Personalized public transit that picks you up where you are and drops you off right where you want to go?  Uhh....Taxicabs anyone?  How are they going to do the same thing as a taxi and have it be the price of public transit?

http://www.trafficworld.com/newssection/government.asp?id=49325

 

Getting America 'Shovel Ready'

1/12/2009

Ari Natter

Associate Editor

 

 

Shippers who want to know how they'll benefit from the massive infrastructure spending and economic stimulus package being crafted in Washington should ask Lowe's and the Pioneer Valley Railroad in Massachusetts.

 

The 27-mile short line brings roughly 1,500 carloads of plywood, boards, fencing and other building materials each year to the home improvement giant's Westfield, Mass., distribution center, a facility considered vital to Lowe's Northeast expansion.

 

..........

Please note in the above article that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recommends allocating $30.25 billion for highways and bridges, $12 billion for transit, $7 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $5.25 billion for aviation and nearly $5 billion for passenger rail.

 

So what did the "transportation experts" in the Appropriations Committee recommend?

 

How about just $8.9 billion for transit and only $1.1 billion for intercity passenger rail. Meanwhile, the proposal would put $30 billion into "Roads-n-Bridges, Roads-n-Bridges...." Those words keep getting uttered as if by brainwashed zombies.

 

President-Elected Obama has asked for a bill that will change our economy to be more fuel efficient and green. This proposed bill won't do that.

 

Don't like it? Tell your congressfolk today! I know you hear that a lot. But please take it to heart!!!! Give them a new combination to memorize: "Trains and Transit! Trains and Transit!"

 

Use this tool to contact your representative....

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=RsdM6K6%2FtuyqEKO5JthM%2FDneT4fSggML

 

Tell them to accept the House Transportation & Infrastructure's recommended stimulus funding amounts for Trains and Transit. Remember, keep it short and sweet. Your persuasiveness of your message won't influence your Congressperson. The number of your messages will.

JANUARY 15, 2009, 5:47 P.M. ET

Transportation Aid Levels Decried Article

The Wall Street Journal

By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY

 

Some Democrats and interest groups protested that the economic-stimulus proposal unveiled by the House Tuesday doesn't allocate enough funding for transportation projects, setting the stage for a heated debate in the weeks ahead.

 

The House bill would provide about $43 billion for roads, transit and airport projects, well below the $53 billion recommended by House Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D., Minn.). Many House members had figured the transportation component of the bill would exceed $85 billion, as the price tag of the overall package swelled to $825 billion in recent weeks.

 

 

..........

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123205843724587333.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Sounds like Pelosi might have a revolt by some committee chairs on her hands. Glad to see this is getting into the media.

I think this speaks for itself....

 

^That's really interesting. I would doubt that spending 22% of funding on bicycling and walking would be even remotely conceivable, what would you spend that kind of money on?

Considering it will cost $40 million to extend the Towpath Trail in Cleveland five miles from Harvard Road to downtown, and that there are numerous proposals to build, maintain and upgrade trails, walkways, paths, etc. throughout Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Northeast Ohio, the State of Ohio, the Midwest, and the nation, I think there is a great unmet need out there that cannot be appreciated who haven't seen the backlog of planned projects.

 

Think also of all the places that have cracked and buckled sidewalks, where there are no sidewalks for children to play or get to school, where traffic calming measures are desperately needed, where comfortable and safe walkways linking major buildings and facilities are desired. The list is virtually endless.

While we are ahead on bike/ped facilities vs. intercity rail, for example, that still isn't saying much. Fully 40 % of Columbus's streets do not have sidewalks, an amazing figure when you consider the hundreds of miles of streets within the city. That's probably a couple hundred million dollars worth of work and that's just one Ohio city.

DanB doesn't have a front porch. He has a four-car garage on the front of his house, which is at the end of a long driveway in a subsidivision of cul-de-sacs behind a gate to keep out anyone with an open mind.

 

As for Ram23, he is clearly in the minority as a voice of reason in America. ;) In reality, I encourage you to understand the price tags of buying right of way, constructing graded trails, building bridges, providing wayside signage and enhancement of historical sites, as well as the maintenance of all this stuff. The costs are substantial, ranging from $5 million to $15 million per mile.

 

That's just for trails. Let's consider the sorry state of sidewalks in America, many places which have none or have crumbling relics that would be an embarassment in Mogadishu. Can we at least give some decent places for our children to ride bicycles, walk or play hopscotch? Or have safe routes to schools without having to resort to costly busing borne wholly by taxpayers? Or offer pedestrian promenades along our waterfronts that make it easier to get from point A to point B, provide a pleasant place to have lunch on a warm afternoon, go for a jog year round, or take a romantic stroll any evening. Such settings aren't cheap, but create a sense of place as much as a transportation route. The backlog list of these projects is huge and unfunded. Maintaining them won't be inexpensive either.

 

These projects are not idiocy. They're about making cities nice places to be, which most aren't unless you're just driving through. I sure hope that having cities that are pleasant only to motorists is not your definition of intelligence.

 

It's not about intelligence. That's kind of a mean thing to say. I think it has everything to do with people's cultural attitudes. In terms of traffic, the idea that people would have to renounce speed as a goal...that's so deeply implanted in modernism and all of urbanism is about efficient flow of unimpeded traffic. It's in no way surprising that cars tend to be at the top of the totem pole.

 

A few days ago I was so annoyed when a train, at-grade, wasn't just crossing but had stopped on the railroad tracks in front of us while we were driving. Traffic was backed up for at least a mile and it didn't move for about 20 minutes.

I didn't claim that seeking a proven, alternative approach to our destruction of cities was idiocy. Another poster did. When someone questions intelligence with stupidity, then I will ALWAYS respond.

While we are ahead on bike/ped facilities vs. intercity rail, for example, that still isn't saying much. Fully 40 % of Columbus's streets do not have sidewalks, an amazing figure when you consider the hundreds of miles of streets within the city. That's probably a couple hundred million dollars worth of work and that's just one Ohio city.

 

Columbus is somewhat unique in this regard given its growth-through annexation history, no?  I don't think there are any significant portions of Cleveland or inner suburban Cleveland without sidewalks, and I suspect it's pretty much the same story for Cinci, Toledo, Akron, etc., but I don't know for sure.  Certainly there are lots of ped improvements that can be made (I love ped/bike paths that are segregated from traffic), but the situation isn't so dire everywhere.

Great. Tax cuts that won't do as much for the economy as direct investment. And for what? So we can slash funding for green transportation that was the original intention of the stimulus. Sometimes I wonder if this country has the discipline to survive......

_________________

 

>>>From the site TreeHugger.com:

 

"We have noted dismay before when infrastructure money was going to be thrown at roads instead of renos, but at least there were going be big bucks for transit and water and sewer. Not any more; now we have taxes before Transit. Representative Jim Oberstar explains:

 

The reason for the reduction in overall funding — we took money out of Amtrak and out of aviation; we took money out of the Corps of Engineers, reduced the water infrastructure program, the drinking water and the wastewater treatment facilities and sewer lines, reduced that from $14 billion to roughly $9 billion — was the tax cut initiative that had to be paid for in some way by keeping the entire package in the range of $850 billion."

 

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/taxes-before-transit.php

 

 

And what, Congressman Oberstar, do you tell all of those Americans who will now have not only fewer transportation choices but will get even more financially drilled by the costs of either owning a car or forced to give up a job opportunity because rail or transit isn't available?

 

Why, sir, did you not take $$$$ from highways to preserve your tax cuts?

 

 

I was told Pelosi did that. Oberstar's use of "we" refers to the House.

This is something that really aggravates me: I work at a factory in Hilliard - hopefully for not long - but it's good money for now. It's just outside of Columbus. The factory is in an industrial area separated from the retail and housing districts. I ditched my car a long time ago and I can't really afford to buy one at the moment - I really need to save money. There's no bus line that goes anywhere near the industrial area. You know bus service is either almost non-existent or non-existent in suburbs because residents don't want it to bring in the undesirables. In that case, it's workers like me. But the plant brings in a lot of tax money for the city of Hilliard. I think public transportation is owed to the employees who work an unglamourous job to get by and who also support the city by working there. They know manufacturing is great for tax revenue but I take the isolation of the industrial sites and lack of public transit as flat out disrespect. The parking situation on the site is also a nightmare. There's hardly anywhere to park - in plants you have 150 people working together in a condensed space. The parking lot is huge but there isn't enough spaces for everyone.

I think public transportation is owed to the employees who work an unglamourous job to get by and who also support the city by working there. They know manufacturing is great for tax revenue but I take the isolation of the industrial sites and lack of public transit as flat out disrespect.

 

Well said, and that's the key point. Tell policymakers to walk a mile in your shoes (literally!) before they decide how to spend your tax dollars. It should be educational for them.

I think public transportation is owed to the employees who work an unglamourous job to get by and who also support the city by working there. They know manufacturing is great for tax revenue but I take the isolation of the industrial sites and lack of public transit as flat out disrespect.

 

Well said, and that's the key point. Tell policymakers to walk a mile in your shoes (literally!) before they decide how to spend your tax dollars. It should be educational for them.

 

I wonder if it's something that unions could push for. I won't be there long enough to be a union member and I probably wouldn't join anyway but maybe I could send an email out. A lot of people rely on rides to get home.

David...where is the factory in relation to the nearest COTA route?

Stimulus: Stuck on cars

Critics say spending focuses too much on highways and not enough on public transport.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer

Last Updated: January 23, 2009: 6:00 PM ET

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A major chunk of the stimulus plan dealing with transportation is drawing fire for focusing too much on building new highways and not enough on regular maintenance projects and public transport.

 

The House has budgeted $30 billion for roads and bridges and $10 billion for mass transport as part of a $550 spending plan designed to boost the economy.

 

Supporters of the plan say most of that money will be spent on repair, and that such projects can be allocated quickly to jolt the economy. But critics say the plan short-changes public transportation, focusing too much on the types of mega-highway projects that got the nation into its energy and environmental mess in the first place.

 

.........

 

Find this article at:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/23/news/economy/transportaion_stimulus/index.htm?postversion=2009012312

 

This could have gone in "Overseas, the Trains and the Market for Them Accelerate" but the purpose of the article is show how our competition is catching up to us economically by investing in all forms of transportation, not just highways......

________________

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/worldbusiness/23yuan.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=China%20rail&st=cse

 

 

The New York Times

 

China's Route Forward

By Keith Bradsher

 

Published: January 22, 2009

 

GUANGZHOU, China — In an effort to hold back the domestic effects of the global downturn, China is starting to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on new highways, railroads and other infrastructure projects.

 

A typically crowded cabin on a train from Beijing to Chengdu. With little debt, China has the money to invest heavily in a much-needed repair and expansion of its infrastructure.

 

The stimulus plan, one of the world’s largest, promises to carry the modernity of China’s coasts deep into the hinterlands, buying the kind of great leap forward it took the United States decades — and a world war — to build, and priming China for a new level of global competition.

 

As President Obama and Congress draft an $825 billion stimulus plan for the United States, China is already two months into its effort. And while Democrats have put aside calls for big transportation projects, with the House bill allocating less than 5 percent of spending for the construction of highways, rail lines and mass transit programs, China is furiously pouring concrete and laying rails.

 

 

........

Northeast Corridor businesses, APTA call for more transit funding in economic stimulus bill

 

Last week, the Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) urging them to increase funding in the economic stimulus bill for transit and rail.

 

The coalition which includes more than 30 chambers of commerce and civic organizations along the Northeast Corridor are calling for the bill to provide $15 billion to $20 billion for transit and at least $1.5 billion for intercity passenger rail nationwide.

 

.........

 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=19499

Americans support infrastructure investment and accountability, poll shows

Progressive Railroading

 

Americans widely support infrastructure investment and are willing to pay for it, according to results from a recent study. But they also believe accountability measures should be implemented to ensure the money is being spent wisely.

 

Conducted by Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research on behalf of the Building America's Future coalition in December, the national poll examined Americans' views on infrastructure, project priorities and their tax dollars used to pay for infrastructure improvements.

 

Of the 800 adults surveyed in an online poll, 94 percent said they are concerned about the nation's infrastructure and 81 percent said they're prepared to pay 1 percent more in taxes to rebuild infrastructure. Sixty-one percent of the respondents noted that accountability is the No. 1 priority, with 31 percent saying that they care most that projects are on time and on budget and 24 percent saying they are most concerned about seeing exactly where the money is being spent.

 

Survey respondents also expressed an understanding that infrastructure investment isn't limited to roads and highways; schools, energy facilities and rail projects also were listed as top infrastructure priorities.

 

 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=19499

I would also highlight that last paragraph too. But of course our electeds in Congress say we don't want stimulus money for infrastructure, least of all for trains and transit! They say they know we want it for tax cuts. I love it when politicians put words in my mouth for me.

Glad to see some people close to Obama are raising objections....

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/transportation/1397109,CST-NWS-rideside26.article

 

January 26, 2009

 

U.S. jobs bill short on transit funds, say three in House

 

Though President Obama is begging Congress to pass a jobs-stimulus bill, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski, his fellow Chicago Democrat, says he's "leaning against" voting for the bill in its current form -- because it contains too little for transportation.

 

"Clearly, the state of Illinois has greater needs than the state could receive under the current bill," said Lipinski, who's on the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Downstate Transportation Committee members Aaron Shock, a Republican, and Phil Hare, a Democrat, agree with Lipinski that the transportation portion is too small.

 

"There's very little for mass transit and rail," said Hare, who wants an Amtrak line from Chicago to Des Moines, Iowa.

 

.....

http://www.asce.org/asce.cfm

 

ASCE Assigns Grade of D to Nation's Infrastructure;

New 'Report Card' Says $2.2 Trillion in Repairs Needed

 

 

Because decades of underfunding and inattention have endangered our nation's infrastructure, $2.2 trillion in repairs and upgrades is needed over the next five years to meet adequate conditions. That's the conclusion of ASCE's new 2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, which assigns an overall grade of D to the nation as well as individual grades in 15 infrastructure categories. Since ASCE's last assessment in 2005, there has been little change in the condition of America's roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and other public works. With the nation's infrastructure receiving renewed attention from the White House, Congress, and the public as a vital part of an economic stimulus package, the Report Card offers informed guidance from professional engineers on where funds would best be spent.

 

Details of the new Report Card, including grades in the 15 categories, suggestions for solutions, and more, are available here...

http://www.asce.org/reportcard

 

Watch a video of ASCE's press conference announcing the Report Card results, joined by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, here...

http://www.visualwebcaster.com/asceinfrastructurereportcard/

 

View and read CNN's report on the Report Card and its findings here...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/28/infrastructure.report.card/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

 

Share your comments and track the progress of action in Washington in ASCE's blog, Our Failing Infrastructure...

http://blogs.asce.org/govrel/

http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/3-billion-more-transit-stimulus-proposal-nadler-bill-passes

 

$3 B. More for Transit in Stimulus as Nadler Bill Passes

by Eliot Brown  |  2:45 PM January 28, 2009

 

Tack another $3 billion onto the federal stimulus tab, at least for the bill being debated in the House.

 

The U.S. House just voted to approve an amendment, sponsored by U.S. Representative Jerry Nadler of Manhattan and Brooklyn, that would add $3 billion to be spent on transit projects nationally. Transit advocates had complained the $9 billion currently in the House bill was paltry, especially given the Obama administration’s supportive rhetoric concerning public transportation.

 

Mr. Nadler told The Observer yesterday that too much of the stimulus was going to tax cuts, and there was not nearly enough spending to fully meet the goals of rescuing the economy.

 

That the bill passed was a bit of a surprise, as many interest groups and members of Congress wanted amendments of their own calling for new spending at the same time that Republicans have been pushing for less.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1629

 

Nadler transit amendment passes on voice vote

 

The House just approved Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)'s amendment to add $3 billion in transit capital funding to the stimulus. They approved it on a voice vote instead of a roll call.

According to Nadler's floor speech, 1.5 billion will go to the transit capital formula program, which goes to all states, and 1.5 billion to the new starts program. The AFL-CIO and environmental organizations will "score" this amendment, he said, meaning they'll factor members' votes on this issue into their scorecard ratings for each Representative. Since it was a voice vote, though, we don't know who opposed the amendment, making that impossible.

 

John Mica (R-FL), ranking member of the Tranportation Committee and the House's leading pro-transit Republican, called this "an amendment we have to support." The Appropriations committee, he said, "took one of the most important parts out: that's the rail and transit." Transit infrastructure creates jobs, he said. "Support the Nadler amendment!"

 

Transportation Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) said, "we heard very clearly from the major transit agencies in this counrty. They have options for buses. They have options for railcars that could be exercised within days." Manufacturers can ramp up production and create jobs all across the county.

 

Rep. David Dreier Jerry Lewis (R-CA), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, "reluctantly" opposed since the amendment didn't cut spending somewhere else. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the Appropriations Chair, gave the shortest speech: "I urge support to the amendment."

 

Oregon's Peter DeFazio: "Americans are loving their transit systems to death. There's $160 billion of deferred maintenance on these systems... there are 10,000 options for new buses, buses made in America. They can't be executed because our transit systems don't have the money." Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), mentioned light rail in Houston. "This bill must be a jobs bill. The [Chicago Transit Authority] head ... said she could spend $500 million tomorrow" putting people to work, added Dan Lipinski of Illinois. "Nothing will create more jobs than funding transportation infrastructure," said Staten Island's new Congressman, Democrat Michael McMahon.

 

Keith Ellison of Minnesota talked about the record transit ridership last year. Dan Maffei (D-NY) relayed recent news that the transit system of his hometown of Syracuse is facing deep cuts.

 

Nobody other than Dreier Lewis spoke against the amendment.

 

Update: The House also rejected an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to remove all funding for Amtrak. "In 40 years, Amtrak has not turned a profit, and the federal government has continued to subsidize it." Flake, of course, didn't talk about all the federal subsidy to roads and airports, which he isn't trying to eliminate. Corinne Brown (D-FL), however, made that very point. "There is no form of transportation that pays for itself. None whatsoever. Whether we're talking about rail, airlines, cars, none of that. We subsidize all of that."

I am happy for the transit side but not for Amtrak. Yes, it's nice that the Flake amendment was defeated, but the Brown amendment to restore $4 billion in cuts to Amtrak made by the Appropriations Committee never saw the light of day. Now our only hope is with the Senate to receive a meaningful level of investment for passenger rail, not a polite blow-off of $1.1 billion. Not when China is investing $88 billion and India $30 billion on rail.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB123317727183325667-lMyQjAxMDI5MzIzOTEyNzk3Wj.html

 

JANUARY 28, 2009, 4:26 P.M. ET House Bill Pleases Rail-Transport Advocates

 

By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY

WASHINGTON -- Advocates for mass-transit and passenger-rail service scored two victories in the House version of the economic-stimulus bill, adding $3 billion in mass-transit spending and beating back a proposal to cut Amtrak funding.

 

Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York and several other House Democrats Wednesday put forward an amendment to the $825 billion economic-recovery package that would add $3 billion more in spending for mass-transit service. The amendment passed on a voice vote, bringing the total for public-transportation spending in the House bill to $12 billion. The House is expected to vote on its version of the bill on Wednesday evening.

 

........

Once again, evidence that we still have much work to do in changing the mindset among members of Congress about passenger rail.

I agree with KJP's assessment. We might have won a victory for transit, but NOT Amtrak or intercity passenger rail. That amount still remains stuck at $1.1 billion as opposed to the original $4-5 billion.

 

Oh, and why did rail come up short? Tax cuts. Yep, tax cuts made to entice Republicans who then unanimously voted against the stimulus in a vote that amounted to a raised index finger in Obama's direction. There's a lesson in that.

 

Now it's on to the senate. Hopefully, we'll get more rail funds restored there.

I think it was a raised middle finger. Every vote in Congress is counted before the yay or nay buttons are pushed. Where was the pre-vote polling of GOPers by the Democrats? If the Demos knew the GOPers weren't going to go along with a stimulus package that had the tax cuts, then why include the tax cuts at the expense of a green-friendly infrastructure package that had previously included $5 billion for rail?

 

The Democrats blew this one in the House. I hope they can figure it out before the Senate process gets too far along.

Maybe Obama didn't really blow it. After this, all Repubs could be painted as nothing but a bunch of obstructionists, which they are.

Good point and an interesting strategy.

 

They are not strong enough to obstruct so it doesn't really matter.

Hagan, midwest reps ask Congress to fund rail projects

Thursday, January 29, 2009

 

 

YOUNGSTOWN State Rep. Robert Hagan of Youngstown, D-60th, joined with state representatives from around the Midwest to call on Congress to invest more of the federal stimulus money into rail projects.

 

Passenger rail service is an environmentally friendly transportation option and a permanent source of economic development that ties together cities and regions, said Hagan, who works as a locomotive engineer. I believe the expansion of this service will create permanent jobs in Ohio and will boost our struggling economy.

 

..........

 

 

http://www.vindy.com/news/2009/jan/29/hagan-midwest-reps-ask-congress-to-fund-rail/?newswatch

 

Note: State Rep. Hagan is also an ORDC Commissioner.

They are not strong enough to obstruct so it doesn't really matter.

 

Maybe, maybe not. They can still hold things up in the Senate.

LaHood says stimulus money will help fragile economy

By Karen McDonald

GateHouse News Service

 

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/opinions/columnists/x309570775/LaHood-says-stimulus-money-will-help-fragile-economy?view=print

 

PEORIA, Ill. — The best thing to jump-start the struggling economy is to get stimulus money to the states, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said Friday.

 

LaHood said he will conduct a conference call, likely next week, with all 50 state transportation chiefs to discuss stimulus legislation. Though he said it’s not yet known which projects will be funded, money will flow “almost immediately” after a final bill is passed to start building infrastructure such as roads, bridges and highways.

........

I was playing around with some statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the U.S Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Inflationdata.com and Wall Street Journal/MarketWatch.

 

See if my math makes sense......

 

In 2006, there were 1,026,000 VMTs per lane-mile in the U.S. (Includes interstates, arterials, collectors and local roads). This number is 30 percent higher than the 1980 figure, or 716,000 VMTs per lane-mile. The trend is getting worse, not better.

 

24.7 mpg was the average fuel economy of new vehicles sold in 2004. That's only a slight improvement over 1980's figure of 23.1 mpg.

 

1,026,000 divided by 24.7

 

41,538 gallons of fuel for every lane mile of road

There are 42 gallons of fuel in a barrel of crude oil

 

Each new lane-mile of road results in another 989 barrels of oil to be burned per year.

 

Of that, 655 barrels are imported (in 2006, 66.26% of U.S. petroleum consumption was imported; in 1980, a decade after America's biggest oil fields passed peak production, just 40 percent of our petroleum was imported; again, a trend that is going in the wrong direction).

 

 

* At $50 per barrel of oil, each new lane-mile of road sends $32,750 of America’s wealth overseas each year.

** At $100 per barrel, each new lane-mile of road exports $65,500 of our nation’s wealth out of the country each year.

*** At $150 per barrel, each new lane-mile of road sucks $98,250 out of the United States annually.

 

Since 1980, America has added an average of 19,170 lane-miles per year to its total roadway network.

 

If this rate of road-building continues, America will send an additional $627,817,500 ($628 million) out of the country each year with oil valued at $50 per barrel.

 

Should we keep on adding roadway capacity with oil at $100 per barrel, we will export another $1,255,635,000 ($1.26 billion) of our wealth over the year before.

 

And at $150 per barrel, the U.S. will transfer yet another $1,883,452,500 ($1.9 billion) of our nation’s wealth overseas – just by building more roads each year at the same rate as we have since 1980.

 

This isn’t theory. Consider the average annual oil prices in each of the last few years (yet another not-so positive trend although the recession has temporarily halted it and caused a false sense of security) and do the math yourself:

 

2004 - $37.66 per barrel

2005 - $50.04 per barrel

2006 - $58.30 per barrel

2007 - $64.20 per barrel

2008 - $99.65 per barrel

 

Yet the federal stimulus bill was supposed to be "green" and build our economy. Well, with $30 billion of the stimulus going to highways and much of that for newly added lanes, the stimulus isn't green but it will build the economy, just not ours!

Folks, this is what KJP does when bored. Please see to it that he is entertained. Thank you. :-D

 

PS: Very interesting exercise!!!

Folks, this is what KJP does when bored. Please see to it that he is entertained. Thank you. :-D

 

PS: Very interesting exercise!!!

 

He's not bored. He's passionate about what he advocates!

I'm glad you were entertained! I know I was.  :wink:

 

I just hope you were informed.

 

    Free trade benefits both parties. Are you unhappy that someone else is making money?

 

  :?

Selling tobacco with spiked nicotene or fast food with saturated fats is free trade too, but only when there is good information about the consequences and the presence of healthier alternatives. Perhaps a better analogy is that some of the regimes which are exporting oil have all the best intentions of drug dealers, and we are their addicts. Only one side is being enriched by the trade while other is having the life sucked out of them. Is that the kind of "free trade" we should be involved in?

 

Are you unhappy that Americans might actually be educated about how much of our money is leaving the country, is killing our environment while benefitting regimes that would like to see us violently pass from this Earth? Are you unhappy that we might learn about the diminishing returns from continually expanding our highway system to the point that it is weakening America's economy? Or that investing in fossil fuel-free cars, electrically powered public transit and cities redesigned around walking and biking will allow America to keep its wealth from draining away and instead gets reinvested at home? Free trade is great. One-way trade is not.

 

America's once-dominant wealth is no more...

 

For it has gone to another shore...

Oh come on. You picked the most extreme examples you could muster up. Europe buys oil from UAE. Not us, and they have most of the trains. They also buy all their heroin from poppy farmers in Afghanistan. At least we grow our own tobacco. We're not the only country who imports bad addictions by any means.

So we shouldn't try to improve ourselves, especially when the trend for oil prices will only siphon more of our nation's wealth in the future?

 

If my windows are leaking out heat, shouldn't I cover them or replace them?

If my credit card's interest accumulation is growing faster than my payments, then don't I need a higher paying job or a better credit card deal?

If I'm burning off more calories than I'm consuming, shouldn't I reverse that at some point or risk fading away?

 

Americans seem to have trouble with the concept of sustainability. Europe is making great strides at becoming more self-sustaining resource-wise (natural gas is an area they still need to tackle). We in America still have our heads in the sand. BTW, the U.S. does buy oil from the UAE, though not as much as from other countries.... http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimustc1m.htm

 

P.S. Yeah, I realize the photos above were extreme examples, but they demonstrate how I feel about this country and its place in the global economy. I want to see us building cities like are in Dubai and China and Malaysia and so on. Instead too many of our great cities have gone into "situation status quo" or are dying outright -- Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis and others.

At least we grow our own tobacco.

 

Actually, 70% of the tobacco consumed is now imported from China or Mexico. Kentucky was one of the participants in the tobacco buyout program of the 1990s, that helped farmers diversify crops from tobacco -- not as a health policy, but one of monetary.

I'm glad you were entertained! I know I was.   :wink:

 

I just hope you were informed.

 

I definitely was. It's a fascinating way to look at what happens when we blindly add more highway capacity. Induced demand leads to overconsumption and oil dependence. In a way, it reminds me of the consequences suffered by the guy who did "Supersize Me." Portions of unhealthy food keep getting bigger, leading to all sorts of problems.

 

This stuff should be a in press release and a report and sent to every Federal, state and local official. Maybe a few of them will stop to think where we are headed.

Eigth and State's post got me thinking. To be fair, there needs to be a companion set of data to see if there's an economic counterbalance to us expanding our highway system and increasingly sending more of our wealth overseas to fuel it.

 

And, by gosh, there is!

 

Consider:

 

http://scm.ncsu.edu/public/facts/facs060705.html

 

7/5/06

A Brief History of the Highway Transportation System in the U.S.

Written by:

Rob Handfield, SCRC

 

The big question now is whether Americans are willing to keep spending more than $80 billion a year of their tax money to maintain and upgrade the system.  Clifford Winston, at the Brookings Institution, has tried to measure the benefits reaped from improved logistics.  He believes that government-financed highway investments have run into steeply diminishing returns since the 1980s.

 

________________________

 

 

And consider:

 

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E1DD103FF933A15756C0A9629C8B63

 

Economic Scene; Highway spending is meant to be a public investment in the nation's infrastructure that pays off for everyone. Does it?

 

By VIRGINIA POSTREL

Published: May 20, 2004

 

CONGRESS and the White House are wrangling over how much the federal government should spend on highways....

 

How effective is the investment?

 

In an article in the March issue of The Journal of Urban Economics, two economists look at exactly how highway spending increases productivity -- by lowering businesses' inventory and logistics costs -- and calculate how the returns on highway spending have changed over time.

 

Even good returns tend to diminish from the first dollar to the last....

 

On average, they write, ''one dollar of annual highway spending reduces the annual congestion costs to road users only 8 cents.'' This is not a return on a one-time investment but a continuing expense; we have to keep spending that dollar to get the 8 cents.

 

________________________

 

 

So let's take that data: $80 billion per year begets an 8 percent annual return on investment.

 

80,000,000,000 x .08 = $6,400,000,000

 

Now much of that is for maintaining the system, not new capacity. According to:

 

http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Public_Works/TES/Traffic_Mitigation/Appendix_B_2007.pdf

 

....the cost of building a new lane-mile of roadway is about $430,000 (in 2006 dollars -- which is good, because my data in the earlier post is all 2006 data).

 

So since we've been adding 19,170 lane-miles to our roadway system since 1980, that works out to $8,243,100,000 ($8.2 billion) per year in spending for the new roadway capacity.

 

If we apply the return on investment stated above, 8 percent, to the $8.2 billion we get an economic impact return of $659,448,000 per year.

 

Last year, the U.S. sent $1.25 billion more of its wealth overseas by expanding its highway system while generating just $660 million in economic development. That was a net loss of $665 million to our economy -- in just one year.

 

Now here's an even more interesting question:  at what price of oil in 2006 did the U.S. need to see in order for its economy to "break even" from highway expansion?

 

About $50 per barrel.

 

If the price is less than that, the U.S. economy sees a positive economic return from highway expansion. If the price is more, the U.S. economy loses from highway expansion.

 

Worse, since America's rate of importing oil is increasing each year and since the highway system is generating diminishing returns from further investment, the price oil must keep falling each year for us to continue to reap the economic rewards of highway expansion. Thus it is highly possible that at the current Brent crude oil price (a more realistic measure these days of the predominant type of oil on the market than West Texas Intermediate) of $45.40 (Jan. 30) that it's highly likely we're still just breaking even on highway expansion.

 

Thus it is likely the federal stimulus allocation of $30 billion for highways may not produce net economic benefits for the United States.

February 4, 2009

Rider Paradox: Surge in Mass, Drop in Transit

By MICHAEL COOPER

New York Times

 

ST. LOUIS Buses will no longer stop at some 2,300 stops in and around this city at the end of next month because, despite rising ridership, the struggling transit system plans to balance its books with layoffs and drastic service cuts.

 

One stop scheduled to be cut is in the western suburb of Chesterfield, Mo., just up the road from a bright, cheerful nursing home called the Garden View Care Center. Without those buses, roughly half of the centers kitchen staff and half of its housekeeping staff people like Laura Buxton, a cook known for her fried chicken who comes in from Illinois, and Danette Nacoste, who commutes two hours each way from her home in South St. Louis to her job in the laundry will not have any other way to get to work.

 

.........

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/04transit.html?_r=1&th&emc=th