After Gutenberg

jcwinnie

Melissa Schober informs that federal monies may be forthcoming for public transit. Maybe.

Last week, the House Transportation Committee passed the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act (HR 6052). At a time of record high gas prices – Hartford and Chicago are in the $4 gallon range with the national average not far behind – the bill would authorize $1.7 billion in grant funding for public transit.

The bill recognizes that some 37 million metric tones of carbon dioxide are saved annually by the 10.3 billion public transit trips Americans took in 2007. And, as a daily public transit rider myself, I appreciate the estimated annual cost-savings of $6,251 (as per the American Public Transportation Association).

The grant funding is broken out thusly: $750 million for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for urbanized areas and $100 million for non-urbanized areas.

The grants could be used by public transit agencies to reduce fares and/or for capital improvements and expansion. At a time when so many transit agencies are facing drastic budget shortfalls, this bill is good news – should it pass and should the authorization be fully funded. Were the bill to pass, there is a good chance for full funding since the sponsor – Rep. James Oberstar – is the chair of the Transportation Committee and has a good relationship with Rep. James Olver, chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation.

Besides the grant funding, the bill also would increase the federal match for “clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment or facilities” such as buses and ferries.

jcwinnie

TALC (Transportation And Land Use Coalition) is a partnership of over 100 groups working for a sustainable and socially just Bay Area.

We envision a region with healthy, walkable communities that provide all residents with transportation choices and affordable housing. TALC analyzes county and regional policies, works with community groups to develop alternatives, and coordinates grassroots campaigns.

TALC’s Board voted to support Prop 1A: the High-Speed Rail ballot measure that would provide $9.95 billion dollars to catalyze development of the 800 mile High-Speed Rail system. Some of the money raised by the bond issue also would go toward improvements to existing rail networks.

jcwinnie

“AP reports that Californian voters passed a measure to build a high speed rail network in the state – Calif. voters approve $10B bond for bullet trains. Hopefully they can find the money for it,” observes the Big Gav.

California voters are green-lighting the nation’s most ambitious high-speed rail system, approving a nearly $10 billion bond to put speeding bullet trains capable of topping 200 mph between the state’s major metropolitan areas.

The measure, which passed with 52 percent support Tuesday, will fund the first phase of what is projected to be a $45 billion, 800-mile project built with state, federal, local and private money.

Backers sold the proposal as an innovative alternative to soaring airfares and gas prices. In the closing weeks of the campaign, they touted estimates that it would create nearly 160,000 construction-related jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs.

“In our state, transportation is always a big issue,” said Mark Baldassare, president of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Public Policy Institute of California. “A lot of people have a sense that maybe that (bullet train) is something I can use at some point. It’s something they can relate to.”

The first phase of the rail line would link Anaheim, Los Angeles, Fresno and San Francisco. Planners eventually want to include Sacramento, San Diego and Oakland.

The $9.9 billion proposition includes $9 billion for bullet trains and $950 million for conventional commuter and intercity rail, including trains to connect travelers with the high-speed system.

“Californians decided to reduce our oil dependence, to build alternatives to traffic and long airport lines, and to help solve global warming. Californians were also voting to boost the economy,” said Emily Rusch of the California Public Interest Research Group.

jcwinnie

Politico examined the possibilities for Obama’s staff and cabinet. “Best of all in Politico’s picks,” opines David Roberts, “are the two possibilities for Transportation, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), both outstanding advocates for smart urban development, transit diversity, and long-distance rail. Either of those would be a home run.”

jcwinnie

When first publishing this post, I questioned whether California is the best place to test revitalication of passenger rail in America. In a critique of application of the PBP (Project Better Place) model in the united States, Doug Korthof provides some rationale for the development of high-speed rail in California.

The scandal is that it’s cheaper to drive an IC (Internal Combustion) car to SF (San Francisco) than it is to take public transit! Especially with two or more in the car, and/or with baggage.

For one thing, there IS NO train from L.A. (Los Angeles) to Sacramento, and only one per day to SF, running at very odd times (the arrival in L.A.’s Union Station is only a range, between midnight and 3 AM; try getting public transit or a friend to hang out all that time!

If you are really insane, you could stash a bike, and take your chances dodging homeless encampments at dawn…and trucks at rush hour. No central-city bike paths in L.A.!). [Editor's note: see advocacy for increasing bike and rail interconnection.]

Now if you are going to invest, say, 10 million in an EV highway to San Francisco, complete with 20 battery exchange stations, who would use it? Those who really are in a hurry, take the plane!

Those who drive to SF do so because it’s cheaper and more convenient, not because it’s faster. Would this be the same demographic that would purchase an EV?? I don’t think there is any evidence to support that idea.

jcwinnie

Juliana Williams reports on a victory for high-speed rail in Iowa. “The Iowa State Legislature approved the allocation of $3 million to the Department of Transportation specifically for passenger rail.”

These funds are enough to qualify Iowa for matching federal funds of $12 million, which is enough to begin upgrading existing tracks between the Quad Cities and Iowa City to handle higher speeds.

Map from http://www.midwesthsr.org

Advocates for fast, frequent and dependable trains connecting the entire Midwest believe that “a strong network of fast trains will make the Midwest a more attractive place to live and do business while slowing the growth of auto congestion and its related energy and pollution impacts.”