: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).

 

My view is the biggest damage was done by the mergers.  Consolidation and subsidy meant that competition (public or private) was completely sacrificed to efficiency, as modified by politics.  Or "favoring specific constituencies", if you prefer. 

 

When the GCRTA was proposed, there was strong opposition in Maple Heights, and indeed Maple Heights Transit operated on a semi-autonomous basis for several years after the merger.  Maple remained a very transit friendly community, to the point that my mom never felt the need to learn to drive.  Note that socio-economically, it then resembled a more compact Strongsville or Brunswick (today).  Maple's buses were older, but they were cleaner, had better service records, and were more frequently on time than the general RTA buses.  The "Dunham Road" route that wound through town up through Southgate to Randall Mall and the Van Aken Rapid syncronized very well with the Broadway line that ran downtown.  There were times I got to Case in less than an hour from my home in the SW (furthest) corner of town, even bouncing off 34th street.

 

It should surprise no student of government entities that GCRTA's reaction was not to learn how Maple outperformed the general system, but to push for full absorbtion.  Very soon after this happened, the Dunham line was taken out of service, which was one of the key predictions of merger opponents, and Maple could not longer be considered more transit friendly than most other suburbs. 

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

 

Sounds like something that gets produced and traded on Wall Street.

It is now

It is now

 

Part of the problem is that it isn't.    Consolidation and subsidization mean that there is little or no private sector competition.

 

Conversely, the subsidized entities are barred for competing with private bus lines for more lucrative runs.  IIRC, CTS and the suburban lines used to run specials downtown before and after Browns games.

Conversely, the subsidized entities are barred for competing with private bus lines for more lucrative runs.  IIRC, CTS and the suburban lines used to run specials downtown before and after Browns games.

 

So now no one is running them. Way to go, private sector!! If I was head of GCRTA, I'd start up the "sports specials" again and dare the charter bus operators to sue me. They probably would sue, and as an out-of-court settlement I'd request that the judge, should I cancel my buses, require the private operators to replace my buses with theirs and offer the same or better service frequency levels for at least 10 years or at least as long as attendance at sporting events averaged a certain percentage (80?) at the halfway points of a current season. And if the charter operators refused, I'd leak the deliberations to the media. They might win the battle, but I'd make sure they'd lose the war.

Conversely, the subsidized entities are barred for competing with private bus lines for more lucrative runs.  IIRC, CTS and the suburban lines used to run specials downtown before and after Browns games.

 

So now no one is running them. Way to go, private sector!! If I was head of GCRTA, I'd start up the "sports specials" again and dare the charter bus operators to sue me. They probably would sue, and as an out-of-court settlement I'd request that the judge, should I cancel my buses, require the private operators to replace my buses with theirs and offer the same or better service frequency levels for at least 10 years or at least as long as attendance at sporting events averaged a certain percentage (80?) at the halfway points of a current season. And if the charter operators refused, I'd leak the deliberations to the media. They might win the battle, but I'd make sure they'd lose the war.

 

Not the worst idea ever, but I suspect that ship has sailed.  The games have more affluent attendees now, in fact I suspect the buses going away played a small role in bringing that about.    People make a day out of it.

 

Though it could be done more subtly by running a weekday schedule before and after the games on the trains.

 

 

This article from today's New York Times is mostly about New York and New Jersey, but its message about how the subsidy of auto travel literally paved the way for transit's dependence on subsidies is relevant across the country.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/opinion/can-our-transit-system-get-any-worse.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

 

It is now

 

Part of the problem is that it isn't.    Consolidation and subsidization mean that there is little or no private sector competition.

 

 

No, no I was saying somebody cooked up that financial instrument the minute Gramarye pointed out that it could be one.

 

jeez guys

It is now

 

Part of the problem is that it isn't.    Consolidation and subsidization mean that there is little or no private sector competition.

 

 

No, no I was saying somebody cooked up that financial instrument the minute Gramarye pointed out that it could be one.

 

jeez guys

 

And I was saying that it might be better if it was one.

This article from today's New York Times is mostly about New York and New Jersey, but its message about how the subsidy of auto travel literally paved the way for transit's dependence on subsidies is relevant across the country.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/opinion/can-our-transit-system-get-any-worse.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

 

 

Interesting.  Hong Kong's transit agency is privately run (though the government is a majority stockholder and, being China, will have extraordinary pull in any case).

It won't be pretty when boomers lose their cars

It's already a problem with seniors in the suburbs, and it's going to explode in coming years.

By: Lloyd Alter

August 18, 2015, 1:36 p.m.

 

My late mother-in-law lived in a lovely side-split house on a cul-de-sac in suburban Toronto, and she stayed there after her daughter left home and even after her husband died 20 years ago. She had a car and could drive to the grocery store and the bank — until she couldn’t any more, and my wife had to drive 45 minutes out there to take her shopping, and to the bank, and to the doctor. Being a side-split, there was a powder room at entry level, a kitchen on the middle level, a bathroom on the upper level. When it got to the point that she could barely walk, it got difficult to decide whether to eat or go to the bathroom. Finally my wife convinced her to sell the house and junk the car and move to a retirement home. Four months later, she died.

 

aging in suburbiaMany baby boomers are going through this now, taking care of seriously old parents. (I'm off to my 97-year-old mom’s birthday party as soon as I finish writing this post). Many baby boomers are also setting themselves up for the same problem in the not-too-distant future. Jane Gould writes about it in "Aging in Suburbia," a fascinating and troubling book that covers so many of the issues we will be facing down the winding cul-de-sac. She notes that boomers and older age groups own 60 percent of the owner-occupied homes in America.

 

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/stories/it-wont-be-pretty-when-boomers-lose-their-cars#ixzz3kQFbEEMV

 

Pope Francis Lays Hands On Ailing U.S. Infrastructure

NEWS IN BRIEF

September 25, 2015

 

NEW YORK—Treating the frail, long-overlooked structures with an unparalleled display of compassion, Pope Francis reportedly inspired a crowd of onlookers Friday by laying his hands upon the ailing United States infrastructure. “My heart just melted when I watched the pope interrupt his address to walk over and gently embrace this disfigured bridge cross-girder that was covered in unsightly rust,” said New York City resident John Reedy, one of thousands of observers reportedly moved to tears as the pontiff reached out to the weak and crippled metal framework, gingerly kissed the decayed surface, and then closed his eyes while blessing the neglected overpass. “Most people turn the other way when they see such mangled, hopeless infrastructure, but he showed it such tenderness and attention, like he was really willing it to heal. Who knows—maybe God will intervene and save these decrepit structures.” At press time, the Vicar of Christ reportedly called upon the crowd to pray for the swift and painless passing of the terminally ill education system he had recently encountered.

 

http://www.theonion.com/article/pope-francis-lays-hands-ailing-us-infrastructure-51388

Funny...but also very sad that the Onion is dead-on!

Time to sing The Pretenders' "My City Was Gone" referenced in this article....

 

Aerial photos from '50s, '60s reveal how freeways scarred downtown Akron

By John Harper, cleveland.com

on November 27, 2015 at 7:00 AM, updated November 27, 2015 at 7:41 AM

 

AKRON, Ohio -- Look at the photo of downtown Akron in 1951. Narrow streets connect tightly nestled stores and offices with densely packed neighborhoods of small homes; there are no parking lots and no ribbons of freeways.

 

A series of aerial photographs of downtown, taken in 1938 and at regular 5-year intervals since 1970, show the growth and recession of one of America's once great industrial capitals. 

 

Jason Segedy, who heads the Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study, blamed the introduction of interstate highways in the 1960s for much of the damage to Akron's once-vibrant core.

 

Just as the highways connected cities to sprawling suburban homes, modern shopping malls and office parks, they bisected Akron's urban core and cut open the neighborhoods that once defined urban life in Ohio.

 

"Looking through photos in between that time, you can just see swaths of destruction following the freeways," Segedy said.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2015/11/aerial_photos_from_the_50s_and.html

The feds are trying encourage states and locals to move away from using Level of Service https://t.co/TXKWYZC4Gn https://t.co/UQlozLXaXX

Level of Service = Level of Salesmanship

The feds are trying encourage states and locals to move away from using Level of Service https://t.co/TXKWYZC4Gn https://t.co/UQlozLXaXX

 

Surprisingly good article by Schmitt, even though I don't agree with her premises she makes her case well and keeps the anathemas to a minimum.

 

The comments are more interesting though, about TODs, cars, and traffic.

Obama to propose $10-a-barrel oil tax

A controversial new way to fund transportation.

By MICHAEL GRUNWALD 02/04/16 03:00 PM EST

 

President Barack Obama is about to unveil an ambitious plan for a “21st century clean transportation system.” And he hopes to fund it with a tax on oil.

 

Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.

 

There is no real chance that the Republican-controlled Congress will embrace Obama’s grand vision of climate-friendly mobility in an election year—especially after passing a long-stalled bipartisan highway bill just last year—and his aides acknowledge it’s mostly an effort to jump-start a conversation about the future of transportation. But by raising the specter of new taxes on fossil fuels, it could create a political quandary for Democrats. The fee could add as much as 25 cents a gallon to the cost of gasoline, and even with petroleum prices at historic lows, the proposal could be particularly awkward for Hillary Clinton, who has embraced most of Obama’s policies but has also vowed to oppose any tax hikes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/02/obama-oil-tax-budget-000038#ixzz3zEYXXRNq

 

For a little bit of humor in rethinking transport, the onion is pretty spot on.

 

http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-high-speed-rail-plan-with-hi-18473

"President Obama's proposed high-speed train system will be replaced with a fleet of buses that will rocket along highways at speeds up to 165 mph."

 

http://www.theonion.com/article/ambitious-new-high-speed-rail-plan-will-fly-americ-37153

The US to subsidize flights to Japan to use their bullet trains. "Under this new plan, all Americans will be able to travel quickly and reliably between hundreds of destinations by simply taking a trans-Pacific flight across nine time zones and then boarding one of dozens of lightning-fast, ultramodern trains."

For some reason the GOP sees roads as a federal and state concern, with transit being a local concern, which increases the costs on transit and artificially lowers them for roads. It's an intensification of an already existing anti-transit bias that has exacerbated urban sprawl for decades while further isolating the poor and reducing the labor pool available to employers. Oh well, they can always go to China, Bangladesh or Malaysia for labor....

___________

 

 

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2016/Pages/GOP-platform.aspx

 

Statement on GOP Platform on Public Transportation by APTA Acting President & CEO Richard A. White

 

“On behalf of the 1,500 members of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) I strongly oppose the Republican platform that would phase out the federal transit program. I am extremely disappointed that the platform fails to continue the important federal role in supporting public transportation.  Since 1983, under President Ronald Reagan, fuels tax revenues have been dedicated to public transit through the Mass Transit Account of the surface transportation legislation.  This proposal would undo more than 30 years of overwhelming support for dedicated federal investment in public transit.

 

Transportation is the backbone of an economy.  Mayors of cities across the country know that public transportation is crucial to helping make their cities competitive.  Additionally, public transportation helps people commute to work.  In fact, nearly 60 percent of all trips taken are for work commutes.  Last year, 10.6 billion trips were taken on public transportation, no small figure.

 

The public transportation industry is currently underfunded. Having no federal funds would be devastating, not only to the millions of Americans who use public transportation and to the employers who depend on it for their employees, but also for communities of all sizes that need it for a thriving economy and quality of life.

 

Also, the platform position against any increase in the federal gas tax is not supported by APTA.  The federal gas tax has not been increased since 1993, and consequently, its purchasing power has gone down by more than 37 percent.

 

We need a well-funded transportation system that includes public transportation.  In 2013, the annual capital spending on public transit – from all levels of government – was $17.7 billion.  Of that figure, $7.4 billion came from the federal government.  According to a report by APTA and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), an annual investment of $43 billion for public transportation is necessary to improve system performance and condition.  And let’s not forget that the Federal Transit Administration has said that there is a one-time $86 billion backlog in deferred maintenance and replacement needs.”

 

#  #  #

 

The other day I learned that the Ohio Turnpike doesn't get federal funding, doesn't get state funding, and doesn't get gas-tax funding. Instead all revenue comes from tolls / service plazas / advertisements. Further, Ohio took out $1B of bonds based on turnpike future revenue, and used that money towards non-turnpike construction projects, and the turnpike in change has to raise tolls, to pay back those bonds. I'm actually pretty happy with the turnpike, we use it to go to Baltimore+beyond regularly. With the EZ-Pass, in other states, say PA, there is high-speed-tolling, so you don't even have to slow down to pay the toll. Ohio makes you slow down to run the EZ-Pass.

 

Meanwhile, the Highway Trust Fund has gone broke every year in recent memory, and has to get bailed out by billions of dollars of general revenue funds, or other fuzzy funding. Isn't the US supposed to sell future strategic oil reserves for double the current market rate??? Anyways, there has been a long-held stance from the federal level, that you are not allowed to add tolls to an interstate. Well, the federal level has signaled that they don't want to have a federal ban on such a thing, and to instead move this decision to be up to the states.

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/237455-obama-highway-bill-reignites-tolling-debate

 

I'm not sure if the linked-to bill would have to be approved by congress, but, perhaps Ohio could look into reducing the state's financial burden of financing interstate maintenance through tolls on the interstates. Nobody is upset that ODOT/Ohio spends money on highways and bridges, its mostly just the subsidy complaint. Your using a mixture of funds, such as general revenue, as opposed to solely user-fee's as gas tax has fallen to 50% due to inflation.

 

Anyways. I would propose that Ohio tolled all of the interstates (you don't have to charge that much, just enough to cover expenses of maintenance, we're a non-profit). And then, whatever annual dollar amounts that the Fed and Ohio had previously been spending from general revenue could go into a Cool-Stuff-Trust-Fund. Cool-Stuff-Trust-Fund could go towards things that according so some formula, would have the most impact, but would be considered potentially a moonshot. So, if everyone would be happy with true HSR, then the Cool-Stuff-Trust-Fund could accrue money for a few years, then you suddenly have $20B for HSR between Chicago <- 3C's -> East Coast. Each state could band together to accomplish cool-stuff together. Cool-Stuff could fund big transit projects in the 3C's+. Or, if you don't need to spend the money from the state's general revenue, then you reduce the amount the state collects in taxes, either making the place better for business, or with a lower tax burden, each region (Cleveland, Columbus, Cinci) could then add a regional income tax to their multi-county regions to ear-mark towards things like transit.

 

I/others predict that future autonomous driving might reduce the need for last-mile bus service, but you'll still want to have core, high density, high throughput people moving systems. i.e. BRT/rail. So instead of having lots of busses that runs within 1/2 mile of 95% of the county, you'll have BRT/rail that is within 2 miles of 95% of county, and the autonomous little cars will feed people into and out of the dense network.

 

Lastly, the other rethinking-transport is that Elon Musk laid out part-2 of his masterplan.

Part 1 (10 years ago, almost complete):

- Build expensive sports car

- Build medium family car

- Build mass-market car

- Shift energy from mine and burn to electric

 

Part 2:

- Mass market home solar generation and storage

- Build electric trucks / mass transit smart busses

- Self driving autonomous cars

- Build a fleet of self driving Tesla-Taxis

 

So, there definitely is a drum-beat for more electric, and more self driving vehicles on the road. I don't know if that affects peoples decisions on buying or not buying your next car. (These things are still a few years away). But, it would be nice if this helps people go from 2 car family, to 1 car family, to car-sharing. Then the cities and suburbs of the future will probably have to adjust their urban form, as people will likely accomplish more trips by foot ($2.25 to ride the tesla-taxi to the end of the street, I'll walk), and there won't be a need for urban parking, allowing for more buildings. As scary as that sounds, I think it definitely benefits the consumer, as they won't have to pay for personal car ownership (~$4k / year).

6 Photos Show an Interstate’s Impact on an American City

 

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/highways-cities-urban-renewal-st-louis-design

Boring has reached the halfway point in Seattle on the tunnel that will replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/library/advisories-and-updates/bertha-pushes-past-halfway-point-in-sr-99-tunnel-dig

this from NARP just a few minutes ago.......

 

http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d2fac86b82f8768a62d03332f&id=51368cb886&e=eabc0333a7

Election 2016: What does it mean for transportation?

 

Following a contentious election, American voters have given control of congress to the Republican Party, which has taken the White House and retained control of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Given the disparity between Donald Trump’s infrastructure proposals and the 2016 Republican Party Platform, there is a lot of work NARP staff will need to do to map out a strategic plan for securing passenger-friendly policy in the 115th Congress.

 

However, even at this early date, we are able to report on some transportation-specific developments that came out of last night’s results.

 

Transit On the Ballot

Regardless of your party affiliations, yesterday was a great day for transportation funding measures. The American Public Transportation Association reports that Americans approved 33 of 48 local and statewide public transit measures. All together, those 48 ballot measures represented roughly $200 billion in public investment in transit.

Some of the big winners include:

California:

Bay Area voters approved $3.5 billion for the BART commuter rail system.

Los Angeles County voters green passed a sales tax to help LA Metro fund its $120 billion mobility plan, which includes expansion of the rail system.

Washington: Seattle voters approved a $54 billion transit package to fund light rail, bus rapid transit and commuter train service.

Colorado: Pueblo County voters approved Measure 1A, part of which will fund work to continue and extend Amtrak’s Southwest Chief service.

Virginia: Voters in Arlington and Fairfax approved $58.8 million and $120 million, respectively, in bond measures to upgrade Metro.

Maryland: Prince George’s County voters approved bond measure that will help fund the Purple Line light-rail project.

Georgia: Atlanta voters approved a half-penny increase for the MARTA commuter rail service.

 

You can find a full list of transportation ballots at the Eno Center for Transportation: https://www.enotrans.org/publications-resources/ballot-measures-state/

 

President-Elect Trump’s Infrastructure Proposal

Trump’s campaign promised a trillion infrastructure plan that will rely heavily on private funding, incentivized by an investment tax credit. Trump officials argue this would largely be revenue neutral, with tax credits offset by the additional tax revenue from the companies and workers participating in building these projects. The bad news for passenger rail and transit? This funding structure works best for projects like toll roads and airports.

 

House Speaker Paul Ryan has also proposed paying for a big infrastructure push by eliminating entitlement programs, such as block grants to Medicaid and food stamps.

 

The Trump campaign is indicating that it will move an infrastructure proposal within the first 100 days of his presidency.

 

###

 

What Donald Trump's infrastructure plan means for Ohio

By Ginger Christ, The Plain Dealer

on November 10, 2016 at 5:20 AM, updated November 10, 2016 at 10:55 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – President-elect Donald Trump's infrastructure plans leave an unclear road ahead for the future of transportation in Ohio.

 

In late October, Trump released an infrastructure plan that calls for a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure over the next decade. However, that investment largely would come from private sector buy-in, as opposed to direct federal funding to the states.

 

Under Trump's plan, private investors would receive tax credits to incentivize them to invest in infrastructure projects with revenue streams (like bridge or highway tolls). That part of the plan would limit projects to only those with revenue streams.

 

The resulting investment would come at no ultimate cost to the government because the tax revenues generated from the wages and profits from the projects would neutralize the money awarded in tax credits, according to Trump's plan.

 

How that plan will translate into infrastructure development for Ohio's public transit and highway systems still is being broken down.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/11/_what_trumps_infrastructure_plan_means_for_ohio.html#incart_river_index

Elon Musk had a series of tweets over the weeeknd implying he will be getting into the tunnel boring business:

 

http://www.investopedia.com/news/elon-musk-starting-boring-company-tsla/?partner=YahooSA

 

Here's what I think his angle is, even though no news articles have said this: tunnels for electric vehicles (Teslas) will be a lot easier to build and maintain than for tunnels that accommodate gasoline powered cars, because the equipment needed  to ventilate the exhaust would be a lot less. If you could build a network of EV-only tunnels (with Government assistance of course,) under the hills of a city like LA, or even Cincinnati, the ability to bypass traffic by utilizing the tunnels would be a "killer app" that would speed up adoption of electric vehicles.

 

It's a lot better idea than the hyperloop.

Elon Musk had a series of tweets over the weeeknd implying he will be getting into the tunnel boring business:

 

http://www.investopedia.com/news/elon-musk-starting-boring-company-tsla/?partner=YahooSA

 

Here's what I think his angle is, even though no news articles have said this: tunnels for electric vehicles (Teslas) will be a lot easier to build and maintain than for tunnels that accommodate gasoline powered cars, because the equipment needed  to ventilate the exhaust would be a lot less. If you could build a network of EV-only tunnels (with Government assistance of course,) under the hills of a city like LA, or even Cincinnati, the ability to bypass traffic by utilizing the tunnels would be a "killer app" that would speed up adoption of electric vehicles.

 

It's a lot better idea than the hyperloop.

 

Yeah I think you're onto something.  Not just electric cars but electric city buses as well. 

 

 

 

 

Elon Musk had a series of tweets over the weeeknd implying he will be getting into the tunnel boring business:

 

http://www.investopedia.com/news/elon-musk-starting-boring-company-tsla/?partner=YahooSA

 

Here's what I think his angle is, even though no news articles have said this: tunnels for electric vehicles (Teslas) will be a lot easier to build and maintain than for tunnels that accommodate gasoline powered cars, because the equipment needed  to ventilate the exhaust would be a lot less. If you could build a network of EV-only tunnels (with Government assistance of course,) under the hills of a city like LA, or even Cincinnati, the ability to bypass traffic by utilizing the tunnels would be a "killer app" that would speed up adoption of electric vehicles.

 

It's a lot better idea than the hyperloop.

 

Yeah I think you're onto something.  Not just electric cars but electric city buses as well.

 

Electric Busses (even streetcar in some cases) would be the critical first step because electric vehicle adoption is so low right now. But you could build the tunnels four lanes wide ( one lane in each direction transit-only and one lane in each direction for private vehicles.) the prospect of being open to private cars in the future might get the tunnels more support than something transit only.

Elon Musk had a series of tweets over the weeeknd implying he will be getting into the tunnel boring business:

 

http://www.investopedia.com/news/elon-musk-starting-boring-company-tsla/?partner=YahooSA

 

Here's what I think his angle is, even though no news articles have said this: tunnels for electric vehicles (Teslas) will be a lot easier to build and maintain than for tunnels that accommodate gasoline powered cars, because the equipment needed  to ventilate the exhaust would be a lot less. If you could build a network of EV-only tunnels (with Government assistance of course,) under the hills of a city like LA, or even Cincinnati, the ability to bypass traffic by utilizing the tunnels would be a "killer app" that would speed up adoption of electric vehicles.

 

It's a lot better idea than the hyperloop.

 

Yeah I think you're onto something.  Not just electric cars but electric city buses as well.

 

Electric Busses (even streetcar in some cases) would be the critical first step because electric vehicle adoption is so low right now. But you could build the tunnels four lanes wide ( one lane in each direction transit-only and one lane in each direction for private vehicles.) the prospect of being open to private cars in the future might get the tunnels more support than something transit only.

 

If Tesla was smart they'd try to get an all-EV tunnel built under the Supulveda Pass or a similar notorious bottleneck. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They should focus on turning a profit right now rather than these side quests.

They should focus on turning a profit right now rather than these side quests.

 

The Musk-Man sees all and knows all. 

They should focus on turning a profit right now rather than these side quests.

 

The Musk-Man sees all and knows all.

 

The hyperloop is a silly idea, Mars is a silly idea, but this could move the needle towards EV adoption.  Which would help with dependence on foreign oil, air pollution, and climate change.

Count one of my younger brothers amongst the Muskateers.  He moved to California this year and expends a lot of energy decrying the high speed rail project and dreaming of getting a job with "one of the car companies", whatever that means. 

The other night, I was thinking about the new highway tunnel being built under Downtown Seattle and how unfortunate the timing of that is. Think about all of the money that's being spent on ventilation because it's going to be full of gasoline powered cars for the next decade or so. If it would have been designed to open in 2029 instead of 2019, maybe it could've been designed only for electric cars and the cost of the ventilation could've been nearly eliminated. Perhaps the tunnel diameter could've been smaller, saving even more money. Gas powered cars would just have to find an alternate route.

As it stands, you still have to level West Virginia to shift a significant portion of the auto fleet to electric. 

I missed this Washington Post piece when it came out 2 years ago.  It clearly shows how the so-called love affair with cars was nothing more than a public relations campaign that has become ingrained in the public psyche.  It also rightly points out that it is difficult to respond to this thinking with logic and facts.  Which is why I like to say that it's not a love affair, it's a shotgun marriage.  It's not my line, I heard or read someone say that at least 15 years ago if not longer.  I wish I could remember who it was, but it's absolutely right.  The article also goes through a lot of forgotten history, including a movement in the 1920s to get cars out of cities:

 

The Myth of the American Love Affair with Cars:

 

“It’s one of the biggest public relations coups of all time. It’s always treated as folk wisdom, as an organic growth from society. One of the signs of its success is that everyone forgets it was invented as a public relations campaign.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/27/debunking-the-myth-of-the-american-love-affair-with-cars/?utm_term=.3c8e224f7a0d

 

 

I remember reading a Time magazine article from the 1950s about the declining number and quality of passenger trains and Time thought it would be temporary because "Americans have a love affair with trains."

I don't believe in American Love Affairs with anything. They're just phenomenons salesmen caused.

The other night, I was thinking about the new highway tunnel being built under Downtown Seattle and how unfortunate the timing of that is. Think about all of the money that's being spent on ventilation because it's going to be full of gasoline powered cars for the next decade or so. If it would have been designed to open in 2029 instead of 2019, maybe it could've been designed only for electric cars and the cost of the ventilation could've been nearly eliminated. Perhaps the tunnel diameter could've been smaller, saving even more money. Gas powered cars would just have to find an alternate route.

 

The Muskman wants to build tiny tunnels for tiny 1 or 2-passenger driverless cars.  So basically a sewer pipe for small cars.  I suppose that this could work in very specific situations, like if an exit ramp from an expressway ran into an underground network of tiny tunnels that feed directly into underground parking garages or drop-off points.  But it's still an incredibly expensive way to move the same number of people in basically the same way they do now. 

I wouldn't be surprised if he made it work. Musk is a doer. He does end up accomplishing almost everything he sets out to do. If we ever colonize Mars, it'll be because of him. Tesla already has solar panel shingles for sale in four different styles that are only $20 something dollars per square foot to install and are guaranteed for infinity. Not bad for a "car company."

I wholeheartedly disagree. He's a talker.

Prices of solar panels have been plummeting for years. The amount of solar power being generated in the U.S. doubled each year for several years in a row. It happened so fast that utilities are starting to get scared. I wouldn't really credit Musk with the solar revolution.

I wholeheartedly disagree. He's a talker.

 

One of my best friends works for a tech research company (does research for investors).  He says that to date everything Musk has presented as his own invention already existed -- he just marketed it better (especially the power wall).

 

We'd have a lot more solar power happening in the United States if we didn't have private utilities bullying states into keeping it marginalized.  Look at the list of states where Solar City operates and the states where it doesn't and there you have the who's who. 

 

I had a solar energy assessment done on my house a few years ago, and thanks to Kasich, an $8,000 investment was going to save me $350 per year.  In another state it would have been closer to $1,000.  But in the Cincinnati area, Duke pockets that $500~ difference. 

 

 

As we contemplate the Trump administration's proposed transportation budget cuts, let's consider them on the micro scale -- on Ohio and specifically on Greater Cleveland...

 

For Cleveland, the Amtrak impact from the proposed budget cuts is more about missing emerging opportunities and the popularity of a service that slips through Cleveland in the wee hours. But first, here are the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) impacts...

 

Trump administration proposes to eliminate the Federal Transit Administration over four years and use its funding to support federal road programs rather than continue to use general revenue funds or raise gas taxes:

 

+ GCRTA gets $34 million per year in federal funding for capital purchases and preventative maintenance. About 80 percent of that goes to the rail system that GCRTA owns and is wholly responsible for, unlike the road system to which GCRTA pays no fuel taxes or other fees to support.

 

+ One out of five GCRTA boardings is on the rail system, despite there being only three rail lines vs. nearly 100 bus routes. The rail system accounts for only 17 percent of GCRTA's operating budget. About 150,000 people board GCRTA buses and trains each day. Additional weekday boardings in downtown Cleveland and University Circle are on Akron Metro RTA, Laketran, Portage Area RTA and Stark Area RTA who will also be hurt by the proposed budget cuts.

 

+ This comes on top of a nearly 10 percent loss in sales tax revenues from Managed Care Organization transactions starting later this year.

 

+ A large number of Northeast Ohioans depend on public transportation to get to work, school, health care and shopping. A significant degradation of Northeast Ohio's public transportation services would damage the quality of life and economy in Northeast Ohio.

 

+ These federal cuts are proposed as transit in Cleveland faces a backlog of more than a half-billion dollars worth of unfunded state-of-good-repair needs. Due to GCRTA owing its rail system, this backlog and the proposed federal cuts would hit disproportionately hard on the rail system. The backlog of state-of-good-repair needs include track, signal and bridge work, bringing stations up to ADA compliance, and replacing train cars whose average age is about 35 years -- well past their normal life expectancy.

 

+ Without federal funds, public transit in Greater Cleveland would be cut back to a core system of a handful of bus routes. All rapid transit trains would stop running in 5-10 years due to declining train, track, signal and bridge conditions. Bus replacements, bus garage repairs and equipment equipment replacements, and other capital needs will hut the bus system hard as well.

 

 

And for the Amtrak budget cut impacts ($525 million in 2018, $1 billion in following years), these would represent missed, emerging opportunities for Northeast Ohio...

 

+ The city of Cleveland along with Greyhound, Amtrak and GCRTA are planning a multi-modal transportation center at the site of our rally to unite surface transportation modes to make rail and bus travel more convenient and to promote redevelopment of the Greyhound station and our lakefront.

 

+ The Federal Railroad Administration (see https://www.midwestrailplan.org/) and states surrounding Ohio (Pennsylvania may soon plan expansion west to Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago: http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2017/06/senate-approves-state-rail-study/) are seeking passenger rail improvements that serve Ohio. If we lose our existing train services, we cannot improve them.

 

+ Restoring lost trains is extremely difficult. Columbus and Dayton lost their Amtrak train services in 1979 as a result of federal budget cuts. Akron and Youngstown lost their trains in 2005. None have returned due to the difficulty of restoring lost trains or instituting new services.

 

+ The existing Amtrak trains that travel through Cleveland and Toledo each night are used by 650,000 people per year, enough to fill every seat on more than a dozen Boeing 737 jets per day. They link big cities to small towns that have no other intercity public transportation, like Bryan, OH and Alliance, OH. There are nearly 50,000 people who boarded four nightly Amtrak trains last year in Cleveland, an increase of nearly 40 percent over the past decade. For perspective, Greyhound boards 250,000 people per year at Cleveland but that's on roughly 30 buses per day.

 

+ Despite having only five trains a day serving Ohio, Amtrak in 2016 spent $30 million into Ohio’s economy buying goods and services from Ohio companies. That includes Ohio Amtrak employees buying $6.45 million worth of goods and services (multiplier of 1.5 on base wages of $4.3 million).

 

+ All Ohio Amtrak trains (part of the National Network) would end as a result of the proposed budget cuts, and force increased costs and the loss of connecting revenues to state-supported trains in two dozen states, many of which may not be able to afford them anymore. In short, even if your route isn't being targeted by the proposed cuts, it will be hurt and possibly eliminated as a result of them.

 

###

This is a good piece that takes a broader look at who the "transportation disadvantaged" are.  The author argues that it's not just disabled, elderly, and those who cannot afford cars, but also those in the broad swaths of the USA who have no choice but to reach for the car keys.  He also brings up an interesting perspective that, while it is true that Europeans pay higher taxes, in much of Europe it is possible to get by without a car.  Conversely, in the US taxes may be lower, but because a car is  required if most people are to get to work and just run life's errands, but cars cost an average of $9000 per year to buy, operate, and maintain.  In a typical American household with two cars, that's an $18,000 unavoidable "car tax" that puts the European-US tax argument in a new perspective:

 

 

Who Are the Transportation Disadvantaged?

 

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-07-20/who-are-the-transportation-disadvantaged/

 

 

 

As we contemplate the Trump administration's proposed transportation budget cuts, let's consider them on the micro scale -- on Ohio and specifically on Greater Cleveland...

 

For Cleveland, the Amtrak impact from the proposed budget cuts is more about missing emerging opportunities and the popularity of a service that slips through Cleveland in the wee hours. But first, here are the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) impacts...

 

Trump administration proposes to eliminate the Federal Transit Administration over four years and use its funding to support federal road programs rather than continue to use general revenue funds or raise gas taxes:

 

+ GCRTA gets $34 million per year in federal funding for capital purchases and preventative maintenance. About 80 percent of that goes to the rail system that GCRTA owns and is wholly responsible for, unlike the road system to which GCRTA pays no fuel taxes or other fees to support.

 

+ One out of five GCRTA boardings is on the rail system, despite there being only three rail lines vs. nearly 100 bus routes. The rail system accounts for only 17 percent of GCRTA's operating budget. About 150,000 people board GCRTA buses and trains each day. Additional weekday boardings in downtown Cleveland and University Circle are on Akron Metro RTA, Laketran, Portage Area RTA and Stark Area RTA who will also be hurt by the proposed budget cuts.

 

+ This comes on top of a nearly 10 percent loss in sales tax revenues from Managed Care Organization transactions starting later this year.

 

+ A large number of Northeast Ohioans depend on public transportation to get to work, school, health care and shopping. A significant degradation of Northeast Ohio's public transportation services would damage the quality of life and economy in Northeast Ohio.

 

+ These federal cuts are proposed as transit in Cleveland faces a backlog of more than a half-billion dollars worth of unfunded state-of-good-repair needs. Due to GCRTA owing its rail system, this backlog and the proposed federal cuts would hit disproportionately hard on the rail system. The backlog of state-of-good-repair needs include track, signal and bridge work, bringing stations up to ADA compliance, and replacing train cars whose average age is about 35 years -- well past their normal life expectancy.

 

+ Without federal funds, public transit in Greater Cleveland would be cut back to a core system of a handful of bus routes. All rapid transit trains would stop running in 5-10 years due to declining train, track, signal and bridge conditions. Bus replacements, bus garage repairs and equipment equipment replacements, and other capital needs will hut the bus system hard as well.

 

 

And for the Amtrak budget cut impacts ($525 million in 2018, $1 billion in following years), these would represent missed, emerging opportunities for Northeast Ohio...

 

+ The city of Cleveland along with Greyhound, Amtrak and GCRTA are planning a multi-modal transportation center at the site of our rally to unite surface transportation modes to make rail and bus travel more convenient and to promote redevelopment of the Greyhound station and our lakefront.

 

+ The Federal Railroad Administration (see https://www.midwestrailplan.org/) and states surrounding Ohio (Pennsylvania may soon plan expansion west to Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago: http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2017/06/senate-approves-state-rail-study/) are seeking passenger rail improvements that serve Ohio. If we lose our existing train services, we cannot improve them.

 

+ Restoring lost trains is extremely difficult. Columbus and Dayton lost their Amtrak train services in 1979 as a result of federal budget cuts. Akron and Youngstown lost their trains in 2005. None have returned due to the difficulty of restoring lost trains or instituting new services.

 

+ The existing Amtrak trains that travel through Cleveland and Toledo each night are used by 650,000 people per year, enough to fill every seat on more than a dozen Boeing 737 jets per day. They link big cities to small towns that have no other intercity public transportation, like Bryan, OH and Alliance, OH. There are nearly 50,000 people who boarded four nightly Amtrak trains last year in Cleveland, an increase of nearly 40 percent over the past decade. For perspective, Greyhound boards 250,000 people per year at Cleveland but that's on roughly 30 buses per day.

 

+ Despite having only five trains a day serving Ohio, Amtrak in 2016 spent $30 million into Ohios economy buying goods and services from Ohio companies. That includes Ohio Amtrak employees buying $6.45 million worth of goods and services (multiplier of 1.5 on base wages of $4.3 million).

 

+ All Ohio Amtrak trains (part of the National Network) would end as a result of the proposed budget cuts, and force increased costs and the loss of connecting revenues to state-supported trains in two dozen states, many of which may not be able to afford them anymore. In short, even if your route isn't being targeted by the proposed cuts, it will be hurt and possibly eliminated as a result of them.

 

###

 

This sounds horrific, esp for RTA.  Where are our local pols, including US Congressmen, on this?  I haven't heard much comment from anybody until this...

All Cleveland area reps are opposed.

 

Update: Transportation, Amtrak funding gain more steam in the US Senate

https://t.co/cXGLHsAriD

Axios scoops draft White House infrastructure proposal. https://t.co/YSslBycoDt

Trump Administration's infrastructure proposal now expected to be funded using money from existing transit & Amtrak authorizations.

 

Luckily, our transit systems and Amtrak are doing just fine with their current levels of funding. No need for federal funds.

 

From Congressional Quarterly....

 

That doesn't even remotely surprise me.