Gas price keeps going up in the mean while public transportations

[deckeda]

[quote Acer]
On the other hand, automobiles have enjoyed massive subsidies, e.g. the entire interstate highway system.
Thank goodness for our national Interstate Highway network, a thing that never would have happened without federal backing. Let's hear it for the advantages of highly efficient personal transportation via auto and truck, of which there are many.

AT THE SAME TIME, BL's point is spot-on: if we want something else now (or in addition to, or as an alternative, or ...) we have to raise our voices to those that need to hear it.

On the other hand, market forces (i.e. fuel prices) are already beginning to do their thing. I'm now hearing more radio advertisements (!) by railroads. Freight rail --- that thing from decades ago, before they priced themselves out of the market --- is making a comeback.

The radio ads cleverly mention something about huge "MPG" in relation to how much STUFF you can carry on a train. I love it. (And would love the semis to get off the highways, particularly during rush hour, but that's my purely selfish, car-loving perspective. Even a biker or mass-transit lover would agree ya gotta start somewhere ...)

[JoeH]

Kap:

"Due to lack of funding or because the money has gone to contruct buildings, roads, and bridges in Iraq?"

Due to lack of funding. Probably because the money was shifted to Iraq connected spending, or as Acre said, it is easy to claim as being "pork".

BL:

"There are actually fair amounts of money earmarked for transit that end up not getting used every year, because we're letting it happen."

I would love to see any documentation of this, as far as I can find out all the federal money earmarked for mass transit has been spent most of the last decade. Or it has been earmarked for a project that is in progress already. The money will be spent as parts are completed. Some money available to specific states has not been spent in those areas because the states did not come up with their matching funds, but ended up being used in other states.

[kap]

[quote Black Landlord]
Due to lack of people like you getting involved with your local transit advocacy organization, making phone calls, writing letters. Posting to a non-local message board about it doesn't get you very far. And highlighting how much transit sucks -really- doesn't further the cause, it only reinforces the perceptions of people who aren't currently using it.
You are presumptuous! How would you know with utmost certainty my history of local involvement in public transportation advocacy groups?

[freeradical]

[quote deckeda]
Thank goodness for our national Interstate Highway network, a thing that never would have happened without federal backing.
Yes, the interstate system is highly useful, but we have focused on it far too much. It has become a nightmare in places like Los Angeles, and it's also over developed in other areas.

I have driven between Sacramento and Salt Lake City a number of times, and once you get past Reno, there really is no justification - except for safety - to having four lanes of blacktop. Two lanes with passing lanes on hills would get the job done on most of that stretch of highway.

I suspect that the system was over developed for the same reason that Amtrak serves unproductive ares: politicians will not vote to fund something if it doesn't benefit their constituents.

[Acer]

"Freight rail --- that thing from decades ago, before they priced themselves out of the market --- is making a comeback. "

Freight rail is another more-efficient method that has suffered because of de facto subsidies to the automobile and tractor trailer system. I don't think they priced themselves out of the market...rather, the public subsidies to the tractor-trailer haulers (more specifically, by building the roads they depend on for them) undercut them and they could not compete.

I am not saying we should not have built interstates. But instead of looking at the total transportation system to see what is the most efficient, sustainable way to get people and goods to where they need to go, we blew most of our cash on ONE mode: the automobile.

[Black Landlord]

[quote kap][quote Black Landlord]
Due to lack of people like you getting involved with your local transit advocacy organization, making phone calls, writing letters. Posting to a non-local message board about it doesn't get you very far. And highlighting how much transit sucks -really- doesn't further the cause, it only reinforces the perceptions of people who aren't currently using it.
You are presumptuous! How would you know with utmost certainty my history of local involvement in public transportation advocacy groups?
I wouldn't. Sometimes you have to type an extra few words if you want people to know where you're coming from. I thought I might get clarification on follow-up. Guess not.

[Black Landlord]

[quote freeradical]
. . .Amtrak serves unproductive ares
And I would like to see some documentation of this.

[Black Landlord]

[quote Acer]"Freight rail --- that thing from decades ago, before they priced themselves out of the market --- is making a comeback. "

Freight rail is another more-efficient method that has suffered because of de facto subsidies to the automobile and tractor trailer system. I don't think they priced themselves out of the market...rather, the public subsidies to the tractor-trailer haulers (more specifically, by building the roads they depend on for them) undercut them and they could not compete.

I am not saying we should not have built interstates. But instead of looking at the total transportation system to see what is the most efficient, sustainable way to get people and goods to where they need to go, we blew most of our cash on ONE mode: the automobile.
This is a fair assessment. We need to move beyond the 1940s and stop seeing the facilitation of personal motoring as some sort of manifest destiny.

[freeradical]

[quote Black Landlord][quote freeradical]
. . .Amtrak serves unproductive ares
And I would like to see some documentation of this.
Here's a link to a map of the national Amtrak routes. You can't be serious if you think that all of those routes are a good thing. I think that bus service would be a far better choice for many of those routes that are out in the sticks.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentSer...Index_Page&c=Page&cid=1080072922209&ssid=4

[Black Landlord]

[quote freeradical][quote Black Landlord][quote freeradical]
. . .Amtrak serves unproductive ares
And I would like to see some documentation of this.
Here's a link to a map of the national Amtrak routes. You can't be serious if you think that all of those routes are a good thing. I think that bus service would be a far better choice for many of those routes that are out in the sticks.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentSer...Index_Page&c=Page&cid=1080072922209&ssid=4
Sorry, I don't see any destinations here that are out in "the sticks". Are you referring to Pontiac Michigan? That line serves a relatively densely populated, and relatively poor part of the state-- I wouldn't be surprised if most runs are to capacity. Amtrak has been forced to eliminate under-capacity lines for decades-- not sure how you got the idea there's a bunch of fat to trim. Do you have recent experience riding an empty train?