« Bridge Backers Organize | Main | Their Masters' Voice »
December 11, 2008
T4America Pushes Congress for a Green Recovery
This came over the transom this week:
With the December holidays just around the corner, Americans everywhere are feeling the pinch.
Congress knows we're in trouble, but they can't fix our country's economy without making a down-payment to complete America's transportation system.
We can get our country moving again with investment in smart infrastructure and a fix-it-first approach.
This means prioritizing the preservation of what we already have - and jump-starting the specific investments that will build us a 21st-century transportation system.
We can't just waste money on pork-barrel projects. For a true green recovery, we need to invest in ready-to-go projects, build walkable and bikeable communities, construct high-speed trains, and create new jobs that are linked to our clean energy future. These are the environmentally sound solutions that our country needs now and in the years to come.
Already hundreds have spoken up - and already President-elect Obama has stood by our side and given us a seat at the table - but we need you to join with us today so we can make sure Congress follows through.
Creating 15 million new jobs that can't be outsourced, breaking our addiction to oil, investing in a clean, green economic recovery - we can make it happen with your help.
Sincerely,
Ilana Preuss
Outreach and Field Director
Transportation for America
Posted by Chris Smith at 12:21 AM
Comments
December 11, 2008 11:53 AM
jim karlock Says:
We can't just waste money on pork-barrel projects. . . . For a true green recovery, we need to invest in . . . high-speed trains
JK: What a laugh -- trains are the ultimate pork-barrel projects.
Thanks
JK
December 11, 2008 1:01 PM
Jeff F Says:
JK: What a laugh -- trains are the ultimate pork-barrel projects.
Odd that every other developed nation seems to think otherwise, isn't it?
December 11, 2008 5:54 PM
jim karlock Says:
"Odd that every other developed nation seems to think otherwise, isn't it?"
JK: Its pork over there too. Also highly subsidized in most places.
Please tell how many places where the train users pay for both construction and operation?
Thanks
JK
December 11, 2008 7:00 PM
Jeff F Says:
JK: Its pork over there too. Also highly subsidized in most places.
Please tell how many places where the train users pay for both construction and operation?
Pretty much everywhere, since construction and operation is paid for by taxes which are paid by the same people who ride the trains -- and they ride them because the trains are fast, convenient and ubiquitous.
You're locked into that pay for play model. If everyone had that attitude, we'd still be living in a feudal state.
December 11, 2008 8:31 PM
Erik Halstead Says:
construct high-speed trains
Exactly how do "high-speed trains" stimulate the economy, or even help the environment?
In the countries that have high-speed rail - Japan, France, Germany, etc., their high-speed systems are a very, very small part of their total rail infrastructure - think of them as "loss leaders". Yes, they get lots of publicity...but few people (comparatively) use them.
The majority of rail traffic in those countries occurs on what America would call a "commuter train"; and the majority of "long-distance" traffic is what America would call a "regional train" using conventional equipment traveling at conventional speed.
The American "long distance" train has very few comparisons, outside of Canada and Russia; and it's even more pronounced in those countries that the long-distance train is seldom used by the general public.
If we want to promote investment in transportation, it is best done at the local level. Promoting "walkable, bikeable communities" only works if those housing units are affordable - which in Portland clearly has proven otherwise. Promoting sensible transit which includes a wide range of both rail-based and non-rail based (think: bus) options to serve a metropolitan area is the best investment that serves all walks of life, without consideration towards income level or other discriminate factors.
December 12, 2008 10:02 AM
MARTIN ENGEL Says:
WOW, Erik Halstead, you think exactly the way I do. If you lived in California, that would make two of us.
Clearly this State's voters bought the Kool-Aid PR of how the HSR will be the universal panacea, including curing all the traffic problems in the State's two population centers. The fact is, we suffer from a profound lack of urban and regional mass transit, and a luxury train from SF to LA won't fix anything. Boondoggle is the exact term for this.
December 12, 2008 9:29 PM
Erik Halstead Says:
Martin, you're right.
How will "high-speed rail" from Portland to Eugene solve anything? Oregon can't even manage to build an effective commuter train between Portland and Salem, much less a commuter bus system.
I-5 traffic counts between Albany and Eugene are roughly 40,000 vehicles per day. Amtrak's two trains between Portland and Eugene carry on average about 80 passengers TOTAL between Portland and Eugene, including passengers who may board and disembark along the route (i.e. a passenger might ride Eugene-Albany, and another passenger may ride Salem-Oregon City); despite the train's capacity of about 260 passengers. (However the buses that run the same route have been known to operate at full capacity, do not require a state subsidy, and are operated by private carriers who pay full state taxes and own/maintain their own equipment, unlike the Amtrak train which is exempt from taxes and requires a $5M/annual subsidy from the state in addition to a federal subsidy.)
Especially given the attitude that we should embrace dense urban development, why would we support the idea of promoting "commuting" passenger trains to encourage people to live further away from Portland - especially when we have many urban, dense neighborhoods right here in Portland that have substandard bus service yet have every other characteristic of good urban design?
