Opposition Pundits on Parade

Ron Utt of the Heritage Foundation is worried. So are all the other anti-transit pundits out there. The newly minted interest in transit is encroaching on their road loving ways. A recent AP article on rising transit ridership captures Utt's opinion, proving that balanced transportation and oil independence means nothing to the conservative crowd.

Ron Utt, of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said transit is "inconsequential in terms of reducing congestion or greenhouse gases" and that people who want to use transit should simply pay more. Citing the example of a Washington-area commuter rail, Utt said: "If more people want to use that and more people have to stand, I don't know why that should place a financial burden on people in Iowa."

Sure Ron, that's why almost a million people per day take Metro in DC. I have a really great idea, how about people pay the true cost of gasoline or roads or airlines. Let's also make people pay directly for air traffic controllers and the highway patrol. And why should I pay for a rural road in Iowa? All transportation is subsidized, let's stop the favoritism towards one mode and pretending that cars pay for themselves.

Typewriter Typewriter Typewriter!

Then there is our favorite cipher, Randal O'Toole. His most recent call is to cancel the Denver Fastracks program claiming it's bad for the environment and social engineering. You know, the usual junk.

Environmentally, light rail is a disaster for the region. For every passenger mile carried, light rail consumes four times as much land as Denver-area freeways. It also uses more energy and emits more greenhouse gases, per passenger mile, than the average SUV.

I don't know where he gets this one. But as Mr. Setty at PublicTransit.us reminds us, transit actually reduces passenger miles overall. Randal's twisted logic lumps in the construction of the line when he never talks about the construction losses of highways and the vehicles that drive on them. What about the construction of all those parking garages?

O'Toole, many academics and other anti-transit activists understandably do not wish to discuss the wider, systematic impacts of transit on transportation patterns and land use. One key study estimates that for every passenger mile on transit, slightly more than two urban vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is suppressed or foregone. This study documents the connection between transit and lower vehicle usage that has also been documented in dozens of other studies. This effect is particularly significant when less than 40% of U.S. residents have easy access to transit at the present time.

But what annoys me the most is that stupid no one rides transit argument. Well no one has the option to take it! New York City has transit, people take it. Washington DC has a rather good subway system, people take it. But when the green argument for him fails, he can always fall back on social engineering. You know, the kind that took place from 1950 to the present when cities built roads only and subsidies were funneled to development related to roads.

The other support for FasTracks comes from those who want to socially engineer Colorado lifestyles. They use light rail as an excuse to build tax-subsidized high-density housing projects on properties taken from their owners by eminent domain near planned rail stations. Yet few Americans aspire to live in such dense housing, and such compact development makes little sense in a state that is 97 percent rural open space.

Hmm. No one in Colorado wants open space, just build on it. I'm sure John Denver wouldn't mind. And no one wants to live in high-density housing projects, that's why TOD commands such a low price premium with buyers. No one ever wanted to live in LoDo right? What about all those road, pipe subsidies.

Cars Cars Cars. Sprawl Sprawl Sprawl. Sounds like Drill Drill Drill.

Epic ADA Fail

see more pwn and owned pictures

How many of you have seen this type of bad building in your cities around transit? This example above isn't directly transit related, but it shows how sometimes we just aren't doing it right. I took a class in college where my professor discussed universal design, whereby we create places that are accessible for people with disabilities, without having to make special accommodations. It's as easy as making the front door level with the ground without putting in a step.

In the transit world, this means low floor buses/trains and lower ramps. The Portland streetcar and its ramp is a perfect example, it doesn't take a huge lift to get wheelchairs into the vehicle, and it doesn't take 10 minutes to load someone up either. As far as I know, low floor light rail vehicles are now the norm rather than the exception. Some places are even ultra low floor such as this Siemens ULF in Vienna I got to ride.

California HSR Could Go Green

If it passes. I'm fairly optimistic that people will see through the bs that a lot of the opposition is peddling but there are some that are already being pushed by their right side. Apparently the California Chamber is coming out against the bond measure. I never thought it was out of the realm of possibility that the line could be run completely green, but its good to see on paper.

A leading energy specialist has reported to the California High-Speed Rail Authority that the state's proposed high-speed train system can run with zero greenhouse gas emissions. The zero emissions strategy report was presented by Navigant Consulting Inc, a leading consultant on the energy, electric power and natural gas industries at the Authority's most recent board meeting held in San Diego. At the meeting, the Board adopted a renewable energy/zero emissions strategy for the high-speed train project.

Drilling for Typewriters

Thomas Friedman has been on a roll when discussion transportation, energy and other issues lately. Today he was on Meet the Press with Tom Brokaw and made a comment that the Republicans saying Drill Drill Drill is like saying Typewriter Typewriter Typewriter during the internet and personal computer revolution. Sure people still need typewriters, but only until they get replaced with something better. Here's the video:



A lot of people I have talked to seem shocked by this whole focus on oil when things are coming forward that would allow us to help the environment and save us money, or at least keep the money we spend in the local market. This in a way can be related to what Joe Cotright said Portland experiences in their green dividend.

H/T Think Progress

Making San Francisco More Accessible by Amtrak

I'm not sure what annoys me more, that BART doesn't go to Emeryville or that Amtrak doesn't stop at a BART station closer to San Francisco. In reading a Contra Costa Times article, the main person in the story commutes via Amtrak from Martinez. Martinez downtown is very isolated from other transit options in the region including BART, yet it is the county seat with all the government office buildings and courts where people have to go for jury duty. It's also a nice transit oriented downtown when it comes to its proximity to Amtrak. This is good for a San Francisco connection, but not Contra Costa County (That's a whole other discussion).

However Amtrak makes you get off at Richmond if you want to BART into the city. There is also a bus from the Emeryville Station but that isn't so direct and could be eliminated with better service. What would be nice to see is a direct link from Amtrak to the West Oakland Station or BART extension to Emeryville. Emeryville is emerging as a dense city willing to go up because it has no other choice. It also attracts lots of retail and major employers because of its inexpensive tax burden compared to Oakland or Berkeley. This is a no brainer connection that would increase BART's reach while also increasing Amtrak's reach. You can see the current transfer and how indirect it is removed Emeryville is below.


I think a more comprehensive metro system would be better to connect all the places but the MTC and others haven't been talking a lot about real core capacity increases like they should. The easiest would be to build a small loop track for Amtrak next to the West Oakland BART station. There's room and you could even use the aerial rights to pay for the small improvement and transfer station. This would pay off huge. West Oakland is the best connected station in the East Bay with more trains coming through than any other station. With the Amtrak Connection, you could get from Sacramento directly downtown without much waiting, considering the 2 minute headways into San Francisco at West Oakland in the mornings. Also, its a faster way to Oakland than from the Richmond Transfer, which is good if you're going to Berkeley. This would be a very cost effective option in my opinion to make Amtrak more attractive and might even create the need for even better service.

Battlefield Nimbyism

The MOM line has met its match, a revolutionary (not civil as previously entered) war battlefield that already has tracks running through it...

Hiawatha as Pork?

Again, the process doesn't always fund necessity so people have to go around the system...

Major Paper Backs Rail in Hawaii

The Honolulu Advertiser says voters in the city should go for rail. They also call out the opposition for being misleading. What a concept.

No Transfer

The highway trust fund is out of money. But they aren't going to take from the mass transit account, just borrow from the general fund. Hmm the general fund never pays for highways. Wait a minute...

Ma Peters derided earmarks as the reason for the shortfall. I think earmarks have gotten a bad name in the transportation world and is a catch phrase used by all for waste. However, its hard to complain about earmarks when they are actually being used to circumvent awful policy, such as the one discussed below where highways get 80% funding and transit projects less than 60% funding.
Yeah there are some bad earmarks, but I bet she would lump in bad transit earmarks with ones that are made because of her awful New Starts policy.

Related Comedy

From Seinfeld.

George: I'm, uh, I'm an architect.

Vanessa: Really. What do you design?

George: Uh, railroads, uh...

Vanessa: I thought engineers do that.

George: They can...