Transportation

[MathiasOfAthens]

What would it take for governors to radically alter the United States by increasing funding for Transportation: Lightrail, Busses, Subways. How would this better the American city and society?
________
LovelyWendie

[Viking Prince]

What is the constitutional basis for such coercion? Where is the line between support of commerce and direction of commerce?

[Ramashan]

Really depends on where your talking about. The east coast of the US is highly integrated with rail and bus systems. The problem there, perhaps, is the cost to upgrade these systems.

In the western states you have had major highway expansions for the past 50 years and the cost would be in changing all that and creating the infrastructure for rail.

I live in Los Angeles where I think a rail system would be highly beneficial to the city. But the cost out weighs the benefits for most people then there are the communities that believe that it will allow people from bad parts of town to get on the train in order to steal from them. Its just scewed mentality.

As for Constitutional basis of coercion, its called voting. If people put forth the initiative and vote for it, then so be it. Also, which Constitution do you speak of, the Federal or the State? THE Constitution says nothing regarding transportation on a state level because it has nothing to do with it. If the Governors feel its necessary, than so be it. If the roads are so clogged that it takes the workers three hours a day to commute 17 miles on the very same roads that your non-rail based heavy commerce is running, then it is in the best interest of the state for the governor to do something about it.

But really, the only thing that will change the governors minds or force their hands is if industry cried out for it. The almighty dollar controls what gets done.

[Viking Prince]

Western cities are too spread out for choo-choo trains. I can tell you the cost per rider in the RTD for metro-denver is $2.17 per rider trip operating costs. This means a subsidy on each and ever ride and all of the construction and equipment completely paid out of tax funds.

How is this good for the economy? It distorts decisions. It taxes the poor to pay for suburbanites to commute to high paying jobs in the city center. I could go on with this rant, but you get the idea.

You are correct that the federal government constitution is silent on this. The problem is the funding is federal. If the individual state and local governments want to fund these white elephants, I would strongly suggest not using federal funds to do so.

[Ramashan]

I'd be curious to know where you get your numbers from and what your definition of, 'spread out' is?

Eastern cities with subways and trains don't just take wealthy people downtown, they take people everywhere. Nor are they centralized.

Economic benefit with rail systems goes far beyond the cost of moving people. It also goes into the costs gained in other areas; Getting people more efficiently to and from centers of commerce, public events, less parking space needed etc etc. Yes some of this is transfered to running the system, and yes putting the system into place has a large upfront cost, but over time the costs will deminish and it a rail system can be adjusted to handle differences in commuter traffic, road ways can not.

Its a cultural thing and your statement, unless you can back it up with research, shows this. In your case you see it as the poor paying to get the wealthy where they need to go. Here in Los Angeles the argument is usually reverse. Although most of the trains were built to get the wealthy from the surburbs downtown, the city now sees their fault in this and are trying to expand the system because the roads in the rest of the city are undrivable.

And I'm not just talking trains. LA has a decent bus system I discovered but this is the one that socially is seen only for the lower class or poor and its inefficient because its stuck in the same traffic as everyone else.

Not being able to get people to their jobs, the centers of commerce, and expecially to tourist destinations efficiently and quickly hurts a cities economy and growth. And when you have the highways that are the arteries of your ground transportation trade network clogged with commuters 10 + hours a day, that also affects the economy. There are plans to build a port in Mexico and to expand other ports along the west simply because the trucks with the shipping containers coming out of Long Beach ger mired up and lose time on LA freeways.

[Sphere]

To clarify the US DOT system:

1.) States levy taxes (mostly from gas taxes, but also registration fees etc.)

2.) The money gets sent to Washington.

3.) The US congress redistributes the money on close to a 1:1 basis, but gives more to certain states that have a small revenue base but large transportation needs (e.g. Alaska).

4.) The money is split up into general spending areas that allocates money towards certain types of transporation or systems. (Highways, Interstate, "Smart System" upgrades, Urban etc.)

5.) Governors through the state DOT's choose the specific projects to fill those allocations.

Some projects can do an end-around of this process and get federal money for specific projects through "earmarks" in other bills, but the vast bulk of transportation spending is done in the normal system.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

@Ramashan

Population density is the key measure on how effective public transport can be. Only a few US cities really are dense enough to have widespread PT. It costs too much to build depots and operate the transport in the more thinly populated cities.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I have never been to Seattle or Portland, how are the cities up there on public transportation.

Anyway heres the problem I foresee with the way our states have organized our cities. It all works right now, if you have a car and are young enough to drive. But once you reach that age where your hands start to shake and you cant feel your muscles as you use to then it becomes a problem for your to get around.

A lot of cities are built with wide open streets and huge housing blocks. Bus stops are often far away and run only until 6 with large gaps in between.

I know a lot of the eastern states have denser populations. The problem here is the future of the western states with their spread out communities. When gas runs out we better have an alternative, before that gas runs out the price will skyrocket, projections are stated to reach $5.00 a gallon by the summer of 2009.

[Ramashan]

Population density is the key measure on how effective public transport can be. Only a few US cities really are dense enough to have widespread PT. It costs too much to build depots and operate the transport in the more thinly populated cities.

And I'm making my point towards those cities that hit the tipping point. I never said that ALL cities should have it. But look at where the cities with the highest populations are; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population, in the west where the mentality of public transportation is non-existent. They can only spread out and out making making the highways more and more congested. So, once a city hits a tipping point public transportation can only be a helpful thing.

I would argue that the cost of building gas stations, expanding highways, parking lots, and such would balance it all out in growing cities.

[MathiasOfAthens]

And I'm making my point towards those cities that hit the tipping point. I never said that ALL cities should have it. But look at where the cities with the highest populations are; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population, in the west where the mentality of public transportation is non-existent. They can only spread out and out making making the highways more and more congested. So, once a city hits a tipping point public transportation can only be a helpful thing.

I would argue that the cost of building gas stations, expanding highways, parking lots, and such would balance it all out in growing cities.

I dont think that Gas station will limit congestion, Expanding highways is also a quick fix, Highways have to be expanded every 10-20 years in major western cities.

Parking lots is a great way to lower congestion but it would also take more buildings going skyhigh. Parking lots would need to become multiple story buildings and buildings should be more pedestrian friendly instead of being 20 odd minutes from each other from walking distance.

[Viking Prince]

And I'm making my point towards those cities that hit the tipping point. I never said that ALL cities should have it. But look at where the cities with the highest populations are; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population, in the west where the mentality of public transportation is non-existent. They can only spread out and out making making the highways more and more congested. So, once a city hits a tipping point public transportation can only be a helpful thing.

I would argue that the cost of building gas stations, expanding highways, parking lots, and such would balance it all out in growing cities.

Gross population is not population density. Westerners like to have space and to be spread out. The preference for space is contrary to what is needed for public transit to be efficient. We like big homes on big lots in suburban locations. We like shopping malls and not central downtowns. We like tech centers and not downtown office towers. We shop by taking the interstate down one exit or so to get to the stores. The roads are built for personal transit and not public transit.

If you like subways and trains, I would suggest living where they are useful and not advocating other places with other priorites be remade into choo-choo heaven.

[Ramashan]

If you like subways and trains, I would suggest living where they are useful and not advocating other places with other priorites be remade into choo-choo heaven.

On one side I'll say, fair enough concerning about living where they are useful. On the other I'll say that justifying urban sprawl because its just the way things are is a little short sighted.

I've recently driven through Houston and Phoenix and El Paso and have seen first hand the traffic mess that is going on there. I guarantee that in about 10 years you'll see those cities having the same smog problems that were faced by Los Angeles and the Eastern cities before they started making changes in the way things were done.

The roads are built for personal transit and not public transit.

And when did I say anything about changing one to the other. But adding public transit to the road actually helps the traffic flow by having less personal vehicles on there. But I'm advocating trains.

Why can't a city have both?

I mean I like having my car as much as the next person, but when it becomes a standard hour to drive anywhere, then you have to pay for parking (which only gives you a limited amount of time) then have to take that same hour to get home, that's just a waste of time. Perhaps not every city needs public transportation, but once they spread out to a certain point, then the roads just become one giant parking lot. And believe me, Los Angeles invented the car culture. Now its suffering because of it.

Maybe when this same happens to Houston and Pheonix they'll be asking themselves why no one thought to take care of the problem before it became so bad.