban areas.

 

The share of Americans who prefer suburban or rural living — 53 percent — is identical to the share who say the government should increase spending to build and improve roads, bridges and interstate highways. About 1 in 3 think current spending levels are about right, while just over 1 in 10 would like to see less money spent on roads.

 

MORE:

http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/14011704/poll-shows-divide-over-increasing-money-for-transit

Fear of heavier traffic, longer commutes puts pressure on US cities to improve transportation

June 26, 2015 12:00 AM

By JOAN LOWY and JUSTIN PRITCHARD Associated Press

 

At 4:35 a.m. each weekday, Stan Paul drives out of his Southern California suburb with 10 passengers in a van, headed to his job as an undergraduate counselor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Some 80 miles and 90 minutes later, the vanpoolers finally arrive to start their workday.

 

On the return trip, Los Angeles’ infamously snarled traffic often stretches their afternoon commute to three hours. Since Paul joined in 2001, he has spent roughly 1½ years aboard the vanpool and traveled far enough to complete a round trip to the moon.

 

“These super commuters, they don’t just give you a day’s work,” he said. “They give you their lives.”

 

Transportation experts say Paul’s long journey offers a warning for the future, when traffic rivaling a major holiday might someday be the norm for many more Americans.

 

MORE:

http://www.post-gazette.com/powersource/latest-oil-and-gas/2015/06/26/Fear-of-longer-commutes-puts-pressure-on-US-cities-to-act/stories/201506260063

The comments following this story are unreal. Don't let the facts get in the way of fear-based opinion....

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153397514625238&id=12795435237&_rdr

Iowa DOT Commissioner says Iowa must reduce it's road system because they can't afford the maintenance:  "We’re the ones. Look in the mirror. We’re not going to pay to rebuild that entire system."

 

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/7/6/iowa-dot-chief-the-system-is-going-to-shrink

 

Hello ODOT - ?

 

How many lane-miles in Ohio?  Around 260,000. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2013/hm60.cfm

 

11.57 million Ohio residents in 2013.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39000.html

 

That means 44 taxpayers per mile. 

 

According to that first article, California has 226 per mile, Iowa only has 27.  Ohio is a lot closer to 27 than 226. 

What's upkeep on a lane-mile?  Then we could start making an argument on what people's share to maintain the road system works out to.

What's upkeep on a lane-mile?  Then we could start making an argument on what people's share to maintain the road system works out to.

 

At an AMATS-sponsored meeting on local transportation funding a few months ago, the number put forth by one of Akron's exurbs' mayors was $300,000 per lane-mile for a repair job, with a weighted average life of 10-15 years.  (And the long-term situation is pretty dire, because his road maintenance budget is about $1,000,000 per year, which would require a useful life of about 75 years to be able to repair each lane-mile of road within its useful life.)

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,21841.msg756026.html#msg756026

States better look at road and rail building in house. Unions are not helping.

???

 

You're more likely to get a nonunion private workforce than public one at this point.

 

I actually agree that there might be some sense in forming municipality-owned construction contractors (and Mayor Plusquellic here in Akron actually proposed doing so before his somewhat abrupt resignation), but for other reasons.

The maintenance is only half the cost component, especially as we keep adding more pavement. Frankly, adding urban highway lane-miles to address peak congestion is a financial loser. It takes up to 250 years for the gas tax revenues from one new lane-mile of urban freeway to equal the original construction cost of that lane-mile. The following instead makes a market-driven case for charging motorists a congestion fee based on when the demand for driving is greatest....

_______

 

“Construction costs for adding lanes in urban areas average $10–$15 million per lane mile. In general, the funding for this type of construction comes from taxes that drivers pay when buying gas for their vehicles. Overall, funds generated from gas taxes on an added lane during rush hours amount to only $60,000 a year (based on 10,000 vehicles per day during rush hours, paying fuel taxes amounting to about 2 cents per mile). This amount is grossly insufficient to pay for the lane addition.”

 

SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08039/cp_prim1_02.htm

???

 

You're more likely to get a nonunion private workforce than public one at this point.

 

I actually agree that there might be some sense in forming municipality-owned construction contractors (and Mayor Plusquellic here in Akron actually proposed doing so before his somewhat abrupt resignation), but for other reasons.

 

I pretty much can guarantee their costs will be higher than their private sector competitors, especially if they are unionized.

Why we have so many potholes, bad bridges and retreating transit systems...

???

 

You're more likely to get a nonunion private workforce than public one at this point.

 

I actually agree that there might be some sense in forming municipality-owned construction contractors (and Mayor Plusquellic here in Akron actually proposed doing so before his somewhat abrupt resignation), but for other reasons.

 

I pretty much can guarantee their costs will be higher than their private sector competitors, especially if they are unionized.

 

Maybe.  But in practical terms, I'm not as convinced.  Government contractors don't have much more incentive to be efficient than government employees, when you get into the practical realities of their deals.  While contractors might have lower wage scales for the actual workers out doing the work, they also have other layers of expense: staff dedicated to sales and marketing, payments to financial institutions for bonding and letter of credit requirements, and such that simply wouldn't apply to a government doing its work in-house.

 

I won't dig too much deeper into it in this topic because I'm actually not even necessarily thinking about a predominantly transportation-infrastructure construction contractor.  The mayor's proposal was primarily aimed at building an in-house workforce for the enormous waste infrastructure projects that a federal judge has ordered the city to build.  There could also be demand for reconstruction of city-owned (land bank) housing, and of course for transportation infrastructure as well.

So if Millennials decided transportation policy, we might have higher gas taxes and more of it spent on public transit...

 

http://www.frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/millennials-are-ok-gas-tax-dont-much-care-about-highways#sthash.H6QaychZ.uxfs&st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/daRkMrxfou

So if Millennials decided transportation policy, we might have higher gas taxes and more of it spent on public transit...

 

http://www.frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/millennials-are-ok-gas-tax-dont-much-care-about-highways#sthash.H6QaychZ.uxfs&st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/daRkMrxfou

 

One day, KJP. One day soon...

One day, KJP. One day soon...

 

I'll be in the old folks home by then.

InfrastructureUSA ‏@InfraUSA  3m3 minutes ago

.@TRIP_Inc outlines #Ohio's opportunities & challenges moving forward to address their aging… http://www.infrastructureusa.org/modernizing-ohios-transportation-system/

The real reason American public transportation is such a disaster

 

Updated by Joseph Stromberg on August 10, 2015, 5:49 p.m. ET

 

This article is part of a series about the past, present, and future of commuting in America.

 

The US spends a ton of money on public transportation. So why is it so terrible?

 

American buses, subways, and light rail lines consistently have lower ridership levels, fewer service hours, and longer waits between trains than those in virtually every comparably wealthy European and Asian country. At the same time, a much greater percentage of US public transit costs are subsidized by public tax dollars.

 

In other words, we pay more for transit and get far less — basically the worst of all worlds.

 

Many people try to explain this paradox by pointing to US history and geography: Most of our cities and suburbs were built out after the 1950s, when the car became the dominant mode of transportation. Consequently, we have sprawling, auto-centric metropolises that just can't be easily served by public transportation.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses

 

 

"Although history and geography are partly to blame, there's a deeper reason why American public transportation is so terrible. European, Asian, and Canadian cities treat it as a vital public utility. Most American policymakers — and voters — see transit as a social welfare program."

 

This.  And that inherently makes it a partisan issue because of the signaling built into our current political lexicon.  Even public transit's defenders often focus strongly on the plight of those who can't afford a car rather than why someone might want to use a mass transit system even if you're perfectly able to afford a car.  It also shapes institutional priorities away from those that might matter more to white-collar professionals.

^I think the "social welfare" rhetoric comes more from people who are hardened against the poor and, thus, look at transit as a tool for leveling the playing field.  Thus, they are also anti-transit.  Even though I think this mentality permeates many cities in this country, change is afoot and it's being driven by well-educated, financially-secure millennials who are rejecting the homogenous mall-big box strip/cul-de-sac culture of their parents and are opting to live in urban environments where cars are often seen as a nuisance and quality transit is desired.

 

Look here in Cleveland at what we have been celebrating this week: the new, relocated Red Line Rapid station in Little Italy.  Last I looked, there's not a poor income track within at least a half mile-to a mile of this new station (like lower Glenville and East Cleveland northbound on streets like E. 115 or eastbound on Euclid under the bridge).  Little Italy certainly is not poor and within walking distance are some of Cleveland's priciest new apartments at Uptown, some asking upwards of $1,600 - 2,000/month (with some 2brs approaching $3,000/mo).  We're also excited for the Intesa TOD development adjacent to the station where tech-jobs will likely be located along with some mid/high end apts along with small student studios (and with the tuition at places like CWRU and CIA, these kids' parents are less likely to be poor as well).

 

Even Salt Lake City, perhaps the most conservative major metro area in the US, is going bigtime into transit with an expanding LRT and commuter rail network... So rhetoric is one thing; reality is another.  Clearly the USA put itself behind the 8-ball as the article noted with its regressive views toward growth and transit.  But we are turning things around, and places like Cleveland, and in extreme cases, a cities like Los Angeles are manifesting this change.

^I think the "social welfare" rhetoric comes more from people who are hardened against the poor and, thus, look at transit as a tool for leveling the playing field.

 

No. 

 

Just no.

 

Both KJP and I have mentioned that when the GCRTA merger first happened, there was resistance to expanding service in more affluent areas.  It was spearheaded by Norman Krumholtz, who railed against having the system serve "fat cats".  Inevitably, that meant lowest common denominator service, which is not going to appeal to people with options.

 

 

^I think the "social welfare" rhetoric comes more from people who are hardened against the poor and, thus, look at transit as a tool for leveling the playing field.

 

No. 

 

Just no.

 

Both KJP and I have mentioned that when the GCRTA merger first happened, there was resistance to expanding service in more affluent areas.  It was spearheaded by Norman Krumholtz, who railed against having the system serve "fat cats".  Inevitably, that meant lowest common denominator service, which is not going to appeal to people with options.

 

 

 

Krumholz is the exception to the rule: a hard lefty who fought against rail, most notably the extension of the Green Line to I-271 in the late 1970s.  He was a 60s radical... You cannot deny that the biggest opposition to transit is from the right.  To them it's just more government spending for the poor.  Many on the right believe: get a job, get a car and move away from the city.

(Stay with me, this will come back to transit at the end...)

 

 

This American Life just ran a two-part series talking about improving bad public schools in urban, largely black areas. Part 1 focused on a unique situation where the mostly black Normandy School District near St. Louis lost their accreditation and students were then allowed to attend the nearby, mostly white Francis Howell School District. The white parents at Francis Howell were outraged and made a number of absolutely insane comments at a public meeting at the school. Fortunately these comments were recorded and many of them aired on the radio show. You really need to listen to believe it.

 

Many of the parents insisted that they didn't want these lower-performing students coming into their district and dragging down their test scores, or bringing their drugs and weapons. And of course, all these white parents insisted, "this is not a race issue."

 

When one of the parents was ranting about why the school district had to take all of these new students, she said:

 

Years ago, when the MetroLink was being very popular, Saint Charles County put to a vote whether or not we wanted the MetroLink to come across into our community. And we said no. And the reason we said no is because we don't want the different areas-- I'm going to be very kind-- coming across on our side of the bridge, bringing with it everything that we're fighting today against.

 

So this community's perception of light rail was that it's "everything that we're fighting today against."  Not that it would be a good way to travel downtown without the hassle of traffic and parking. Not that it would bring new economic development. But that it would bring "those people" to their neighborhood.

Even Canada, with its lighter overall regional population densities and wide open spaces, has a far greater use of public transit than America.

 

Part of the reason is Canada embracing smart growth policies more than America, which also involves market distortions that artificially reduce the cost of driving:

http://www.vtpi.org/distortions_BPJ.pdf

 

Same is true of biking of biking in Canada vs. the USA, too:

http://vtpi.org/pucher_canbike.pdf

(Stay with me, this will come back to transit at the end...)

 

 

This American Life just ran a two-part series talking about improving bad public schools in urban, largely black areas. Part 1 focused on a unique situation where the mostly black Normandy School District near St. Louis lost their accreditation and students were then allowed to attend the nearby, mostly white Francis Howell School District. The white parents at Francis Howell were outraged and made a number of absolutely insane comments at a public meeting at the school. Fortunately these comments were recorded and many of them aired on the radio show. You really need to listen to believe it.

 

Many of the parents insisted that they didn't want these lower-performing students coming into their district and dragging down their test scores, or bringing their drugs and weapons. And of course, all these white parents insisted, "this is not a race issue."

 

When one of the parents was ranting about why the school district had to take all of these new students, she said:

 

Years ago, when the MetroLink was being very popular, Saint Charles County put to a vote whether or not we wanted the MetroLink to come across into our community. And we said no. And the reason we said no is because we don't want the different areas-- I'm going to be very kind-- coming across on our side of the bridge, bringing with it everything that we're fighting today against.

 

So this community's perception of light rail was that it's "everything that we're fighting today against."  Not that it would be a good way to travel downtown without the hassle of traffic and parking. Not that it would bring new economic development. But that it would bring "those people" to their neighborhood.

 

Yes, this is definitely just beneath the surface for a number of transit opponents.

 

Yes, this is definitely just beneath the surface for a number of transit opponents.

 

Totally.  Head on down to Berea, Ohio and grab a bar stool at a local watering hole.  Bring up extending the Red Line from the airport into Berea and you'll get plenty of these kind of answers...

^I think the "social welfare" rhetoric comes more from people who are hardened against the poor and, thus, look at transit as a tool for leveling the playing field.

 

No. 

 

Just no.

 

Both KJP and I have mentioned that when the GCRTA merger first happened, there was resistance to expanding service in more affluent areas.  It was spearheaded by Norman Krumholtz, who railed against having the system serve "fat cats".  Inevitably, that meant lowest common denominator service, which is not going to appeal to people with options.

 

 

 

Krumholz is the exception to the rule: a hard lefty who fought against rail, most notably the extension of the Green Line to I-271 in the late 1970s.  He was a 60s radical... You cannot deny that the biggest opposition to transit is from the right.  To them it's just more government spending for the poor.  Many on the right believe: get a job, get a car and move away from the city.

 

If he was the exception, his views would not have prevailed.  Views like his helped cause transit systems to become "one size fits all" services unattractive to those with other options.  The semi-forced mergers made this practical by subsidizing the new megasystems to the point that the private sector could not compete.

 

If the right sees public transit as a social program largely used by the poor, it's because the left helped make it into one.  The consequences were unintended, but real.

Krumholz wasn't an exception. He advised the Stokes brothers, Tubbs Jones and others that the social safety net was transit's most important contribution -- and it came at the expense of the economic development contribution which makes the social safety net less necessary. And those folks were re-elected numerous times on that platform, so many in their constituency felt likewise.

All this is going back way before my time--I've never even heard of these people.  Either way, there's nothing carved in stone that that has to be some eternal feature of our transportation policy.  Transit planners really ought to consider how to get choice ridership; focusing only on the transit-dependent might have emotional appeal but is going to be seriously detrimental in the long term (and let's be honest, "the long term" has already arrived by now) to community buy-in.

 

Edit: And I don't mean to imply that no transit planners out there are aware that fact; I'm well aware that that many are quite aware of that issue.  But at least for the moment, the funding priorities seem to generally end up, by whatever process, focused on the transit-dependent, at least in the systems to which I have the most exposure.

^The problem is "choice riders" in metro areas like Cleveland tend to live in lower density, single family neighborhoods, that are difficult to serve with high quality transit at anything close to reasonable cost. Even if you completely ignored transit dependence and political pressure (i.e., even if routes were drawn by algorithms designed to maximize ridership), I doubt the route maps in cities like Cleveland would look all that different.

 

I'm a bit more sympathetic than the rest of you to the Krumholz position. In a metro area like Cleveland, with very little traffic congestion, cutting bus service in densely-populated poor neighborhoods to pay for park and ride rail service in low density suburbs would have been a mistake, IMHO.

:wink:

Krumholz wasn't an exception. He advised the Stokes brothers, Tubbs Jones and others that the social safety net was transit's most important contribution -- and it came at the expense of the economic development contribution which makes the social safety net less necessary. And those folks were re-elected numerous times on that platform, so many in their constituency felt likewise.

 

So if Krumholz is not an exception to the rule, then you're saying, anti-transit activism and motivation is mainly from the left, like Barack Obama (TIGER grants -- provided the funding to the moribund Red Line Little Italy station that finally opened), Betty Blair (who advocated the West Shore Commuter Rail), Bill Clinton (established Acela HSR 20 years after Reagan killed it) etc, and pro-transit people tend to be on the right, like say, John Kaisich?  Scott Walker? Chris Christie,  Rick Scott? Larry Hogan? Ronald Reagan? ... all of whom had major trophy transit projects... that they killed.

... thanks for clearing that up for me.  :wink:

I don't like the term "choice rider". Sure, those in the know understand it means "rider who had a choice to ride transit or drive", but to outsiders it sounds elitist as in "that bag lady is NOT choice."

:wink:

Krumholz wasn't an exception. He advised the Stokes brothers, Tubbs Jones and others that the social safety net was transit's most important contribution -- and it came at the expense of the economic development contribution which makes the social safety net less necessary. And those folks were re-elected numerous times on that platform, so many in their constituency felt likewise.

 

So if Krumholz is not an exception to the rule, then you're saying, anti-transit activism and motivation is mainly from the left, like Barack Obama (TIGER grants -- provided the funding to the moribund Red Line Little Italy station that finally opened), Betty Blair (who advocated the West Shore Commuter Rail), Bill Clinton (established Acela HSR 20 years after Reagan killed it) etc, and pro-transit people tend to be on the right, like say, John Kaisich?  Scott Walker? Chris Christie,  Rick Scott? Larry Hogan? Ronald Reagan? ... all of whom had major trophy transit projects... that they killed.

... thanks for clearing that up for me.  :wink:

 

I see the many emoticons, but those on the left are just as capable of wrecking transit as those on the right, although I don't think those on the left intentionally wanted to damage it. But both sides certainly did their damage by trying to favor specific constituencies rather than trying to accommodate as much of the public as possible in public transit. I think Canada's approach to transit is a model worth following. They somehow manage to focus high-capacity  transit (subways, commuter rail, light rail, BRT) in high-density areas, while at the same time operating frequent (like every 15-30 minutes) transit in the land of cul-de-sacs and strip malls, and at the same time transit achieves cost-recovery ratios American transit systems can only dream of (Canada's is like 50-75 percent, vs our 15-40 percent).

I don't like the term "choice rider". Sure, those in the know understand it means "rider who had a choice to ride transit or drive", but to outsiders it sounds elitist as in "that bag lady is NOT choice."

 

I didn't invent the term ... and I never made that "choice" connection (like riders are different cuts of meat or something).  Feel free to propose an alternative, but syllabic overload works against "transit-independent" as the inverse of transit-dependent.

Oh I wasn't aiming that at you at all. I'd say "option rider" would be a better term.