Comments for Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Comment on Six Lies the GOP Is Telling About the House Transportation Bill by Eric B

Eric B — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:57:00 +0000

In addition to the cross-modal subsidy issues mentioned above, the idea that people that pay gas tax and highway users are one and the same is also factually wrong. With over half of all trips less than three miles, how much of the gas tax revenue is from driving that did not occur on a federal-aid highway? Urban driving has long subsidized rural and suburban highways. User fee…hah!

At some point we need to decide whether we have a federal TRANSPORTATION policy or a federal HIGHWAY program. Transportation is the bedrock of a robust market economy and necessarily includes all modes, based on the most efficient mode for the given task. If the federal program is just about highways, then the interstates are built and the federal role should dissolve.

Comment on Senate Transportation Bill Clears First Floor Vote, 85-11 by Daniel Hodun

Daniel Hodun — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:33:00 +0000

That is quite an interesting one of Cantwell. She opposed the bailouts yet her opposing this bill is quite a head-scratcher.

Comment on Senate Transportation Bill Clears First Floor Vote, 85-11 by Poncho

Poncho — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:00:00 +0000

i’m going to state the obvious and say the no’s are the who’s who of baggers

Comment on Six Lies the GOP Is Telling About the House Transportation Bill by Joe R.

Joe R. — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:02:00 +0000

This bill completely ignores the growing segment of the population who either can’t physically drive for some reason, or simply can’t afford to drive. The latter especially will grow as energy prices soar and salaries remain stagnant. And then you have those who would prefer not to drive, even though they can. In a decade all these groups will be a voting bloc the Republicans wished they didn’t ignore.

Comment on Six Lies the GOP Is Telling About the House Transportation Bill by Paul Souders

Paul Souders — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:55:00 +0000

“2. Highways are not “paid for by highway users.””…not by a longshot…
“4. There’s already a “user fee system for transit users.”
“It’s called the farebox.”
Can I get an amen and a hallelujah? There’s nothing “conservative” about the current highway financing structure, and the House bill makes it even more socialist. Transit advocates should holler “Fiscal Responsibility” at every opportunity and take the wind out of the Republican sails.I’d be happy — ECSTATIC, actually — if the highway bill leveled the transportation funding playing field and made every mode “pay for itself.”

Comment on LOS and Travel Projections: The Wrong Tools for Planning Our Streets by Joe R.

Joe R. — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:50:00 +0000

@40daebbed12b53745f7f9f21456e6154:disqus There is no evidence that local DOTs bother with mode choice modeling when they do future planning. If they did, then they would uniformly opt for rail instead of road for all future expansion if LOS and capacity increases are the primary goals. It’s far easier to reach these goals with rail without disrupting communities. When you think about it, roads should really only exist for emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, bicycles, and buses. Everything a private auto does can be done better by something else nearly all of the time. Over urban distances bike, subway, bus, or light rail are superior. Over suburban distances commuter rail is better. And over intercity distances HSR is far superior to driving. Really, there is no good reason to accommodate travel by private auto to the extent we do now. The “don’t build it and they won’t come” philosophy should be applied instead. The only place private autos should be accommodated is places like Alaska which are too sparse to support any other mode (and which can support LOS A with a two-lane country road).

Comment on Six Lies the GOP Is Telling About the House Transportation Bill by Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:03:00 +0000

It’s amazing how utterly incompetent and anachronistic the Republicans are. I feel like I’m in a movie. You know, that character that is just so unbelievably stupid that you can’t just get into the movie, thinking to yourself the whole time, “That would never happen. Nobody would act like that in real life”. Yet here we are, watching the Republicans beholden to some 1950s-era idea that the car somehow embodies freedom while completely ignoring the massive downsides to cars and how they decimated the livability of our cities, our health, and the environment. I mean, how do you counter this completely irrational nonsense? When did the Republicans go from being rational and just being into small government, privatization, etc and turning into fools parroting anachronistic concepts without even thinking? Even their hero Reagan was rational ….

Comment on Six Lies the GOP Is Telling About the House Transportation Bill by Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:15:00 +0000

Great article. Thanks for breaking it down.

Comment on LOS and Travel Projections: The Wrong Tools for Planning Our Streets by Guest

Guest — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:57:00 +0000

Yet another self-appointed expert who chooses to pretend there is no mode choice modeling? Yawn…

Comment on Six Lies the GOP Is Telling About the House Transportation Bill by Brian Morrissey

Brian Morrissey — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:26:00 +0000

Yes. That last paragraph proves the malice and corporate-fascist self-interest in this steaming pile of legislation.

Comment on Bikes Belong to Help Six Cities Build Protected Bikeways by Joe R.

Joe R. — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:58:00 +0000

@14a8960ffa19c6b0ffff4264aba1f641:disqus NYC more than any other city could lead the way if only it would get its head out of its behind. Our unique problems could work for us. For example, NYC has less room at street level to convert to bike lanes, and has a ridiculous number of traffic lights and stop signs compared to any other major city. These two facts basically mean anything built at street level for bicycles will be too small, and will also offer very poor travel times (and/or encourage cyclists to run lights to make better time, giving ammunition to the “law-and-order” crowd). The obvious answer is to do for bicycles what we already do at much greater cost for automobiles-go above grade. Now cyclists have a clear run to get to their destinations faster than anybody else, without slowing or stopping. And motorists/pedestrians can’t complain that precious street space was taken from them.

We already have lots of grade-separated infrastructure for both autos and trains. Hanging bike lanes off these could be done at minimal cost. You would only need to build brand new structures to bridge gaps. Best of all, you only need a sparse grid of bike highways (say one every mile or so) in order to form a really useful network. Such a grid means at most you’ll have to ride 1/2 mile on local streets to get to your final destination. In many cases you’ll be much closer. Add in further enhancements such as roofing to channel prevailing winds into tailwinds (to increase cruising speeds further), and you have a world-class system other cities will be envious to copy.

Right now, most of our new infrastructure is based on a Copenhagen-like model. The problem with that approach is NYC is much larger than Copenhagen. You need routes where cyclists can travel unimpeded for most of their journey in order to capture the critical segment who currently travel greater than 2 or 3 miles. We could easily make commutes of 10 miles or more practical with the right infrastructure, but not at street level. For a good analogy, would a motorist choose to drive 50 miles on local streets? No, they’ll choose to do as much of the journey on expressways as possible. A cyclist going an equivalent amount (say 10 to 20 miles) should have a similar option.

Comment on LOS and Travel Projections: The Wrong Tools for Planning Our Streets by Joe R.

Joe R. — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:19:00 +0000

The big flaw with planning based on LOS is the implicit assumption that the level of auto traffic is immutable. Plenty of studies have shown that if there is no parking, people will drive less. If there is good public transit, people will drive less. If biking is safe and fast, people will drive less. If driving is made to cost more, people will drive less. This all begs the question why we’re not actively taking steps to decrease driving, preferably to the point where few people use or own private automobiles, especially in urban settings. In the end, the costs associated with a transportation system based on the personal automobile are huge. Despite these costs, the autocentric system very often fails on every metric compared to the alternatives. A system entirely based on alternatives like rail or bicycle can easily offer faster door-to-door travel times, and with far less use of valuable public space. This in turn will free up the now much narrower roads for their primary functions-delivery of goods/services, and emergency vehicles.

I’ll agree with the basic premise of LOS planning, namely that we should never tolerate the longer than optimal travel times associated with congestion. However, we can only reach this lofty goal if we move most users to modes with inherently higher capacity, plus uniform performance characteristics to allow reliable scheduling. This almost always means some type of rail vehicle running on grade-separated right-of-way.

Comment on House Transportation Bill Too Extreme for Some Republicans by Angie Schmitt

Angie Schmitt — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:00:00 +0000

Glad you asked Bikenaperville http://action.smartgrowthamerica.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9532

Comment on LOS and Travel Projections: The Wrong Tools for Planning Our Streets by Guest

Guest — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:28:00 +0000

Matthew Jones, please try reading my comment again. Perhaps try reading up on some basic transportation planning as well.

He is omitting the mode choice model step in the process. You know, the part that shows that when roads get congested, more people take transit?!

A little dose of understanding would help a lot here. There is nothing wrong with demand forecasting or level of service analysis; it’s all a matter of how they are applied and the political choices that are made.

Railing against basic transportation planning methods is not productive.

Comment on House Transportation Bill Too Extreme for Some Republicans by Bikenaperville

Bikenaperville — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:56:00 +0000

Is there a way to get an email campaign going for this vote next week…posting a list of email addresses perhaps?

Comment on 12 Freeways to Watch (‘Cause They Might Be Gone Soon) by Joe R.

Joe R. — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:19:00 +0000

@twitter-93223785:disqus Agreed. I continue to be amazed how we build huge, ugly, very expensive grade-separated roadways for motor vehicles through cities when grade-separated infrastructure for bicycles costing several orders of magnitude less is needed far more for both safety and efficiency reasons. This just shows how warped our priorities are. And when you see these grade-separated freeways clogged with motor traffic moving slower than a bicycle, they’re not even serving the purpose they were designed for. Indeed, what a waste!

Comment on Bikes Belong to Help Six Cities Build Protected Bikeways by Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:49:00 +0000

I am seriously hoping that they are taking a serious look at Seattle. We have an ever increasing infrastructure network (hello multiple buffered lanes, many many miles of bike lanes, hundreds of miles of sharrows, one critical true cycle track coming online within the next year – with a few others hot on it’s heels, and many miles of greenways planned for the next few years). I feel like we could at least be considered “emerging,” if not “rockstar.” We do have the third highest bicycle ridership in the country after all. Suburbanites lament our mayor for pushing cycling infrastructure and biking to work himself. We have two city council members that regularly bike to work. The head of our DOT is huge on bikes and transit. Please please please consider us!

Comment on Bikes Belong to Help Six Cities Build Protected Bikeways by Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:49:00 +0000

This is wonderful! Wish they could do more than 6.

Comment on Bikes Belong to Help Six Cities Build Protected Bikeways by Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:30:00 +0000

Yay. A facility that I’ll be forced by law to use, that puts me right under the wheels of turning commercial trucks.

Comment on House Transportation Bill Too Extreme for Some Republicans by OctaviusIII

OctaviusIII — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:46:00 +0000

I’m glad sensible conservatism has not entirely left the House GOP.

Still, I’d be surprised if the bill as written doesn’t pass the House – what we’re doing is laying the groundwork for the conference committee fight. The Senate bill is just about the minimum I’d accept to breathe easy, and taking the average of the Senate and House would pull in a very bad direction.

If, by some miracle, the House bill actually fails, I’ll be much more optimistic about the near future for transportation infrastructure.