...another day, just more of the same old "obstructionists driving us back into the stone age" bullsh!t...
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/tran ... 12-16.html
New roads and bridges translate into more cars on the road, however. That means more dependence on foreign oil and increased levels of greenhouse gases, according to critics.
“The stuff we’re seeing is more of the same,” said Robert Puentes, who runs the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.
Puentes and other members of a new coalition, Transportation for America, have put together a counteroffer they say will meet both goals of creating jobs and protecting the environment. Unlike the lists put forward by state transportation officials, Transportation for America’s is heavy on transit programs and more bike and walk paths. It also pays for maintenance and repair of roads and bridges already built...
...Transportation for America has identified more than $33 billion worth of projects that meet the shovel-ready standard. In total, the group said Congress should spend $100 million on light rail lines and other transit programs, maintaining the existing highway system and building new bike and walk paths...
...AASHTO Executive Director John Horsley said in a statement that “automobile travel is now and will remain the predominant form of transportation for people and freight across America, and highway investment is desperately needed.”
Janet Kavinoky, the main transportation lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the notion that no money should be spent on new road construction represents a “very narrow worldview” that doesn’t account for how congestion on America’s highway system restricts economic flow.
There are 173 major truck bottlenecks now in the current transportation system, Kavinoky said. The 10 most congested interchanges each caused truckers 1.5 million hours of delays, Kavinoky said.
“You can’t tell me we shouldn’t be putting more money in road construction,” she said. “Freight does not travel on transit.”...
...Puentes said as much as 95 percent of the programs go to traditional transportation programs.
Another goal is to require states to be more forthcoming about how federal dollars would be spent.
Lovaas compared the process unfavorably to the open debate on the auto bailout.
“We put the CEOs through the paces. We put the companies through the paces. We need to do it with state Departments of Transportation,” Lovaas said.
The three [Anderson, CEO of Smart Growth, Puentes of the Brookings Institute, and Lovaas, Transportation Policy Director for the Natural Resource Defense Council] said they have briefed both congressional staff and members of the Obama administration on their proposals and have received a favorable response.
“The message is ‘Help us screen these projects, and do it quickly,’ ” Lovaas said.
Dear Lord...where do I start?
Puentes is either a mush-mouth moron, or is flat out lying. Plain and simple. Calling for Congress to spend $100 million on light rail lines, bikepaths and walkways reveals his ignorance. $100 million doesn't even build ONE MILE of light rail in most cities (item #1 below). In fact, largely due to the environmental activists, the proposal and EIR studies in themselves, for a simple bikepath or walkway, could very easily run into the tens of millions, NOT INCLUDING MITIGATION COSTS. $100 million MIGHT cover cost overruns on an existing expansion.
Bottomline, Light rail is EXCEPTIONALLY EXPENSIVE AND HAS NEVER PAID IT'S OWN WAY (INCLUDING CAPITAL LAYOUT) IN ANY CITY IN THE U.S.
Truth be told, for Light Rail to have any impact in overall highway traffic miles, would probably require a capital investment of several TRILLION dollars in new rail sytems and expansion of existing...yet that investment would be wasted funding as MOST OF THE AREAS SERVICED BY THE NEW LINES AND EXPANSION WOULD NOT BE COST EFFECTIVE, AND THE REMAINING SERVICE AREA COULD NOT FINANCIALLY MAINTAIN THE UNDERUSED ROUTES. Don't believe me. Go research it yourself. Most transit districts get stuck in the proposal study phase once the ridership revenues are deducted from the initial capital outlay...the variance is SO huge, absent a regional government body walking in their door with a check for a few hundred million every year to payoff the debt, the transit agencies cannot afford to build the new/expanded lines (service the bond debt).
Really...go look at the actual numbers...in writing.
If you ask an environmentalist; 1) They don't know the facts, so... 2) They lie.
If you ask a transit official, they'll waffle on the subject, because; 1) That's their product and they won't admit it's a fiscal black hole...which means they're out of a job, and... 2) Every transit official believes if they can just win the lottery or convince taxpayers to give them more money, they'll be able to build the utopian light rail system with the public flocking to the stations every day (i.e., either they're in denial, or if wishes really do come true, I'll be hitting Scarlett Johannson tonight).
What's genuinely frightening about these three is they have access to the decision makers, who have entrusted them to review and select the projects for Congressional approval.
If anyone's seriously interested in learning about the costs and successes/failures both within the U.S. and internationally, a former transportation adviser to L.A., NJ, and House Speaker Gingrich, Wendell Cox, who now runs an international transportation consultancy group out of Chicago maintains a publicly accessible website with a huge volume of studies and policy papers on everything transportation.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/tfb-ix.htm
Some of the publications are dated...1997-2005, but the studies, methodology, findings, conclusions, and subsequent policy recommendations are obviously still accurate and valid.
These so-called "green" organizations are talking out their azzes with no facts to back up their policy recommendations...they are 100% unabashed liars.
