Down with the Bond, Boxer, and Inhofe amendments

[Crazyswordsman]

Here's what they are:

Kit Bond (R-MO) sponsored two anti-transit, anti-streets, pro-sprawl amendments:

One amendment would eliminate $2 billion for high speed rail projects and force it to be spent on highways.

Another amendment would force $5.5 billion which states could use for either highways OR transit to be used ONLY on highways.

Inhofe (R-OK) and Boxer (D-CA) are sponsoring a $50 billion dollar addition to highways.

We ought to be thinking about sustainable transportation, because it works. Mass transit ridership is UP, even as gas prices go down. Tell your senators to make sure transit is included in the stimulus. I beg of you!

I know this sounds very ad-like, but this is a very important issue to me, and although many people don't realize it, the country as a whole. -CSM

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

Here's what they are:

Kit Bond (R-MO) sponsored two anti-transit, anti-streets, pro-sprawl amendments:

One amendment would eliminate $2 billion for high speed rail projects and force it to be spent on highways.

Another amendment would force $5.5 billion which states could use for either highways OR transit to be used ONLY on highways.

Inhofe (R-OK) and Boxer (D-CA) are sponsoring a $50 billion dollar addition to highways.

We ought to be thinking about sustainable transportation, because it works. Mass transit ridership is UP, even as gas prices go down. Tell your senators to make sure transit is included in the stimulus. I beg of you!

I know this sounds very ad-like, but this is a very important issue to me, and although many people don't realize it, the country as a whole. -CSM

Mass transit sounds sounds like a good idea, but...small, rural states like Montana and the Dakotas would probably be left out of the equation.

[Metal Man]

Feh. Nothing annoys me more than when people take small beliefs local to them and believe it's the best way for everyone, without even trying to figure out how it'd effect other people.

It's just selfish.

Of course, it goes both ways. Methinks we need both mass transit and freeways.

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

Here's what they are:

Kit Bond (R-MO) sponsored two anti-transit, anti-streets, pro-sprawl amendments:

One amendment would eliminate $2 billion for high speed rail projects and force it to be spent on highways.

Another amendment would force $5.5 billion which states could use for either highways OR transit to be used ONLY on highways.

Inhofe (R-OK) and Boxer (D-CA) are sponsoring a $50 billion dollar addition to highways.

We ought to be thinking about sustainable transportation, because it works. Mass transit ridership is UP, even as gas prices go down. Tell your senators to make sure transit is included in the stimulus. I beg of you!

I know this sounds very ad-like, but this is a very important issue to me, and although many people don't realize it, the country as a whole. -CSM

You understand that our infrastructure ratings are completely pisspoor, right? Rail, bridge and highway ratings were Ds and Cs. Inhofe and Boxer aren't really out of line to push for more highway dollars because we're beyond scheduled maintenance and into borderline emergency due to neglect.

You can bitch about transit, and I agree with you to an extent, but I don't think it should be shoved down people's throats when there aren't solid plans to install it nor can systems support themselves, especially at the cost of bridge/road maintenance.

[Crazyswordsman]

Believe it or not, there are plenty of shovel-ready transit projects around the country. The Second Avenue Subway, the ARC Tunnel, Caltrain electrification, Chicago's STAR line, California's high speed rail, although not shovel ready, is now guaranteed to happen, lots of improvements in the Midwest, etc.

Also, there are people who bitch and moan about not having to pay taxes on a transit system they don't use. Well I don't have a car now and if they're going to bitch about it then I don't want my tax dollars spent on a highway system I won't use.

I can understand that there are more "shovel ready" road projects in the country than transit, and they should be funded and especially road maintenance and repair (I could also say the same thing about a lot of railroads), but to spend more money on planning new highways for the future and more sprawl, that's not smart growth. -CSM

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

Believe it or not, there are plenty of shovel-ready transit projects around the country. The Second Avenue Subway, the ARC Tunnel, Caltrain electrification, Chicago's STAR line, California's high speed rail, although not shovel ready, is now guaranteed to happen, lots of improvements in the Midwest, etc.

Also, there are people who bitch and moan about not having to pay taxes on a transit system they don't use. Well I don't have a car now and if they're going to bitch about it then I don't want my tax dollars spent on a highway system I won't use.

I can understand that there are more "shovel ready" road projects in the country than transit, and they should be funded and especially road maintenance and repair (I could also say the same thing about a lot of railroads), but to spend more money on planning new highways for the future and more sprawl, that's not smart growth. -CSM

Let's say I'm a hypothetical transit detractor. "I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR UPGRADING COMMUTER RAIL I DONT USE IT." If I don't use it, I don't use it in any sense.

Let's say I'm an exaggerated version of you. I walk everywhere, and if I don't I take rail or bus or some other form of transit. Don't own a car, etc. You still use a highway system because goods are shipped via highway. Do you get mail? Highway. UPS/Fedex? Highway (unless you spring for air). Bought anything from any retailer? Used the highway to get it to you.

As per new highway systems, there are some that are actually needed (for example, I-49).

[Crazyswordsman]

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

Let's say I'm an exaggerated version of you. I walk everywhere, and if I don't I take rail or bus or some other form of transit. Don't own a car, etc.

As of last week, that IS me.

I-49 is shovel-ready and definitely going to happen, and connects two important areas (New Orleans and KC) so I have no beef with that. I DO, however, have beef with I-22, which seems to me like pork (Memphis to Jackson, Mississippi). And I'd prefer states spend money on new rail lines, or electrifying their existing ones and getting rid of grade crossings rather than continuing to widen their expressways to, like, six lanes in each direction (I'm pretty sure some cities do that). -CSM

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

As of last week, that IS me.

I-49 is shovel-ready and definitely going to happen, and connects two important areas (New Orleans and KC) so I have no beef with that. I DO, however, have beef with I-22, which seems to me like pork (Memphis to Jackson, Mississippi). And I'd prefer states spend money on new rail lines, or electrifying their existing ones and getting rid of grade crossings rather than continuing to widen their expressways to, like, six lanes in each direction (I'm pretty sure some cities do that). -CSM

Unless you've become completely self-sufficient in terms of food growth, you're still using the highway system.

I49 isn't exactly dig ready. IIRC there's been some issue with the Missouri end of the route, and I know the i49-S is running into issues around the Lafayette, LA point because some jackass didn't file an EIS early enough (I think they're still in public comment or something).

I-22 is Memphis to Birmingham, which is a reasonable upgrade IMO since it just expands on a US HW for a diagonal stretch that has no interstate presence. I-55 already runs Jackson to Memphis (I know because I've basically taken I-55 as a straight shot to Chicago before).

Some highways need to be expanded just to alleviate usage and provide for more efficient flow of traffic and goods. I couldn't imagine going through Atlanta if it were just 2 lanes each way.

[Crazyswordsman]

Adding lanes doesn't make travel more efficient. All it does is put more cars on the road, and even more congestion.

And I'm talking about movement of passengers, not freight. If you want to talk freight, people use the rail system as well. -CSM

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

Adding lanes doesn't make travel more efficient. All it does is put more cars on the road, and even more congestion.

And I'm talking about movement of passengers, not freight. If you want to talk freight, people use the rail system as well. -CSM

You're going to see the same number of cars on a congested 2 lane highway as you would on a 4 lane, barring area growth. Areas need to upgrade infrastructure as more population moves in. Have you ever been in a town that's about 20+ years behind on infrastructure improvement? I have. The main streets in this particular city were dropping in place in the late 70s and grew off of state highways. They were two lanes each way. They haven't expanded them, and they're extremely congested to the point where you basically have to leave 2 hours in advance to get somewhere 2 miles away.

The instant argument would be "They should have light rail." Problem is it wouldn't work because this particular city isn't large enough to justify the expense.

The highway system is used for both passengers and (especially between cities) freight. Rail does push freight as well, and it does need an overhaul as well (thank Reagan for basically creating this monster by passing on the scheduled maintenance in the 80s). Highways at this point are more critical because its multiuse. Outside of Amtrak (which is priced to where it isn't competitive with pretty much anything, including airlines), the rail system in this country is used primarily to ship cargo (chemicals, etc).

[Metal Man]

I am of the opinion that
A. We need more highways and rail
B. There is no point in telling someone who is convinced their way is the right way they are wrong, for they will not listen

[Crazyswordsman]

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

You're going to see the same number of cars on a congested 2 lane highway as you would on a 4 lane, barring area growth. Areas need to upgrade infrastructure as more population moves in. Have you ever been in a town that's about 20+ years behind on infrastructure improvement? I have. The main streets in this particular city were dropping in place in the late 70s and grew off of state highways. They were two lanes each way. They haven't expanded them, and they're extremely congested to the point where you basically have to leave 2 hours in advance to get somewhere 2 miles away.

The instant argument would be "They should have light rail." Problem is it wouldn't work because this particular city isn't large enough to justify the expense.

The highway system is used for both passengers and (especially between cities) freight. Rail does push freight as well, and it does need an overhaul as well (thank Reagan for basically creating this monster by passing on the scheduled maintenance in the 80s). Highways at this point are more critical because its multiuse. Outside of Amtrak (which is priced to where it isn't competitive with pretty much anything, including airlines), the rail system in this country is used primarily to ship cargo (chemicals, etc).

In the short term, yes, there will be relief. But in the long run it'll just grow and grow and grow and soon there will be very little space left. People use what's available. If there's options, there will be people who choose to drive, people who choose to drive to a park-and-ride and take the train, and people who choose to live near a train. But that only can happen if the area is hospitable for that. There needs to be the proper infrastructure and zoning. And the only reason mass transit is so slow is because it's underfunded.

Light rail should be meant for small cities with populations ideally between 50k and 500k. People only use it in big cities because it's cheaper to build than heavy rail, even though highways cost more than both.

People always say "Let's not fund Amtrak because it sucks." Well, Amtrak sucks because no one is funding it. If people gave it their proper funding it would probably do a lot more than it does right now. -CSM

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

In the short term, yes, there will be relief. But in the long run it'll just grow and grow and grow and soon there will be very little space left. People use what's available. If there's options, there will be people who choose to drive, people who choose to drive to a park-and-ride and take the train, and people who choose to live near a train. But that only can happen if the area is hospitable for that. There needs to be the proper infrastructure and zoning. And the only reason mass transit is so slow is because it's underfunded.

Cities grow, and as they do they need to expand roads and services. Places like Atlanta actually NEED an 8 lane highway cutting through it. A place like middle of nowhere Kansas probably doesn't.

Light rail should be meant for small cities with populations ideally between 50k and 500k. People only use it in big cities because it's cheaper to build than heavy rail, even though highways cost more than both.

The place I was specifically referring to has about 110K in terms of population. There's a ton of logistical problems with installing a rail system for the city, first and foremost being the lack of any place to actually put it so it could be accessible and work with the road system. You run into lack of stations, suitable land to build tracks, and (in LA at least), lack of solid ground which bars out subway systems and makes elevated tracks much more expensive and maintenance heavy than other areas.

People always say "Let's not fund Amtrak because it sucks." Well, Amtrak sucks because no one is funding it. If people gave it their proper funding it would probably do a lot more than it does right now. -CSM

Amtrak sucks because it costs too much. If I wanted to take the City of New Orleans from New Orleans to Chicago tomorrow, it would be $108 and take 19h and 15 minutes. Searching for flights on Kayak shows me that I can get a flight on Airbus for $120 that will get me there in like 5 hours with a layover. This is a last minute flight. If I book in advance, I can routinely find that flight in the sub-100 level.

And that's the thing. If I'm planning even a few weeks in advance, a flight is either cheaper than Amtrak or costs slightly more (which is made up in getting there in 1/4 of the time).

Amtrak sucks because the pricing is bad, it constantly hits delays because it gets bumped for freight, and there's no way a sane person would use Amtrak over flying if its in the same pricing range.

[Sim Kid]

Originally Posted by Metal Man

Feh. Nothing annoys me more than when people take small beliefs local to them and believe it's the best way for everyone, without even trying to figure out how it'd effect other people.

It's just selfish.

Even stuff that benefits only a rich minority of people?

[Crazyswordsman]

The good news is no transit was cut from the stimulus.

Lurch: I don't expect (or want) people to take trains all the way from New Orleans to Chicago (even a high speed train). I'm talking about things like the NEC, LA-SF, and from Chicago to local destinations within the Midwest. A high speed train would get you there just as fast as a plane after you take into account the time it takes to get to and from the airport, go through security and deal with that hassle. And ideally they'd be priced in the 50-100 dollar range. -CSM

[Metal Man]

Originally Posted by Sim Kid

Even stuff that benefits only a rich minority of people?

Why, that is even more selfish. My point is exactly that: people are quick to think only how something effects themselves and maybe their friends, and nothing else. Therefore benefiting a rich minority is just as bad as only benefiting people who have bikes over benefiting all people who have to use streets and/or trains/planes/whatever.