Well hey there, looks like one Senator wants more mass transit in the stimulus package: Chuck Schumer.
Senator Charles Schumer said that he was unhappy about the amount of stimulus money set aside for mass transit and rail. He indicated that several other Senators from highly urbanized states were also unhappy about this portion of the stimulus, and that when the legislation reached the Senate, they would be jointly pushing for an increase in money set aside for mass transit and rail. The current amount for mass transit and rail in the stimulus bill is only $10 billion.
Well, that would be good. Mass transit ought to have parity funding, otherwise it will suck/be unavailable, and people won't use it, and they'll get in their cars and get in everyone's way and cause global warming while they're at it. I really find it unfortunate how “shovel ready” seems to mean “more of what we've always done”, which is not necessarily to be prized.
You know who could use some expedited rail line construction? Medford Mass, baby. (Although NIMBY and other annoyances seem to be leaving this project less shovel-worthy all the time. Sad and ridiculous.)
PS: Kerry's been on the high-speed rail tip, which is good; I wonder where that's going now. But I'd like to hear more talk about subway expansion, too; gotta have someplace to take you where you want to go, once you step off the SUPERTRAIN.
but a stimulus package to work has to deliver some near term effects; not sure that Mass Transit belongs in that type of bill. Not arguing that it isn’t a worthy cause, but stuff that won’t come on line within 6 months shouldn’t be in there. Rather should be funded on its own merits long term.
<
p>This is a sentiment I’ve heard a lot lately and one with which, in general, I agree. But “some” doesn’t mean “all” nor am I at all convinced that 6 months is the appropriate time frame to be discussing.
<
p>Ideally, any stimulus package ought not to work like Red Bull: a short term boost of ‘more’ followed by the need for a long nap. Ideally, a good stimulus package ought to have a near-term and a medium-term component as well as a longer-term commitment to transition from stimuli back to ‘normal’ operations. I think high-speed rail would fit in some portions (but not all) of that curve pretty well. There is a strong need for near-term work, but we ought not to blow it all at once… I think that invites both inefficiencies and systemic overload and could leave us drained as the worst of the recession gathers steam.
<
p>And, it ought to be noted, the idea of stimulus isn’t a simple boost, but an attempt at counter-cyclical spending to alleviate the worst of the situation: as such, the length and duration of the stimulus ought to roughly match the downturn: ‘near-term’ (as well as medium-term) is ill-defined and optimally would be defined as a ratio of the length of the economic downturn: if the recession were to last years, and there’s no reason to think it won’t, a fast attempt of short duration might come to be seen, in later years and with hindsight, as insufficiently counter-cyclical. Six months of stimulus is insufficiently counter-cyclical against an economic downturn that lasts six years…
<
p>
As folks around here know, I’m always advocating for mass transit. But, I agree, stimulus money can’t be used to design and build new mass transit, because it just takes too long to get it done.
<
p>But
<
p> * Handicap accessibility to stations
* Sign and signal upgrades
* Site-specific track repair
* Purchase of additional cars
* Commuter station parking garages
* Platform upgrades
<
p>etc. are all needed, are all project ready, and all would be appropriate for stimulus packages. Could that add up to more than $10B nationwide? I certainly think so. Hopefully the net result of the projects is to improve quality of service and decrease operating costs.
He’s struck a good balance:
<
p>http://transportation.house.go…
<
p>90 day limit for most projects while still maintaining much higher mass transit spending than the current proposal.
to Lowell pretty please!
the inter-city-express (ICE) was AWESOME. I took it from Frankfurt to Kassel. It had a bar, state-room like booths, everything. Probably the best part was when a guy in a pink bunny suit walked up to my professor and said something too fast for me to understand. My professor gave him 50 cents and the bunny suit guy gave me a condom out of his basket and continued down the train car.
<
p>Combine that with a train ride that would have been 3 times longer on the normal train, and it’s way better than driving and flying.
my quest to turn you into a democrat just passed stage 2 =p
And what’s wrong with mass transit being cool with conservatives? The quicker we dump oil, the quicker the middle east can hop on a speed train and join their culture in the 6th century.
and, to answer your second question, I think it’s the opposite of wrong. I just don’t think that support for mass transit exists in the national GOP. I would love for that to change, but I don’t think it will, at least not until the party makes drastic changes.
the issue just needs to be framed differently. Instead of “lets cut our carbon footprint and hug trees and be green and eat organics!” it should be “let’s put our usage of foreign oil at such a low level that the russian and middle eastern economies start tanking. We’ll make them convert to Christianity and beg for our foreign aid.”
<
p>Less oil money going to the arabs is precisely why my mom got a hybrid and why I would get one if I could.
and propagate that message to their rank & file and to the American people at large underscores a very large problem with the GOP itself.
<
p>You’re absolutely right that mass transit is patriotic in a way that driving an SUV will never be… but for a party who in the past eight years have told us that magnetic ribbons on cars, lapel pins, shopping, and renaming food with the word “French” is patriotic — but protesting government action, dissent over public policy, and fighting for civil rights isn’t, surely you see that understanding real patriotism isn’t really a strong suit for the GOP this decade.
I’m talking about messaging and the party actions as a party, not individuals within the party.
Nothing like support troops by belittling combat vets…
exxon mobile
<
p>Until the power of the oil lobby is killed – representing a big part of the major change I was talking about – I don’t think the issue will be given a chance to be framed differently. I hope I’m wrong.
Exxon Mobile
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
ExxonMobil
as long as the oil lobby is so powerful within the Republican Party, you aren’t going to see the Republican Party truly push for public transit over oil-drinking automobiles and the highways that feed them. Make jokes all ya want, but I’m quite right on that one.
I think that even if the oil lobby is reduced to a couple of hack outsiders and no money, the Republican Party still won’t push for public transit over oil-drinking autos and the highways that feed them.
<
p>I don’t think it’s about the lobbyists at all. I think it’s about their mantra of personal responsibility and go-it-alone in all cases, even when cooperation and working together yields better results.
He wrote “conservatives.”
… it was conservatives that hampered passenger rail throughout the 90s. The fiscal issues were real, of course, but their answer always seemed to be to throw the baby out with the bath water.
<
p>The problem with HSR is that there are so many parties that need to cooperate to get it done. I wonder if we’ll ever see HSR to Montreal, which has been kicking around in the preliminary planning stage forever now.
If we spend all the stimulus money on new highway construction, it will later encourage more sprawl development which will, in turn, create more traffic jams and therefore require more miles to be traveled. This will offset the energy benefits of all the ‘clean energy’ and auto efficiency goals that may also be in the stimulus bill.
<
p>Money spent on transit improvements and/or efficiencies to transit systems will help spur development around transit which is much more energy efficient in the long run.
<
p>As Dean Baker said:
If NY state expands its Metro-North line, Berkshire County will benefit. Most of our tourism and a lot of our potential population expansion (owners of resort homes eventually become year-round residents) come from New York City.
<
p>I hope Congressman Olver, in his key role in the Transportation Appropriation committee, will help Senator Schumer to put more emphasis on transit. Let’s start the long-term investment now.
It would be nice to have good rail from Boston to Albany NY. It would benefit both states’ semi-rural regions, and benefit downtown centers of the smaller cities because it would foster people arriving on foot and spending their time downtown — at the restaurants, the B&Bs, etc.
Are you people aware of the fact that the New York City Transit System is in worse shape financially than the joke of the MBTA in Boston. And mostly for the same reasons: featherbedding, political hirings, give-away pensions and union contracts, etc., etc. Now Chuck wouldn’t be looking for some of this money to help out the near bankruptcy of the transit system, would he? Whom do you think all of the transit layabouts are voting for?
NYC comes to a sudden and dramatic halt if the MTA fails. No doubt about it.
<
p>The MTA provides tremendous financial multipliers for the entire region. Their balance sheet is red, but everybody else’s balance sheet is blacker because of them. There’s no reason why the MTA (and MBTA) shouldn’t be heavily subsidized, because they help eliminate the detrimental externalities of congestion, parking, air pollution, accidents, and more.
<
p>Nearly every highway in the country is a complete failure when we look at the balance sheet. They cost tons of money to build, a bunch to maintain, and we’ve got to police them and scrape people off the pavement when automobiles collide. They’re also noisy and polluting. Somehow nobody complains that they lose money though… yet mass transit is supposed to be in the black? Puhleaze.
American policy has always had a ridiculous double standard with road and rail (and airports!). One is expected to earn a “profit” while the other is an accepted public good. Our transit policy has always been a mess, and past decisions play a huge role in where we are today. It’s not “the market at work,” and even if you equalized funding (which we haven’t), roads still have sixty years’ worth headstart.
<
p>Here’s a great article about steamliners / rail policy in the 1930s-1950s — http://web.archive.org/web/200… These were faster than the Acela is today and were incredibly profitable. Unfortunately, government at all levels regulated (low speed limits, etc.) and taxed (rail tracks were/are taxable private property but highways are paid by the public)passenger rail service into oblivion.
I just found an e-mail from this group headlined, “Federal Action Alert: The American Recovery Bill and Transportation Funding.” They are supporting a shift in some of the funding in the transportation section of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill toward smart growth strategies:
<
p>
<
p>I don’t see the contents of the e-mail on their website, but maybe they will post it soon so you can get more detail about the things they like in the bill, and the changes they support.
link
CA OR WA
UT AZ CO
TX MO LA
MN IL MI OH PA
GA FL NC
MD VA
NY MA RI CT
<
p>[out of memory; I may have missed one or two]
<
p>That’s 23 states, not quite enough, and some only commuter rail and/or bus, not “subway”. Seems that Schumer et al would do well to get the Feds to fund some serious mass transit in Indiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, Nevada, Tennessee, and/or Iowa. States with some urban areas and generally purplish. It’d help get Senate votes in the future for general mass transit spending, and in a long term big picture kind of way, it might help grow urban populations in those states, which ought to generally help tip them to become bluer.
— and I’ll fully admit this is a difficult sentence for most Americans to recognize, understand and accept — but they should be barren and unpopulated. The booming areas of this country, like the south west states, are killing this country’s water supply and greatly contributing to global warming due to sprawl that probably can’t even be reversed at this piont. Lake Mead’s quickly running dry, the aquifers that feed probably 1/3 of this country’s land mass in the mountain states may have a few decades of water left, if we’re lucky. The idea of growing things in some of the places we grow them and building cities in some of the places where we’re building them is hurting this country – and almost certainly will continue to do so, no matter how efficient and commutable we make them.
<
p>So, yeah, I’d love to see the infrastructure of cities like Phoenix improve, but I’d rather see us pursue strategies that encourage citizens to move to places that have more water and aren’t deserts. Even in those states, I’d like to see hem living in densely populated areas.
the key is not the problems, but in how they are dealt. Remember the southeast drought last year? North Carolina instituted laws restricting and then prohibiting washing cars and watering lawns. Then when that wasn’t enough private businesses switched to paper plates to not run the dish washers. Everybody made an effort to reduce consumption, and they were able to hang on.
<
p>In Georgia, they prayed for rain on the state house steps. On a day when rain was in the forecast. It still didn’t rain.
<
p>
<
p>I agree that the Southwest’s handling of water is a mess. But, it could be fixed. Charge more for water, making some golf courses too expensive to operate. Require 1.28 gpf toilets by code instead of 1.6 gpf, and require 0 gpf urinals in commercial and industrial spaces. Most importantly, make water scarcity part of the culture so that people adjust their habits.
<
p>And yes, increase the density; that’s important policy just about everywhere.