Support for expanded Electrification?

[AlanB]

The real solution is that we need to raise the cost of driving and flying to reflect their true costs. I propose that we raise the gasoline tax and jet fuel tax to a level that it pays 1/2 of our military budget. Let's not kid yourselves; our military is now being used to ensure our access to petroleum world wide. These tax increases would reflect the "true cost" of driving and flying. Do this and we would have nation wide electrification in a decade in addtion to full Amtrak funding!

Forget the military, we need to raise the fuel taxes simply because we're not paying fully for our roads at any level. I won't go into the state and city levels, but just at the Federal level for the Interstate Highway System we missed paying for things last year by $8 Billion. Already this year we've dumped $7 Billion from the general budget into the HTF to cover shortfalls, and it's expected to need another $2B to $3B before year's end.

That's on top of teh $28.53 Billion dumped into the DOT by the Stimulus package. And that barely makes a dent in the more than $200 Billion estimated to be needed to actually return all bridges and roads back to a state of good repair.

Most states and cities aren't in any better shape when it comes to local roads that don't qualify for Federal assistance.

 

[transit54]

Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply to this thread...she told me that she was being quoted at $42 a month for insurance by Progressive. Granted, I'm sure that's bare-bones coverage, but that was what she was working off of. So that's $504 for the year for coverage, plus the $868 in gas. I don't believe there's any taxes on vehicles in VT (I wouldn't know, I carshare) and I'm not sure what an annual emissions inspection costs. Additionally, the car can be used for other things - there are times that she might need to leave the area well covered by our transit service, or she might need to move objects not easily carried on a bus, etc. While the car costs more, it also has a lot more versatility.

Now, she's riding Amtrak through the end of the promotion, but after that train fare goes back to about $40 RT. And yes, there will be maintenance costs and things of that nature, as well as the depreciation of the vehicle itself. She admits that she'd be paying more, but not significantly more for the added convenience of being able to leave Burlington/Windsor when she wants, rather than having to work around a train with one departure a day. It's not that the train isn't cheaper (with normal fares) but that it isn't cheap enough to justify having such a fixed schedule. If there was a larger difference, she'd likely go back to taking the train. Of course, if the train offered multiple departures a day, she'd likely just stick to taking it. If transportation isn't competitive on convenience, it at least needs to be competitive on price. In my experience, systems that are very convenient (i.e. the NEC) can get away with charging a substantial premium over services that are not.

However, I think her case is a poor example from which to base this discussion. That vast majority of people I know own cars and won't consider getting rid of them anytime soon, if ever. To them the fixed costs of owning a car are sunk, so they only compare the variable costs per trip. That's where a fuel tax really comes into play.

 

[volkris]

Before the punitive fuel tax, why not start by doing a better job of informing the public of the true operational costs of a car compared to rail?

Let's heavily advertise statistics and web calculators like google maps includes (or has included, anyway) showing how much that ride to the next town costs over and above gas, including the costs of oil changes, insurance, legitimately predicted repair costs, etc. Sometimes that number is surprisingly--even shockingly--high.

That alone might exponentially increase support for expanded rail, do it through honesty and without forcing peoples' hands.

 

[DET63]

I don't think that punitive taxes or showing people how much owning a car costs will do much to get people out of cars and into public transportation, be it trains or buses. Most people know how much a car costs; they pay for gas, maintenance and repair, licenses and registration, insurance, parking, tolls, traffic tickets and all the rest. If fuel prices go up, they'll curtail optional trips or skimp on registration, insurance, etc., as much as they can. Many trips that are made by car simply cannot be made by train or bus; people without cars will simply not make those trips, rather than buying a bus or train ticket. If they already have cars for those trips, they'll probably also use their cars for those other trips where alternatives are available.

I do think that, in some cases, the increase in passenger traffic would justify operating additional services (say a daily morning and afternoon departure in each direction) on some LD or currently infrequent short-haul services (like the Vermont services), but there would probably have to be some experimentation to determine which services would so benefit. When times are tough, and budgets are being cut, experimentation is often the last thing to make it on the table (and the first thing taken off).

 

[AlanB]

I don't think that punitive taxes or showing people how much owning a car costs will do much to get people out of cars and into public transportation, be it trains or buses. Most people know how much a car costs; they pay for gas, maintenance and repair, licenses and registration, insurance, parking, tolls, traffic tickets and all the rest. If fuel prices go up, they'll curtail optional trips or skimp on registration, insurance, etc., as much as they can. Many trips that are made by car simply cannot be made by train or bus; people without cars will simply not make those trips, rather than buying a bus or train ticket. If they already have cars for those trips, they'll probably also use their cars for those other trips where alternatives are available.

First, I totally disagree with your first statement. Far too many people have no clue what it really costs them. I can't tell you how many people I've seen post in various newspaper forums that it costs them $20 bucks to do a trip in their car, because they're only thinking about the gas in the tank. Additionally, most American's actually believe that they fully pay for the roads and highways via the fuel taxes levied and license/registration fees. They couldn't be more wrong, but they do indeed believe it.

Second, while there are areas of this country where it simply is not possible at present to live without a car, it is indeed possible to do so. I've done it. Granted, I did it in the easiest US city to do it, but it is possible. I went for almost 2 years without a car, before I finally had enough money to get one after my old died. And that was before Zipcar came along.

Now I'm not suggesting that we should force people out of their cars either. I won't go that far, but it does gall me when I see people complain about spending say $500 Million to restore the 3C's service in Ohio, while living in ignorant bliss about the fact that they had their highway ride subsidized too. And they bemoan leaving that $500 M debt for future generations, while somehow not noticing that this year alone so far, we've added $35.53 Billion just at the Federal level to debt for our highways.

I'm reminded of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike trying to hold back the flood.

Yet another common misconception by many is the fact that buses can do anything that light rail can do for less money. They come to that conclusion because all they ever see in the news is how much it's costing to build the latest LRT line. But they never stop to do the math to see that it takes 2 to 3 buses to move the same number of people as an LRT car. They never stop to figure out that the average rail car lasts 30 to 40 years, while the average bus lasts 10 to 12 years, meaning that you need to buy three sets of buses to achieve the same results.

And they never stop to learn that rail is always cheaper to operate. One analysis that I did using numbers from Portland Oregon showed that basically after about 5 years of operations at their current levels, the city started saving $134 Million each year running LRT instead of using buses to perform the same task. The first 5 years, were spent negating the difference in captial costs between the buses and the LRT.

 

[DET63]

New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and a few other large cities may have public transportation services that are adequate to allow people to do without cars. But most other cities, including some of the largest, have either bus-only systems, bus systems supplemented by one or two subway or light-rail lines, or bus and rail systems that serve the downtown pretty well, but are much less useful for people living in the suburbs.

Take Portland, Oregon, for example. It has an extensive bus system that serves the city center pretty well. It has an expanding light-rail system as well as a streetcar, serving several parts of the city, and eventually serving others. It has a commuter-rail system consisting of one line that connects two suburban areas, but does not go directly into the core area. If you lived in Portland, you might think you'd be able to do well without a car. But what if you want to go skiing or hiking on Mt. Hood? What if you want to go down to the Oregon Coast? You either have to rent a car, get a ride with friends, or hitchhike. There is relatively little and infrequent service (once or twice a day, at most) to outlying areas. If you want to get out of town every weekend, or at least two or three times a month, is it going to make more sense to own or rent a car? If you have have a family that has to be taken to soccer practice, school events, etc., even Portland's vaunted public-transit system will probably not be adequate for your needs. Your car may cost you money, but the alternatives are not going to be practical.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Exactly. And the discrimination that has arisen against those who do not or can not own a car must be stopped.

 

[AlanB]

Take Portland, Oregon, for example. It has an extensive bus system that serves the city center pretty well. It has an expanding light-rail system as well as a streetcar, serving several parts of the city, and eventually serving others. It has a commuter-rail system consisting of one line that connects two suburban areas, but does not go directly into the core area. If you lived in Portland, you might think you'd be able to do well without a car. But what if you want to go skiing or hiking on Mt. Hood? What if you want to go down to the Oregon Coast? You either have to rent a car, get a ride with friends, or hitchhike. There is relatively little and infrequent service (once or twice a day, at most) to outlying areas. If you want to get out of town every weekend, or at least two or three times a month, is it going to make more sense to own or rent a car? If you have have a family that has to be taken to soccer practice, school events, etc., even Portland's vaunted public-transit system will probably not be adequate for your needs. Your car may cost you money, but the alternatives are not going to be practical.

Actually you couldn't have picked a worse city for your argument. Portland, even before the newest light rail line opened last month and before the commuter rail opened, actually has one of the most balanced systems around. Balanced in the sense that they move almost as many people by bus as they do by train. In 2007, last year for data from the National Transit Database, Tri-Met moved 223,265,805 passenger miles by bus and 186,540,535 passenger miles by light rail. I've no doubt that the two new lines will at a minimum fully balance things, if not give LRT the edge.

Now all that said, while I will admit that in my case I can indeed take a train (several in fact) to reach the coast. But I can't take a train to go skiing, technically. (I could ride Amtrak, but that's not a city service.) And we're talking about luxuries here, not necessities. In Portland's case, I've no doubt that people can indeed survive via their transit system.

If we were talking about some small town our on the plains, then yes, a car is a necessity. Heck, even where my mother lives in semi-rural eastern PA, a car is needed. I've already allowed for that. And I can tell you right now that I wouldn't want to give up my car, despite my options here in NYC. But that doesn't change the fact that many people can and do survive without a car, or with using it only minimally, and that many more people in this country can do so and should do so. It also doesn't change the fact that we should be working with all possible speed and fervor to give many more people that same option in our cities that currently either don't have any rail transit or enough rail transit.

 

[DET63]

Actually you couldn't have picked a worse city for your argument.

BS. I used to live there. I have family there. I went to college there. I know what it's like.

If all you want to do is get around Portland, the bus and rail systems are probably adequate (though they do shut down at night). If you want to get out of town, the system largely isn't there. I grew up in a town 45 miles from Portland. At one time, there was twice-daily Greyhound bus service. Then, the service was trimmed to once a day, then, after a number of years, eliminated altogether. Other, larger communities around Portland have either limited intercity bus service or no bus service at all. Other communities similar distances from Portland have never had bus service, at least in my lifetime. (Meanwhile, rail service—where it even existed in the first place—had been eliminated from many towns as far back as the '40s and '50s.

But even (or should I say, "Therefore"?) most people who live in Portland and use TriMet to get around town still own a car. They may work in areas not served by TriMet buses, MAX light rail, or streetcar. Or they may work in areas where the service is provided, but still requires transfers from one bus to another (or bus to rail, or rail to bus), not a pleasant consideration given Portland's weather—especially during the fall, winter, and spring, when it rains . . . and rains . . . and rains. They have families or friends in areas that are not (and probably never will be) served by any consistent (more than once or twice a day) public transportation.

ODOT and other public agencies does provide bus (or van) transportation to some communities formerly served by Greyhound, but how much will the citizenry be willing to pay the taxes necessary to subsidize such services? My guess is not very.

 

[AlanB]

Det63, you're thinking too globally. Yes, 45 miles out from Portland, Tri-Met is useless to you. You're not even in Tri-Met's service area. But for those that do live within Tri-Met's service area; most people can perform day to day functions without a car. Heck, most people 45 miles out from NYC can’t survive without a car. They may be able to use a train to commute to work, but that’s about it and they have to drive to the train in the first place.

Returning however to Portland, yes, they aren't going to the mountains or to the beach, but those aren't daily activities and that's not something that a public transit system was designed to handle. And yes, I'm more than willing to bet that there are many people out there who find it far more convenient to take their car to buy groceries.

But like it or not, it would be possible to survive in Portland without a car if one had to do so. That is the bottom line here. The system as it exists right now cannot be everything to everyone, but that is why Portland continues to grow their system and why they serve as a role model for how to get it done. Do I wish that they were doing it a bit faster? Sure. But they have been plugging along steadily and in the last 25 years, have more than doubled transit ridership and most of that is on LRT. The buses have seen minimal increases in passenger miles. In fact over the last 10 years, the buses have actually lost about 5 million passenger miles. That's insignificant against the greater whole, but the reality is that Portland now moves twice as many people by public transit than it did 25 years ago. That is significant.

And by the way most people don't run out to buy a car because they want to go to the beach or go skiing. They might pick a 4 wheel drive car if they are skiers, but they don't buy the car for just that purpose. We don't build transit systems for that purpose either. Those are luxuries and not something that is needed for survival.

So again, I stand by my statement that one can survive in Portland, assuming that one lives within the Tri-Met service area, without a car. Life will be nicer if you have a car for those things that aren't conducive to transit, but again you can survive and still maintain a decent standard of living.

As for your final question, maybe if the citizens actually understood that they are subsidizing the roads, and at a much greater cost, they might just decide to live with a small tax increase now so as to be able to reduce the Billions being dumped into the roads.

 

[wayman]

But like it or not, it would be possible to survive in Portland without a car if one had to do so. That is the bottom line here.

As someone who spent a month last year living in Southwest, commuting seven days a week by two buses each way to an office in Southeast, and spent most of my days on assignments in a wide variety of places in Southeast, Northeast and Gresham, I wholeheartedly agree with Alan on this one. There were days it was great to have use of a company car. But I would never say it was necessary, and I went a lot of places (probably a lot of neighborhoods most Portlanders and certainly most visitors never go, for that matter).

Tri-Met was one of the best public transit services I have ever used, and I used it extensively. I can't even begin to calculate how good a value my passes were, I can't laud their fare system and transfer system highly enough (Portland and Seattle absolutely put Philadelphia to shame here), I was astonished every day at how clean every vehicle was, and at how comfortable and quiet the rides were, and I was quite pleased by the service frequencies most of the time.

The bit where the buses stop running for the most part around 11:30pm or so, that was the only downside; on the other hand, it was sort of an up-side for the staff, because it meant we had a decent excuse to close the Portland office at 11:00pm or so each night and actually go home!

So, all that said, would I want a car if I were to move to Portland? It would depend largely on the nature of my job and where I was able to live. I can't say "absolutely not!". But I would strive to engineer things so my job didn't require me to have a car and my commute worked well by Tri-Met, and knowing what I know of the city, I wouldn't feel like I needed a car for daily life.

 

[Neil_M]

You are never going to get rid of all cars, remote communities are highly unlikely to be plugged into to public transport that you could not get by without a car.

Cites are the easiest hit to improve public transport so you can exist without a car, and is more likely to reduce the overall number of car journeys anyway. Ease of connections, frequency and easy to work out fare systems all help.

Even the Swiss yearly transport pass, which covers just about every form of rail, boat and bus transport in the country and all the public transit systems in the larger cities for less than $300 a month offers a 30% reduction on car hire.....

 

[AlanB]

Actually you couldn't have picked a worse city for your argument.

BS. I used to live there. I have family there. I went to college there. I know what it's like.

By the way, the main reason for my statement above was the fact that you opened your post by talking about how many trains NY, Chicago, San Fran, and Boston have. Then you went on to talk about how most other cities rely largely on buses with a few trains thrown in and held Portland up as an example. Since I know the Portland numbers quite well, and as I then pointed out that Portland moves almost as many people by rail as they do by bus, that is what prompted my statement of Portland being a bad example.

Twenty years ago Portland would have been a good example, but not today. Today as I said above, it is a model city of what to do and how to do it. Even their method of funding transit is rather unique, at least here in the US (although NYC just copied their idea).

 

[AlanB]

You are never going to get rid of all cars, remote communities are highly unlikely to be plugged into to public transport that you could not get by without a car.Cites are the easiest hit to improve public transport so you can exist without a car, and is more likely to reduce the overall number of car journeys anyway. Ease of connections, frequency and easy to work out fare systems all help.

I couldn't agree more. Transit can never be everything to everyone. It's simply not possible. But it can be so much more to so many more, if only the US would work harder and faster at restoring what used to be a significant rail system 50 years ago. But somehow we've gotten hung up on the idea that the rails should make a profit. People have forgotten that it's called public transit because it needs the public's help to survive, not because it moves the public.

Even the Swiss yearly transport pass, which covers just about every form of rail, boat and bus transport in the country and all the public transit systems in the larger cities for less than $300 a month offers a 30% reduction on car hire.....

That's an interesting idea Neil, the discount on car hires. Question though, do you mean renting a car? Or do you mean taxis, which some people refer to as hiring a car?

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

Exactly. And the discrimination that has arisen against those who do not or can not own a car must be stopped.

What "discrimination?"

Is it "discrimination" not to allow jogging on an interstate highway?

You bandy around words indiscriminately without applying standard definitions. There are many people in our society who have been victims of "discrimination," and your flippant use of the word is highly offensive. I would advise you use a dictionary.

 

[delvyrails]

This Portland discussion is nice, but what does it really have to do with electrification?

 

[AAARGH!]

This Portland discussion is nice, but what does it really have to do with electrification?

The discussion went off track (excuse the pun). But what else is new! :huh:

It's common on this board.

Actually, it is relevant in the context of expanding public transportation (expanded electrification). Portland is a good example (or bad depending with whom you agree) of this.

 

[wayman]

Exactly. And the discrimination that has arisen against those who do not or can not own a car must be stopped.

What "discrimination?"

Is it "discrimination" not to allow jogging on an interstate highway?

You bandy around words indiscriminately without applying standard definitions. There are many people in our society who have been victims of "discrimination," and your flippant use of the word is highly offensive. I would advise you use a dictionary.

"Discrimination" is a term with a lot of meanings, not limited to racial discrimination, sex discrimination, class discrimination, and the other major categories you're referring to, one of which I suspect is discrimination against the disabled. There are many people who cannot drive, whether because of a mobility impairment, a vision impairment, or a neurological impairment (such as epilepsy). And the way our society's infrastructure has developed, and the way it has dismissed many alternative forms of transportation, marginalizes and harms those people. That's discrimination. That's what the ADA was enacted to combat, though the ADA only addresses some of the problems with transportation that such people face.

I suspect you also include religious discrimination among your standard definitions. There are also people who cannot drive for religious reasons. The Amish, for instance, and strictly observant Muslim women. Their right to practice and observe is protected Constitutionally, and while there is no Constitutional right to alternative transportation it can easily be argued that they are marginalized by society's disregard for their needs. That is discrimination -- it's not necessarily the same legally-defined discrimination, but the word's definition is hardly restricted to its legal usages.

And yes, there are also many people who prefer not to drive. Some support public transportation for its economic benefits, others for its environmental benefits, and still others for how comprehensive public transportation reduces discrimination against the above classes of people. You may feel that it is inappropriate to consider these people "discriminated" against, and here I agree it is not a word usage I would have chosen myself, as I feel the word is most strongly associated with the long, difficult struggles faced by many groups in recent American history -- it's a very "loaded" word. But I don't agree that it is an inappropriate word, as far as its "dictionary definition". It has an extremely broad dictionary definition (here I cite Merriam-Webster). I think GML was well within this definition in what he said.

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tionPronunciation: \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\

Function: noun

Date: 1648

1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

 

[AAARGH!]

"Discrimination" is a term with a lot of meanings, not limited to racial discrimination, sex discrimination, class discrimination, and the other major categories you're referring to, one of which I suspect is discrimination against the disabled. There are many people who cannot drive, whether because of a mobility impairment, a vision impairment, or a neurological impairment (such as epilepsy). And the way our society's infrastructure has developed, and the way it has dismissed many alternative forms of transportation, marginalizes and harms those people. That's discrimination. That's what the ADA was enacted to combat, though the ADA only addresses some of the problems with transportation that such people face.
I suspect you also include religious discrimination among your standard definitions. There are also people who cannot drive for religious reasons. The Amish, for instance, and strictly observant Muslim women. Their right to practice and observe is protected Constitutionally, and while there is no Constitutional right to alternative transportation it can easily be argued that they are marginalized by society's disregard for their needs. That is discrimination -- it's not necessarily the same legally-defined discrimination, but the word's definition is hardly restricted to its legal usages.

And yes, there are also many people who prefer not to drive. Some support public transportation for its economic benefits, others for its environmental benefits, and still others for how comprehensive public transportation reduces discrimination against the above classes of people. You may feel that it is inappropriate to consider these people "discriminated" against, and here I agree it is not a word usage I would have chosen myself, as I feel the word is most strongly associated with the long, difficult struggles faced by many groups in recent American history -- it's a very "loaded" word. But I don't agree that it is an inappropriate word, as far as its "dictionary definition". It has an extremely broad dictionary definition (here I cite Merriam-Webster). I think GML was well within this definition in what he said.

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tionPronunciation: \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\

Function: noun

Date: 1648

1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

+1!

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

First, I totally disagree with your first statement. Far too many people have no clue what it really costs them. I can't tell you how many people I've seen post in various newspaper forums that it costs them $20 bucks to do a trip in their car, because they're only thinking about the gas in the tank. Additionally, most American's actually believe that they fully pay for the roads and highways via the fuel taxes levied and license/registration fees. They couldn't be more wrong, but they do indeed believe it.

I've often said that fuel one of the is one of the least significant expenses associated with vehicle ownership, compared to depreciation/acquisition costs, insurance premiums and maintenance/repair expenses.

However, people owns cars because they offer convenience, and frequently pay for themselves by opening up job markets and reducing the cost of living. If you own a car, you can pay less for groceries and clothing, while spending less time acquiring those necessities. If you own a car, you can often take a higher paying job, while having more leisure time. Obviously, there are urban centers where the benefits are offset by other costs. If you have to pay thousand per month to park your car in a garage in Manhattan, the equation might shift, depending on the means of the individual.

Second, while there are areas of this country where it simply is not possible at present to live without a car, it is indeed possible to do so. I've done it. Granted, I did it in the easiest US city to do it, but it is possible. I went for almost 2 years without a car, before I finally had enough money to get one after my old died. And that was before Zipcar came along.

It all depends on where you are living and what your personal means are. I know people who own cars and live in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the one place in the world where automotive ownership is the most expensive and inconvenient. For these people, the value of a car is in being able to access recreational properties in rural areas.

Now I'm not suggesting that we should force people out of their cars either. I won't go that far, but it does gall me when I see people complain about spending say $500 Million to restore the 3C's service in Ohio, while living in ignorant bliss about the fact that they had their highway ride subsidized too. And they bemoan leaving that $500 M debt for future generations, while somehow not noticing that this year alone so far, we've added $35.53 Billion just at the Federal level to debt for our highways.
I'm reminded of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike trying to hold back the flood.

I don't support wasteful passenger rail projects, like 3C, but I also don't support wasteful highway projects, although in past decades there have been precious few expansions of the interstate highway system, with most funds going to upkeep of existing infrastructure.

Looking at the inextricable economic collapse in the rustbelt state of Ohio, I'm perplexed by projects such as 3C and the proposed Cincinnati light rail project that has even drawn criticism from civil rights leaders. These projects obviously aren't popular, aren't affordable and aren't likely to succeed in drawing sustainable patronage.

Yet another common misconception by many is the fact that buses can do anything that light rail can do for less money. They come to that conclusion because all they ever see in the news is how much it's costing to build the latest LRT line. But they never stop to do the math to see that it takes 2 to 3 buses to move the same number of people as an LRT car. They never stop to figure out that the average rail car lasts 30 to 40 years, while the average bus lasts 10 to 12 years, meaning that you need to buy three sets of buses to achieve the same results.
And they never stop to learn that rail is always cheaper to operate. One analysis that I did using numbers from Portland Oregon showed that basically after about 5 years of operations at their current levels, the city started saving $134 Million each year running LRT instead of using buses to perform the same task. The first 5 years, were spent negating the difference in captial costs between the buses and the LRT.

First of all, Portland is not a typical example and light rail expansion there is more a function of politics than economic or practical considerations. There are a number of people in that city that subscribe to a revisionist theory of light rail, claiming that the interurbans and trolley of yesteryear offered some sort of pre-automotive utopia, when the opposite was true. The people who actually lived through the electric traction bubble generally had very negative views of street cars and preferred personal use automobiles. As a federal taxpayer, I don't support the sort of false, revisionist and misleading agendas that squander my taxpayer money on vanity rail projects in places like Portland.

I do believe there is a time and a place for LRT systems, but I don't entirely trust the distorted example of Portland. When the local economy of Portland reaches a breaking point due to the high costs of living and doing business in that city, we'll just see how the taxpayers shoulder the burden of an overbuilt public transit infrastructure.

 

[Neil_M]

Even the Swiss yearly transport pass, which covers just about every form of rail, boat and bus transport in the country and all the public transit systems in the larger cities for less than $300 a month offers a 30% reduction on car hire.....

That's an interesting idea Neil, the discount on car hires. Question though, do you mean renting a car? Or do you mean taxis, which some people refer to as hiring a car?

Yeah, car rental. Even the Swiss don't give reductions for taxis!

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

Exactly. And the discrimination that has arisen against those who do not or can not own a car must be stopped.

What "discrimination?"

Is it "discrimination" not to allow jogging on an interstate highway?

You bandy around words indiscriminately without applying standard definitions. There are many people in our society who have been victims of "discrimination," and your flippant use of the word is highly offensive. I would advise you use a dictionary.

"Discrimination" is a term with a lot of meanings, not limited to racial discrimination, sex discrimination, class discrimination, and the other major categories you're referring to, one of which I suspect is discrimination against the disabled. There are many people who cannot drive, whether because of a mobility impairment, a vision impairment, or a neurological impairment (such as epilepsy). And the way our society's infrastructure has developed, and the way it has dismissed many alternative forms of transportation, marginalizes and harms those people. That's discrimination. That's what the ADA was enacted to combat, though the ADA only addresses some of the problems with transportation that such people face.

I suspect you also include religious discrimination among your standard definitions. There are also people who cannot drive for religious reasons. The Amish, for instance, and strictly observant Muslim women. Their right to practice and observe is protected Constitutionally, and while there is no Constitutional right to alternative transportation it can easily be argued that they are marginalized by society's disregard for their needs. That is discrimination -- it's not necessarily the same legally-defined discrimination, but the word's definition is hardly restricted to its legal usages.

And yes, there are also many people who prefer not to drive. Some support public transportation for its economic benefits, others for its environmental benefits, and still others for how comprehensive public transportation reduces discrimination against the above classes of people. You may feel that it is inappropriate to consider these people "discriminated" against, and here I agree it is not a word usage I would have chosen myself, as I feel the word is most strongly associated with the long, difficult struggles faced by many groups in recent American history -- it's a very "loaded" word. But I don't agree that it is an inappropriate word, as far as its "dictionary definition". It has an extremely broad dictionary definition (here I cite Merriam-Webster). I think GML was well within this definition in what he said.

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tionPronunciation: \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\

Function: noun

Date: 1648

1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

First of all, the ADA ensures accessibility in public transportation, not the availability of public transportation itself. To put it another way, no interpretation of the ADA, no matter how extreme, can possibly dictate that a municipality institutes a form of public transportation, or increases the level of service. However, the ADA does dictate access. If there's a bus or train, it has to be accessible.

Second of all, freedom of religion has no bearing on the issue of public transportation. The Amish have the same free use of public highways and streets that any other equestrians would have. Of course, I also don't see the Amish do ride in private automobiles, and other forms of motorized transport. I won't address any other religious issues, except to say that in the United States that women were early adopters of automotive technology, and there were actually more female than male licensed drivers in some locales at the beginning of the automotive area. Commuter rail stations typically had only limited parking until recent decades because it was customary for suburban housewives to drop their husbands of at the station in the morning and pick them up in the evening. I hope I've just killed a couple of false gender related stereotypes.

Last, it's a matter of personal choice as to whether an individual operates an automobile. Obviously we all live within physical and practical constraints. Having an anti-automobile personal agenda doesn't entitle an individual to special consideration. If anything, such extremist views undermine the argument for passenger rail and public transportation in general.

 

[wayman]

First of all, the ADA ensures accessibility in public transportation, not the availability of public transportation itself. To put it another way, no interpretation of the ADA, no matter how extreme, can possibly dictate that a municipality institutes a form of public transportation, or increases the level of service. However, the ADA does dictate access. If there's a bus or train, it has to be accessible.

I never claimed the ADA itself required public transportation. I'm claiming that the lack of transportation options is discrimination against those who cannot drive.

I won't address any other religious issues, except to say that in the United States that women were early adopters of automotive technology,

This is a religious issue? Or a gender stereotype?

Last, it's a matter of personal choice as to whether an individual operates an automobile.

Please explain to me how it's a personal choice as to whether my friend P, largely confined to a wheelchair; my friend B, who has cerebral palsy and has limited mobility; my friend K, who is blind; and my friend E, who has epilepsy, operate an automobile or not. P used to drive, until her muscular disorder became severe enough that it was too difficult and painful to operate an automobile; fortunately, she now lives in New York City. B has never bothered to try to get a license, because she knows her reflexes are such that it would be tremendously unsafe even if she could pass a driving test; she relies on public bus systems and walking. K used to drive, until her vision deteriorated to near-blindness; there's no way she will ever pass the Massachusetts vision test for driving (or any other state's for that matter); fortunately, she lives near Boston and also has a spouse who can drive. And E used to drive, but was legally required to turn in his drivers license to the state of Maryland after a doctor's diagnosis of epilepsy following a grand mal seizure (and later found that California would not let him drive either); he too relies on public transportation and friends. Each of these friends would love to know how they can choose to operate an automobile! It would radically change their lives. Can you help them?

 

[DET63]

Well, this thread is going off in several different directions, so I won't pursue my arguments about Portland any further, except to say that, for people who live or work in downtown, and can use buses or one of the rail systems to get there, it's probably an excellent system. I've read posts by bloggers and commentators who claim the system is in fact a mess, but not having lived there since the early '90s, I can't testify as to whether their opinions are based in fact or are simply inflammatory political propaganda.

I'm just saying that for people who want to get out of Portland regularly, a car is necessary. (They could, of course, stay in town—especially if they want, rather than need, to get away—in which case they may not need a car.) If they're getting a car anyway, then whether to use it instead of public transportation for trips within the city may be more a matter of comfort and convenience than one of cost.

 

[Neil_M]

This Portland discussion is nice, but what does it really have to do with electrification?

Nothing possibly. Thread drift happens round these parts, other boards with a more restricted outlook are available.