Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS

1 2 3 4 5

  1.  

    pdxbugger

    The Repubs are trying to run this country into the ground.  Get out the vote!

    February 5, 2012
    in response to Massive Coalition Opposes House GOP Attempt to Eviscerate Transit
  2.  

    Arlen

    I know it’s bad form to inject facts into a political discussion, but roads have *never* had a “positive return on investment” as Rob suggested. In fact, as Warren Buffett observed when BH bought into Burlington, no form of passenger transportation since the horse has ever had a positive return; they all are subsidized.

    As for Streetless, you might want to look again. The reports from Metro Transit show 300K riders PER DAY in Seattle, hardly riderless. Maybe you just looked at the wrong route and the wrong time of day.

    February 5, 2012
    in response to Massive Coalition Opposes House GOP Attempt to Eviscerate Transit
  3.  

    fj

    re:  pchazzz, “What have you got against money . . . Do have problem with that?”

    Yes, I have a huge problem with people’s work and industry that is essentially sociopathic with outcomes completely insensitive to the pain and hardship that they cause others.

    Yes, I have a problem with that for people who work for big tobacco since smoking is projected to kill one billion people by 2050.

    Yes, those who work for the fossil fuel industries directly killing millions of people each year producing toxic pollution and deadly environments, massive government corruption, wars and civil strife, with huge monopolistic strangleholds on $trillions in resources which could otherwise be used to save and improve the lives of literally billions of people, serving as the “Merchants of Doubt” longtime stopping timely action on rapidly accelerating climate change which is projected to take a huge human toll; the list goes on.

    If you do not even understand this you can start with “The Dummies Guide to Climate Science” http://bit.ly/hbHxCm and when this sinks in move on to “Merchants of Doubt”.

    Hope this answers your question.

    February 5, 2012
    in response to Who Still Likes the House Transpo Bill? Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box Retail
  4.  

    Streetless in Seattle

    Finally some sanity. Folks outside of urban centers are tired of subsidizing fancy, wasteful, and under-utilized “mass transit” boondoggles (such as our shameful and riderless mess here in Seattle).

    February 4, 2012
    in response to Massive Coalition Opposes House GOP Attempt to Eviscerate Transit
  5.  

    Anonymous

    Good critiques of my comments directed at Ben Goldman.  With regard to Jett Marks’ comments, trains are most effective at carrying bulk cargo long distances.  For smaller, high value shipments, or those which require a short shipping time, trucks are more appropriate.  Just in time inventory strategies adopted by many businesses require that supplies be delivered at the exact time they are delivered to reduce storage and inventory costs. Also, many towns are not located on rail lines, so you need trucks. That expensive, Cannondale bicycle you ride was delivered in a truck! 

    Joe R: it would be interesting to see if the reduced cost to the consumer from Big Box is offset by the costs you mention.  “Conspicuous consumption” implies wealth, but the true beneficiaries of big box stores are the working poor who cannot afford to pay a premium for “sustainable” (read expensive) products.

    February 4, 2012
    in response to Who Still Likes the House Transpo Bill? Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box Retail
  6.  

    Anonymous

    I’m “Glad” to see that West Coast off-shore drilling is included because that may be the straw that breaks this camel’s back.

    February 4, 2012
    in response to Who Still Likes the House Transpo Bill? Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box Retail
  7.  

    Jett Marks

    @pchazzz, Is the nation really clamoring for more jobs where you drive all the time? 
    If we use railroads instead of trucks, we make even more money because 1) rail transport requires much less fuel and a small fraction of the labor, 2) there is less damage to our bridges and roads, and 3) getting that freight off the highways reduces the risk of death and injury.  Trucking is good for trucking and no one else. 

    February 4, 2012
    in response to Who Still Likes the House Transpo Bill? Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box Retail
  8.  

    Jonathan Angelilli

    So frustrating!

    February 4, 2012
    in response to Who Still Likes the House Transpo Bill? Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box Retail
  9.  

    Joe R.

    @pchazzz:disqus The problem is that taxpayers clean up the mess left by Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box, arguably costing more than the taxes on the profits those three entities make. Nothing wrong with making money, but there are better ways to do it than with a system based on conspicuous consumption, waste, and sprawl.

    February 4, 2012
    in response to Who Still Likes the House Transpo Bill? Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box Retail
  10.  

    Anonymous

    Elections matter y’all!

    February 3, 2012
    in response to Massive Coalition Opposes House GOP Attempt to Eviscerate Transit
  11.  

    fred

      @pchazzz You have a fascinatingly myopic view of this.  It sounds an awful lot like the argument that Wall Street, mortgage brokers, and banks were making prior to their house of cards imploding and wreaking havoc for years on millions of people through no fault of their own.  “We’re making lots of money, so it’s got to be good”, right?  I don’t think those who are unemployed, evicted, foreclosed upon, upside down on their mortgages, etc. would agree with your stance.  Short terms gains for long term liabilities is never a good deal.

    February 3, 2012
    in response to Who Still Likes the House Transpo Bill? Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box Retail
  12.  

    Anonymous

    “So, more drilling (oil companies make money) and lax regulations (trucking industry makes money) mean slightly lower shipping costs (mega-retailers make money). Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box — whose business models each depend on wider highways and sprawl — are the major beneficiaries of this bill.” 

    What have you got against making money, Ben?  It means more investment in jobs and he economy.  Do you have problem with that?

    February 3, 2012
    in response to Who Still Likes the House Transpo Bill? Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box Retail
  13.  

    Rangers100

    The GOP despises cities.

    February 3, 2012
    in response to Massive Coalition Opposes House GOP Attempt to Eviscerate Transit
  14.  

    fj

    Boehner’s Last Stand:  House Leader Wants to Kill Transit Funding

    “http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/03/418084/boehner-house-leader-kill-transit-funding/

    “

    February 3, 2012
    in response to Who Still Likes the House Transpo Bill? Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box Retail
  15.  

    Rob

    They have the ways and the means to not only ignore the urgent need to
    improve and expand transit in urban areas, but to also perpetuate the
    same worn out auto-oriented strategies that have shown over and over are
    no longer generating positive return on investment, as they did several
    decades ago. Not only are they endorsing out-dated strategies while
    expecting different outcomes, but they are at the same time rolling-back
    what little improvement was made – eliminating transit funding is
    absurd and reflects the depth and breadth of intellectual detachment
    they have from important decisions they are responsible for.

    Yes, I’m in a caveman suit. I’m preparing for the direction Ways and Means is sending us – backwards . . . way back.

    Keep
    transit funding, ditch highway expansions, and implement variable rate
    congestion pricing in combination with high quality, affordable, and
    reliable transit alternatives providing service in congested urban
    corridors. Keep the revenues to serve the corridors in which they are
    collected – money collected in the corridor stays in the corridor for
    both transit and highway capital and operating expenses.

    It’s a no-brainer, but we don’t have the ways and means to support it.

    February 3, 2012
    in response to House GOP Moves to Decimate Dedicated Transit Funding
  16.  

    Rob

    They have the ways and the means to not only ignore the urgent need to
    improve and expand transit in urban areas, but to also perpetuate the
    same worn out auto-oriented strategies that have shown over and over are
    no longer generating positive return on investment, as they did several
    decades ago. Not only are they endorsing out-dated strategies while
    expecting different outcomes, but they are at the same time rolling-back
    what little improvement was made – eliminating transit funding is
    absurd and reflects the depth and breadth of intellectual detachment
    they have from important decisions they are responsible for.

    Yes, I’m in a caveman suit. I’m preparing for the direction Ways and Means is sending us – backwards . . . way back.

    Keep
    transit funding, ditch highway expansions, and implement variable rate
    congestion pricing in combination with high quality, affordable, and
    reliable transit alternatives providing service in congested urban
    corridors. Keep the revenues to serve the corridors in which they are
    collected – money collected in the corridor stays in the corridor for
    both transit and highway capital and operating expenses. That’s how the system become fiscally sustainable and congested urban corridors begin to see true relief – for commuters and movement and goods.

    It’s a no-brainer . . . but we don’t have the ways and means to help get us there.

    February 3, 2012
    in response to Massive Coalition Opposes House GOP Attempt to Eviscerate Transit
  17.  

    Jack

    If providing money for bike/ped projects isn’t a federal responsibility, then neither is funding of any transportation projects.  I plan to write a few Republicans who live in the D.C. area and ask them to get off our bike paths built with TE funding (like the Rock Creek Trail Bridge).  Oh wait, none of them listen to anyone anyway except their favorite groups.  Maybe if we changed LAB’s name to NRA…

    February 3, 2012
    in response to Amendment to Restore Bike/Ped Programs in House Transpo Bill Fails
  18.  

    Anonymous

    It’s just a House bill. The Senate bill has a slightly different provision, though it still changes the current funding structure. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (who is a Republican) blasted the House bill. There is going to be an ongoing battle over the final details of any transportation bill. The story isn’t finished yet.

    February 3, 2012
    in response to Amendment to Restore Bike/Ped Programs in House Transpo Bill Fails
  19.  

    Anonymous

    Eek! Thanks John, I’m clearly suffering from some markup-induced legislative dyslexia.

    February 3, 2012
    in response to Massive Coalition Opposes House GOP Attempt to Eviscerate Transit
  20.  

    John Walkey

    Oye!  Rep. Camp is from MI not WI!  Don’t get dem Badgers pissed.

    February 3, 2012
    in response to Massive Coalition Opposes House GOP Attempt to Eviscerate Transit
  21.  

    Charles_Siegel

    Common error in usage:

    Decimate means to destroy one-tenth of.  It was a form of discipline used in the Roman army.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)  Figuratively, it means to damage severely but not destroy completely.

    Unfortunately, they are doing much worse than that to transit funding. 

    The correct word is “devastate.”

    February 3, 2012
    in response to House GOP Moves to Decimate Dedicated Transit Funding
  22.  

    Green2bhealthy

    Our country is devolving before our very eyes.  It’s time to have serious discussions with out elected officials.

    February 3, 2012
    in response to House GOP Moves to Decimate Dedicated Transit Funding
  23.  

    Lynne

    I am a local govt employee for a SRTS project, but the money for my salary (and all those on our team) comes from federal SRTS funds that then go to my state DOT and then trickle down to our City department and our SRTS program. Our DOT has already said that without federal funds, our SRTS project will not continue.

    February 2, 2012
    in response to Amendment to Restore Bike/Ped Programs in House Transpo Bill Fails
  24.  

    Larry Littlefield

    Why doesn’t Streetsblog note that Democrats are little better, and start describing the situation for what it is — a generational war.

    Younger generations are poorer than older generations were, and will inherit the consequences of their debts.  It is likely that a much smaller share want one car per adult; it is certain that they can’t afford it.  

    Transit use is going up because younger generations are relying on it as they enter the workforce.  Transit service is going down because older generations keep running up the bills for themselves.

    February 2, 2012
    in response to House GOP Moves to Decimate Dedicated Transit Funding
  25.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    I can’t quite figure out which dark, dystopian, sci-fi fantasy world the House GOP is striving for. I’m guessing one where the air is full of hazy pollution, the infrastructure is decrepit, and the population spends all its time in vehicles without ever getting anywhere. (The Dr. Who episode “Gridlock,” for example, with sprinklings of Blade Runner, Brazil, and Wall-E for good measure?) I wonder if the folks in Washington realize these tales are meant to be cautionary rather than aspirational?

    February 2, 2012
    in response to House GOP Moves to Decimate Dedicated Transit Funding
  26.  

    Jerard Wright

    We have to act and let the House know that this is unacceptable

    February 2, 2012
    in response to House GOP Moves to Decimate Dedicated Transit Funding
  27.  

    bike/ped guy

    I wonder if Mr. Cantor actually rides besides for a photo op like this. And I wonder why he is on the sidewalk. Rather ironic that he is riding a bicycle on pedestrian infrastructure. Begs a few questions…

    February 2, 2012
    in response to Was Eric Cantor Forced to Ride This Bike?
  28.  

    Matt Killmoto

    I hope they focus their laser on having motorists pay for highway maintenance and construction.  Why should people who don’t drive be forced to subsidize highways they cannot use?  

    February 2, 2012
    in response to Amendment to Restore Bike/Ped Programs in House Transpo Bill Fails
  29.  

    Robert

    For most States, the bike/ped funding will never occur without it being a Federal requirement.  In many States, like Missouri, the public can have no input on what the DOT actually does.  It is constitutionally seperated.  So unless the head of the DOT just happens to be a bicycling and walking fanatic, they will spend 0% of their funding on doing anything other than moving cars.

    I spent a week in Mississippi earlier this year, there wasn’t a single piece of sidewalk on any street that was controlled by the Mississippi DOT.  

    This is a complete disaster and the only hope now is that we continue to have SAFETEA-LU extensions and that the democrats regain control of the House and retain the presidency.

    This coming from someone who has almost always voted republican….but probably never will again.

    February 2, 2012
    in response to Amendment to Restore Bike/Ped Programs in House Transpo Bill Fails
  30.  

    Hv94941

    I love the theory of Safe Routes to Schools – don’t appreciate when they aid a commuter school in forcing concrete on a street – against the desires of residents  – and waste a million dollars in the process.

    February 2, 2012
    in response to One More Push Can Preserve Federal Safe Routes to School Funding
  31.  

    Ben Fried

    It’s not a complete catastrophe because this bill is GOP theater, not real legislation.

    February 2, 2012
    in response to Amendment to Restore Bike/Ped Programs in House Transpo Bill Fails
  32.  

    Will

    I don’t see this as a complete catastrophe. It will require big reorganization of bike advocacy resources, moving employees and funding from the federal level to the state and local levels. The ridge rule is a mistake though, that program will always be federal, and there is a need for bike and ped access on thousands of obsolete bridges.

    February 2, 2012
    in response to Amendment to Restore Bike/Ped Programs in House Transpo Bill Fails
  33.  

    Town Administrator

    We have expressed our support for the Petri amendment to maintain the TE program dedicated funding.  This is one of the few grant opportunities available for small historic towns like Middleburg, VA with limited fiscal resources to provide pedestrian safety and streetscape improvements.

    February 2, 2012
    in response to Now's the Time to Make the House Bill Better for Walking, Biking, and Transit
  34.  

    Chris G.

    Still think a Republican Congress is good for Bike/Ped?  Pfft!

    February 2, 2012
    in response to Why a Republican Congress is Good For Bike Advocates
  35.  

    Brandi

    Also giving more money to state DOT’s is not the answer. They ignore the job-creating urban areas of the coutnry and spend it in the rural areas of their state.  Look at New York constantly cutting funding to the MTA and building a huge Tappan Zee without transit.  Our look at Christie, funneling money for ARC to highways. 

    February 2, 2012
    in response to House Transportation Bill Officially Drops, Lands With a Thud
  36.  

    Brandi

    This is what is wrong with Washington.  The democrats always hammer out a compromise which the Republicans participate in crafting and then reject.  They then move further right and pretend the compromise is the Dem’s position.  This continues to drive the dialogue further and further right.   This transportation bill is so backward it might as well have had a provision promoting the use of horse and buggy via a gold panning tax.  Seems like the whole transportation dialogue has gone to hell in the last 4 years.  Sad.   Shame Obama is the only adult in the room. 

    February 2, 2012
    in response to House Transportation Bill Officially Drops, Lands With a Thud
  37.  

    Angie Schmitt

    Yes thank you. The House bill would not include any discretionary
    funding, according to our sources. So TIGER would not be funded through
    the surface transportation bill. It is possible the program could
    continue to be funded through other appropriations as it currently is.

    February 1, 2012
    in response to Now Open for Bids: The Fourth Round of TIGER Grants
  38.  

    RR

    TIGER is not funding out of the surface transportation authorization bill. It is always funded through the annual appropriations bill. Therefore, it’s not accurate to say that the T&I bill would eliminate funding for this program — the funding never comes from T&I.

    February 1, 2012
    in response to Now Open for Bids: The Fourth Round of TIGER Grants
  39.  

    Dlovaas

    While I favor these amendments, given the loooong list of terrible ideas in the bill, aren’t they just putting makeup on a corpse?

    February 1, 2012
    in response to Now's the Time to Make the House Bill Better for Walking, Biking, and Transit
  40.  

    Guest

    Shouldn’t Streetsblog be all over this Florida pileup?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-highway-deaths-florida-idUSTRE81015U20120201

    February 1, 2012
    in response to Today's Headlines
  41.  

    Jcourtneyd3

    pastel.  Supposedly,  you will have a rfid magnet thing to touch when you walk on the bus, 

    It would be smart to make you pay to enter the station then to exit the station,  similar to subways

    thats the most efficient i think.  (no paying on the bus!)

    February 1, 2012
    in response to New Plans Would Make Detroit the Nation's Run-Away BRT Leader
  42.  

    Randall Myers

    The bill refers to “bicycling” or “pedestrian” 14 and 15 times, respectively.  It would have been nice if they used those words for more than just a way to get to 800 pages.

    This is a waste of paper. Why can’t congress simply say, “states: we will give you less money but lift the restrictions on it’s use. If you need to build transit, do that; if you can create better biking and walking infrastructure, go ahead; If you need to replace roads and bridges that are deteriorating, do what needs to be done”?

    Congress, please simplify this mess so that states and localities have more freedom to make the best decisions for their residents.

    February 1, 2012
    in response to House Transportation Bill Officially Drops, Lands With a Thud
  43.  

    D Levinger

    I will be interested to see a list of the organizations endorsing this bill as introduced. I see that AEM (Assn of Equipment Mfrs) is supporting it. Who else? This may help gage the challenge of opposing it.

    January 31, 2012
    in response to House Transportation Bill Officially Drops, Lands With a Thud
  44.  

    Tanya Snyder

    So frustrating! The Senate actually did the dirty work of hammering out difficult compromises in order to get a consensus bill that could bring together the likes of Barbara Boxer and James Inhofe. But the House is still playing these partisan games, even with only two months left before the extension expires. There goes the last shred of hope of passing a long-term bill by March 31.

    And, thanks Ben, for bringing us the news! It’s such a treat to get to just READ Streetsblog for a change! :)

    January 31, 2012
    in response to House Transportation Bill Officially Drops, Lands With a Thud
  45.  

    Dlovaas

    Here is my new question: The revenue from drilling will take years and most likely fall far short of what’s needed. So presumably tens-of-billions of dollars will have to be borrowed, contributing to the nation’s deficit. And it’s being touted as a “jobs bill.” So I would like House Republicans to explain to fiscal conservatives (a camp I find myself in, increasingly): How is this not the same thing as the President’s stimulus bill (with a highway focus and lots of awful policy)?

    January 31, 2012
    in response to House Transportation Bill Officially Drops, Lands With a Thud
  46.  

    Andrew Guthrie

    “making sure each state gets its fair share, as defined by their contributions INTO the fund”–ALL 50 STATES get more Federal highway money than they contribute in terms of motor fuels taxes. How is this possible? Massive subsidization from the General Fund. Since Uncle Sam is already in the business of spending tens of billions of everyone’s income tax dollars a year to benefit the roughly 50% of the entire population with valid driver’s licenses (yes, that stat is correct, check it out), the Federal government absolutely has a legitimate interest in how those dollars are spent.

    January 31, 2012
    in response to House Transportation Bill "a March of Horribles"
  47.  

    greengirl

    Knowing what to do is not as hard has convincing residents that they should put up with some through traffic on their residential streets. Living on a loop or cul de sac has become synonymous with safety for a lot of people. This seems to be the root of sprawl; once you prohibit all through traffic in neighborhoods, you get big roads & strip malls. How to tell them you’re not trying to endanger their kids by building a connected street network…

    January 31, 2012
    in response to New Urbanists Release Principles for Sustainable Street Networks
  48.  

    Lee Munnich

    Great job Lewis!  John Doan showed these videos a the TRB Annual Meeting during our Sunday workshop on Multimodal Pricing: Interplay of Transit, Managed Lanes, and Congestion Pricing.

    January 31, 2012
    in response to An Animated Argument For Congestion Pricing
  49.  

    Bill Barlow

     the Senate banking committee version summary that I read made one disturbing commentHOV is no longer eligible for State of Good Repair, unless the HOV is “reserved” for public transportation.
    Personally, I think HOV will do more for transit in NC (and probably the SE) than any other initiative.  Yes it is great to get transit priority but usually there is not enough buses in HOV to justify an exclusive lane.  Especially when HOV is in its infancy, we need 2+ occupancy to fill the lane up enough to avoid public outcry.  We also need every opportunity to pitch as much FTA funds into this Highway funded HOV projects as possible.

    January 31, 2012
    in response to What Will the Senate Bill’s Transit Section Look Like?
  50.  

    john

    Pedestrian-cyclists are predictably endangered species in a culture that respects cars over people.  It is amusing to watch drivers trying to walk from their cars to shops… really sad.

    January 30, 2012
    in response to Anti-Sprawl Doctor to Host PBS Series on Urban Design and Public Health

1 2 3 4 5