Transportation chief has plan to unclog traffic

Mineta unveils effort to reduce congestion that hurts economy

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Adam Sichko

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

The conveyor belts slowed to a halt at the Bath & Body Works shipping and receiving center in Reynoldsburg yesterday morning so that Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta could be heard.

 

Once the din died down, Mineta discussed a new national plan aimed at untying increasingly knotted shipping and receiving pathways that slow the business world.

 

Read more at:

 

http://dispatch.com/business-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/05/18/20060518-B1-02.html

 

And, of course, Sec. Mineta makes no mention of passenger or freight rail, barely mentions mass transit and proposes putting more of the $$$ load on states. 

 

I love how our President has this "revelation" that we're in an energy crisis, and now Mineta discovers .... "Oh my Gawd!"..... we have traffic congestion.  Where have these guys been over the last several years?

 

 

For Immediate Release: May 17, 2006

Contact: Colin Peppard - 202-222-0747 (office) / 202-841-4491 (cell)

Friends of the Earth's Transportation Blog

 

Without Rail and Transit, Bush Traffic Plan is a Dead End

Bush’s six-point plan does little to solve traffic congestion or gas prices

 

Washington D.C. – President Bush failed to consider the most effective ways to combat growing gridlock in the U.S. in his plan to reduce traffic, which was released yesterday.  The plan virtually ignores transit and passenger rail, which could significantly help with rising gas prices in addition to traffic congestion.  Instead, the plan favors measures that focus on highways and private roadways, as well as technological fixes and fast-track environmental review of projects.

 

“President Bush had the perfect opportunity to address both gridlock and gas prices in this plan, and he decided not to take it,” said Colin Peppard, transportation policy coordinator for Friends of the Earth.  “With the price of oil expected to approach $4 per gallon this summer, Americans are hardly clamoring for more roads.”

 

As USA Today reported last month, transit systems across the country are seeing increased ridership, corresponding with the rise in gas prices.  However, the Bush administration’s plan ignores such highly successful Department of Transportation transit programs such as “New Starts”, which helps support local investment in rail transit, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit systems.  The New Starts program has helped hundreds of cities and communities build or expand transit systems.

 

Many Amtrak corridors have seen double digit ridership increases as well.  However, in this year’s budget, President Bush proposed cutting Amtrak funding by 30 percent.  Like local and regional transit, Amtrak trains are more fuel efficient than passenger cars.  All forms of transit help relieve congestion by allowing travelers to choose not to drive.

 

“It is clear from the numbers that the consumer demand for transit is growing,” said Peppard.  “Transportation planners are working to respond to the demand by building out transit and improving rail travel in this country.  Yet all the president can offer is more asphalt.”

 

The release of Bush’s narrow minded plan means the responsibility to support local and regional transit now lies with Congress, which is currently considering a transportation funding package for 2007.  The Senate appropriations subcommittee that deal with transportaion is tentatively scheduled to take up their portion of the annual bill on May 24.

 

# # #

 

As usual, Bush, Mineta & Co. issue a proposal that is more a fart in the wind than anything of substance. Hey, why don't they propose something that actually might do something to alleviate congestion AND address our addiction to oil???

 

This ain't rocket science. If a guy at a computer in Columbus, Ohio (me) can come up with ideas, why can't they? Or are they such feckless mental midgets that they can't?? Or are they beholden to interests other than that of the public???

 

How about making all the interstates into toll roads and use the proceeds to address congestion, not by simply building more roads, but by using the solution that best fits the problem? If that solution happens to be a road, fine. But I'd bet that rail transit, intercity rail freight and passenger and other things would be better in a lot of cases.

 

Why not raise the gas tax in yearly increments to deter unnecessary driving and offsetting that with lower federal income taxes?

 

There are any number of things---some of them quite small---that could be done. Instead we get half-baked ideas like this and kill-Amtrak budgets, when events suggest we should be doing otherwise.  :whip:

Wouldn't adding a bunch of interstates support more sprawl... a big catalyst of congestion? They make it look like these are breakthrough ideas and it's nothing that hasn't already been thought up. I don't like the idea of toll roads because that causes traffic to come to a complete stop and that's what we're trying to prevent. If they could get the funding from people using these congested roads without doing that, then that would be great. How much does it cost to lay a foot of rail compared to a foot of freeway? Honestly..I hate those 18 wheel trucks with a burning passion. They're huge, they get in the way, they drive like maniacs because the drivers never get any sleep, they drive slower, they drive parallel to each other on two lane highways and dont let people through. If we could interlink routes of high speed rail to all big and medium sized cities carrying goods at extremely high speeds...200+ miles per hour and maybe even passengers that would eliminate traffic and would be very beneficial to our overall economic efficiency. Then truck drivers could do something more productive with their time besides sitting in their cab bullshitting on the CB radio all day.

David: You don't have to have toll booths. This can all be done with sensors that would scan you car when entering a toll road and bill your credit card. This would also make it easier to charge more for driving during peak periods.

I didn't know they did that. That's a good idea.

David: You don't have to have toll booths. This can all be done with sensors that would scan you car when entering a toll road and bill your credit card. This would also make it easier to charge more for driving during peak periods.

 

Of course that requires Big Brother install a sensor into EVERY automobile.  Good luck with that.

^ Like there's a sensor in every item you buy at the store? Or a tracking ID in every phone call you make? Or in every magnetic strip in every credit/debit card you have? On every driver's license we hand over at the request of law enforcement? On every Internet Provider number we have that tracks us as we browse the WWW?

 

Yet I always find it interesting that anti-governmental types stay silent on governmental involvement when it benefits them. The inverse is true, too. So all of a sudden, when it comes to highways, we're going to grow some balls? As a nation, I don't see it happening.

 

Here's a simpler solution:  If you don't like the toll booths, don't go through them or you can continue to pay with cash. It's your choice whether you want to pay cash or install an EZ pass-type sensor on your car. They will have to offer both, since not everyone will need the sensor, such as out-of-town drivers or others who seldom drive that stretch of toll road.

 

Don't have a cow. Go to the brew-thru, grab some beers, hoist a few, relax and be a good little American. Just don't forget to wave to the security camera while at the store. You never know who's gonna be watching.....

I couldn't help but notice that Mineta's idea of economic development seems to be to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to draw some "logistics" facilities.  That means $8/hour warehouse jobs in non business-ees.  I'd be interested in seeing that cost/benefit analysis.

• Foster the creation of three to five major interstate traffic thoroughfares, either on the ground or through the air, known as "corridors of the future."

 

Back in the 1950s, when the Interstate Highway System was proposed, it was believed that the Interstates would permanently relieve all road congestion.  How is this "new" idea any different from the same, regressive thinking we've been seeing from Mineta's DOT? 

 

If these corridors are on land, they will be traffic-choked, and require enormous amounts of real-estate (much more than rail!).  If the corridors are in the air, Mineta fails to explain how adding more flights to the overburdened air traffic control system is going to help anything.

The following is an e-mail I got today from a friend who is President of the Texas Association of Railroad Passengers.  It is a stinging and thoughtful criticism of Secretary Mineta's alledged "plan". It actually predates the initial post, but much of what Mineta put forward is what he has been spouting all along.

 

Open Letter from Dr. Vukan R. Vuchic to Secretary Mineta

 

Honorable  Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary

Department of Transportation

400 South 7th  Street

Washington, DC 20590

 

22 March 2006

 

Dear Secretary  Mineta,

 

I have been a professor and consultant to cities in many  countries,

published books and testified before the U. S. Congress

on  transportation policy for over 40 years. You may remember that we met at some  transportation meetings many years ago. I am writing this letter to comment on  your recent transportation policies and actions.

 

In your Guest Editorial  in the latest issue of the "Public Roads" journal

you pointed out the increasing  problem of mobility for our senior

citizens.  As their number grows, our  country faces an increasing social and economic problem of inadequate mobility  for a large segment of our population. Your presented an excellent description  of this situation, but failed to identify its primary causes. The condition of  our national transportation system is largely responsible for the problems  facing not only seniors, but many other population groups also. Moreover, some  of the policies you advocate work against the solutions we need to provide  adequate transportation for all affected population groups.

 

As people  age, driving becomes not only more difficult for them, but also

dangerous for  them and for others. Statistics of increasing highway

accidents by persons over  70 clearly show that. It is therefore well known that senior citizens  increasingly use public transportation in cities and Amtrak, planes and buses  for intercity travel. In our cities, as well as in most of our peer countries,  seniors use transit extensively whenever a decent service is provided.

 

Automobile dependency - transportation based on private cars which  leaves large segments of population without any reasonable alternative,  represents avery serious national problem. Without attractive and  efficient public transportation, senior citizens together with the young,  non-drivers and non-auto-owners, are second-class citizens with respect to  mobility.

 

It is quite surprising and illogical that you discuss the  problem of

transportation for senior citizens without addressing the problem of  auto

dependency.  Similarly, President Bush talks (correctly) about our  "addiction to cheap oil," but he seems to believe there is a single  solution-alternate energy sources. Actually, the problem requires multiple  solutions, particularly reducing our auto dependency through a genuinely  intermodal transportation system, the concept endorsed in principle by all  federal transportation acts since the

ISTEA of 1991.

 

This analysis leads  to another, related set of your activities that must be

challenged: your  personal and the Bush Administration's extremely hostile policy toward  Amtrak.  You have succeeded to divert the entire

discussion about Amtrak  from the basic issue-our nation's need for a modern, efficient passenger rail  system-to the current financial problems of Amtrak. These problems are mostly the result of Federal Government's national transportation policy.

 

The  situation with Amtrak must be seen in perspective as follows. Ever since its  founding, Amtrak has been financed mostly at the level of year-to-year survival.  Federal funding was never adequate to allow investment for developing a modern  passenger railroad system.  Amtrak has managed to resolve a substantial  part of its inherited excess costs and labor inefficiencies, and continues to do  so. However, no organization can find the means and employee morale to  vigorously develop a long-range plan when it has to fight for immediate survival. Inadequately funded, Amtrak is then continuously criticized for its operating deficits!

 

Both the Administration and Congress made  things only worse by requiring Amtrak to achieve "self-sufficiency," the  requirement no passenger transportation mode could achieve! As you certainly  know, our air transportation system obtains extensive federal support, but  through less direct and well hidden forms (general fund contributions to air  traffic control, tax exempt bonds to assist airport construction, research and  development, etc.).

 

Should we mention highways, where well over 40% of the  roughly $165 billion per year from all levels of government comes from non-user  payments?

 

By comparison, this makes federal assistance to Amtrak of  molecular size.

Yet, highway subsidies are quoted in annual amounts and referred  to

as "federal investments," while Amtrak subsidies are always compounded for  its entire life of 35 years. Although this 35-year sum is still much smaller  than annual highway subsidies, Amtrak is continuously criticized as  "near-bankrupt","inefficient" and "heavily subsidized by tax-payers."

 

In this day and age, most of our peer industrialized countries see  passenger railroads as an increasingly important transportation system to  provide an attractive alternative for large volumes of travel in ranges from

50  to 300 or 500 miles, as well as across the country. That has led to large  investments in construction of high-speed rail networks in no less than 14  countries! With increasing highway travel and oil consumption, passenger rail  has acquired steadily growing importance in reducing congestion and in  decreasing the serious socio-economic problem of auto dependency.

 

Our country, which has the most serious problem of auto dependency, does  not show awareness of this problem. Nor does it have any vision of what the role of passenger rail should be. Our Federal policy consists of vicious attacks and  propaganda against Amtrak focusing on its current financial crisis, which is the result of federal policies imposed on Amtrak. It was not confidence-inspiring to  see David Gunn fired. He was recognized by transportation professionals, as well  as by political leaders, as the most capable person to lead Amtrak. Moreover,  the fact that for the second consecutive year you have eliminated the Next  Generation High Speed Rail Development Program suggests that your rhetoric against Amtrak's long-distance trains masks contempt for all forms of intercity  passenger rail.>

 

Many of your recent speeches about Amtrak have contained  numerous factual and conceptual inaccuracies and distortions, as has been richly  documented by the National Association of Railroad Passengers - NARP.

That  organization has also produced the only document with vision about our national  needs for an efficient rail passenger system.

 

May I respectfully  suggest that as the Secretary of Transportation, you

should cease your  destructive actions against Amtrak and produce a positive, constructive and  realistic plan for creation of a sound national

passenger rail system. Such a  plan should be based on the following 10 facts:

 

1. In all corridors  which passenger rail serves, shift of trips from

freeways to Amtrak has benefits  on both sides: it justifies improving the rail service, making it more  attractive, and decreases highway

congestion, reducingwasted time, oil  consumption and environmental deterioration.

 

2. For trips up to  250 miles (with high-speed rail up to 400 miles) rail

center-to-center city  travel is superior to air and bus travel, and it can

attract many trips from the  automobile, which the other modes cannot. Most heavily traveled corridors are in  that distance range. With fares structured to maximize ridership, this diversion  to rail would support improved Amtrak services. The present extremely high fares  are counterproductive because they decrease Amtrak competitiveness and divert  many potential train riders to parallel, often overloaded freeways.

 

3.  Long-distance travel on the national rail network, if convenient and

reasonably  priced, has multiple important roles, such as service to

many smaller cities  without bus service, travel by persons who do not want to or cannot fly,  families, students and tourists, domestic and foreign.

 

4. Amtrak's  ability to attract passengers in both dense corridors and across the country is  clearly demonstrated by increasing ridership despite the extremely high fares  which Congress forced Amtrak to charge in recent years.

 

5. The U.S. rail  system is by its nature, function and geography interstate, and therefore even  more in the domain of the federal government than highways.

 

6. You are  correct that further efforts on increasing Amtrak's operating

efficiency and  passenger-friendly policies and attitudes should continue to be vigorously  pursued.

 

7. Financing: the amount of $1.5 to $2.0 billion annually  for Amtrak

operations is minute compared to federal financing of other modes

of  transportation. Different options can be considered for providing several  billion dollars annually to finance development of an efficient and attractive  national rail system. For example, a very logical solution would be to earmark a "nickel for Amtrak" added to the federal tax on gasoline. Public opposition to  increased price of gasoline is undermined by the fact that fluctuations of up to  50 cents/gallon have been accepted by auto drivers with very little reduction of driving - which would be a national goal anyway. Federal tax on gasoline is lower than it was ever since 1956, and each cent per gallon brings $1.1 billion per year. Thus, 2 cents per gallon would provide adequate funding for Amtrak, while a nickel would provide for the development of a truly modern national passenger rail system.

 

Alternatively or in addition, serious  consideration should be given to

bonding proposals, such as those proposed by  Senators Lott and Lautenberg in connection with their rail passenger  reauthorization proposal.

 

8. Rail offers unique travel that allows  walking around, talking to fellow

passengers, using food services and often  enjoying superb views of the

surroundings - features greatly superior to  traveling strapped in seats on airplanes and in buses.

 

9. Extensive  records show that improved service quality and reasonable

prices would result in  major increases in ridership, greater mobility of

population and increased  competitiveness of our cities with their

foreign peers.

 

10. Our tourism  industry is also hampered by its excessive car-dependency. In that respect, we  are not competitive with our peers, such as Europe, Japan and Australia. An  efficient national rail network would greatly increase attraction of tourists  because they would be totally car-dependent.

 

On a broader scale, I  suggest that you, as well as the entire Administration including President Bush,  recognize that the "addiction of Americans to cheap oil (foreign or domestic)"  is not a set of frivolous habits, but a result of federal and state policies  that have led to the present auto dependency, affecting the majority of  our

population. Although we need alternate energy sources, they will

not  increase mobility of the elderly nor decrease the problems of auto

dependency,  highway congestion and environmental degradation.

 

Development of a  financially sound national passenger rail system, a

properly financed Amtrak  without obstacles by the Administration,

would be a major step forward.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

Vukan R. Vuchic, Ph.D.

UPS Foundation  Professor of

Transportation Systems Engineering

Professor of City &  Regional Planning

University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA 19104-6315

 

^ Outstanding.  :clap:

I wish they'd hurry up and invent teleports.

What strikes me the strongest out of Prof. Vuchic's letter is that he more than adequately shows that President Bush and his adminsitration not only fail to offer solutions... they are purposeful impediments.

FYI: Vukan Vuchic is a well known expert on public transportation, mostly transit. This is the first time I have ever seen anything from him on Amtrak.  :-)