METRO Meeting June 18 Regarding Halting Of Transit Expansion

[mfastx]

One, I advise you to educate yourself in the English language. You type like a poor immigrant laborer. That, combined with your pathetic and childish arguments, make your posts a chore to read. Two, you have the mind of a petulant eight year old child with mild mental retardation. All you want is your toy train and you throw fits and tantrums if others don't see things your way. I hope you wear a helmet so you won't hurt yourself during these fits. Three, once again, and I'm not surprised given your low comprehension level, you have failed to provide concrete numbers, facts, sources or any form of logic to back up your arguments. The only thing you show any competence in, and I use the term loosely, is throwing about poorly strung together ad hominem attacks.

Now, look here you little I'm not anti-rail at all. I do want a robust and extensive rail system. But not at the expense of crippling the bus system, which is what has happened, and is happening now. If you are truly pro transit, which you aren't, you'd be advocating for any improvement of transit in the Houston area. But you only advocate for rail expansion. Anything else is worthless in your opinion. The fact of the matter is, your opinion is worthless and not rooted in any facts or research (learn to spell before claiming intellectual superiority please).

.... lol wow okay.

we keep drifting from the topic of this thread - if METRO gets a .25% sales tax increase, can METRO guarantee that the increased tax revenue will be sufficient to complete the 2003 Solutions transit plan before METRO's estimated date (sometime in the 2030s) to complete it without the .25%, and are the citizens within the METRO service area prepared to accept a perpetual tax increase as a result of giving the .25% to METRO?

That's the real question isn't it. In order to give more funding to METRO, there's going have to be a tax increase somewhere to pay for roads. But a tax increase will be a though sell. I'd like to see a whole new tax created (maybe call it the general mobility tax?) and have that replace METRO's GM payments.

[editor]

Personal attacks are not permitted on HAIF. Please re-read the Terms of Service you agreed to when you signed up for an account here. Members who cannot participate in discussions in a respectful manner will have their posting privileges suspended.

[Slick Vik]

What about the signature express bus service promised for Gessner? That bus system improvement did not connect to any light rail route. I think you're just speculating in a manner that favors light rail apologism. Seems to be your MO around here.

If he's a rail apologist, you are a road apologist.

Take, for example, the city of Boston. They have about 5 or 6 rail lines. They have dozens of bus lines. Are you stupid enough to think that their bus system is their core? You are riduculous and need to educate yourself. This is absurd the stupidity of some posters on here is insane. The whole concept of a core system is a higher capacity and more efficient system. That's buses? Why am I even wasting my time. Anti-rail people like you who think buses are the only answer is the problem in this city. You are misinformed.

This is true. The rail is the key component, with buses branching off that. Not just in Boston, but in many cities around the world.

You type like a poor immigrant laborer.

Totally uncalled for

[IHB2]

That's the real question isn't it. In order to give more funding to METRO, there's going have to be a tax increase somewhere to pay for roads. But a tax increase will be a though sell. I'd like to see a whole new tax created (maybe call it the general mobility tax?) and have that replace METRO's GM payments.

A whole new tax - I assume you won't be running for office as a Republican here in Red Texas any time soon

Seriously, I think the 1st part of my question is the key - METRO says it can implement the Solutions plan without the .25% but it will take a couple of decades (2030s at best), and with the .25% maybe implemented by the early 2020s (at best).

How is METRO going to pitch competence re the Solutions Plan given the wasted decade since 2003, the stunning increase in buildout costs, and the hundreds of millions of tax dollars that METRO spent or wrote off for almost nothing tangible?

The .25% is literally the only part of the METRO tax that has provided taxpayers with any bang for the bucks.

So far METRO has offered little in the way of details about how it will accomplish what it's promising with or without the .25%, and that's not surprising given the still-unsolved design issues on the Univ and Uptown Lines, and the sketchy promise of billions in transit dollars from a completely strapped federal government somewhere in the future.

[MetroMogul]

You can't go on a tirade and attack those that disagree with you, including someone who doesn't and is trying to help you, as in RedScare's case, and not expect any retribution. The guy totally crossed the line this time and I wasn't going to stand for it. I apologize for contributing to the derailment (get it?) of discussion, but he's not innocent. Hopefully he'll know better than to call everyone who disagrees with him idiots and uneducated when he possesses those same hallmarks.

[Slick Vik]

A whole new tax - I assume you won't be running for office as a Republican here in Red Texas any time soon

Seriously, I think the 1st part of my question is the key - METRO says it can implement the Solutions plan without the .25% but it will take a couple of decades (2030s at best), and with the .25% maybe implemented by the early 2020s (at best).

How is METRO going to pitch competence re the Solutions Plan given the wasted decade since 2003, the stunning increase in buildout costs, and the hundreds of millions of tax dollars that METRO spent or wrote off for almost nothing tangible?

The .25% is literally the only part of the METRO tax that has provided taxpayers with any bang for the bucks.

So far METRO has offered little in the way of details about how it will accomplish what it's promising with or without the .25%, and that's not surprising given the still-unsolved design issues on the Univ and Uptown Lines, and the sketchy promise of billions in transit dollars from a completely strapped federal government somewhere in the future.

Fair points about the slow as a snail pace, but don't roads have enough money with TXDOT, Harris County, City of Houston, and HCTRA funds? Of which, zero are used on transit? What do roads need additional money for when those other flexible funds are not giving a penny to rail? Seems a bit unbalanced.

[mfastx]

A whole new tax - I assume you won't be running for office as a Republican here in Red Texas any time soon

Ha! I know that isn't going to be a popular idea at all here, but I believe it's the best solution.

Seriously, I think the 1st part of my question is the key - METRO says it can implement the Solutions plan without the .25% but it will take a couple of decades (2030s at best), and with the .25% maybe implemented by the early 2020s (at best).

How is METRO going to pitch competence re the Solutions Plan given the wasted decade since 2003, the stunning increase in buildout costs, and the hundreds of millions of tax dollars that METRO spent or wrote off for almost nothing tangible?

The .25% is literally the only part of the METRO tax that has provided taxpayers with any bang for the bucks.

So far METRO has offered little in the way of details about how it will accomplish what it's promising with or without the .25%, and that's not surprising given the still-unsolved design issues on the Univ and Uptown Lines, and the sketchy promise of billions in transit dollars from a completely strapped federal government somewhere in the future.

I do agree that METRO could definitely be run better. While I believe that the political climate here in Houston is contributing to the incompetetness of METRO, I'd love to see METRO a bit more focused on the goal. It seems like they're just not getting anything done. I can't really comment on it as I don't work for METRO, but if I did, I would certainly be working hard every day on securing funding for projects, designing projects, etc. It seems like they are at a standstill and not doing anything about it.

You can't go on a tirade and attack those that disagree with you, including someone who doesn't and is trying to help you, as in RedScare's case, and not expect any retribution. The guy totally crossed the line this time and I wasn't going to stand for it. I apologize for contributing to the derailment (get it?) of discussion, but he's not innocent. Hopefully he'll know better than to call everyone who disagrees with him idiots and uneducated when he possesses those same hallmarks.

MetroMogul,

I apologize for calling you an idiot. Please remember that you said the "i" word first. I'd love to have a decent discussion with you about METRO. I have stated many times that I would like to see improvements in the bus system. We simply disagree on two things:

1) I believe that developing a rail system is more important, you do not

and

2) You believe that our bus system has gotten worse becasue of the Main Street line, and I do not.

Those disagreements are not major and I still think we agree on major issues. For me, calling me an "apologist" of anything is insulting because it's not what I am.

To others (like RedScare),

I encourage everyone to read all of my posts thoroughly before assessing if I am an "apologist" of anything. This thread and many others becomes a bus vs. rail argument. While I argue that rail is superior to bus, I do understand and realize that buses have an important place in any transit system.

My apologies if I seem a little rude, as I am very passionate about the City of Houston's infrastructure, it is a great interest of mine.

Fair points about the slow as a snail pace, but don't roads have enough money with TXDOT, Harris County, City of Houston, and HCTRA funds? Of which, zero are used on transit? What do roads need additional money for when those other flexible funds are not giving a penny to rail? Seems a bit unbalanced.

Remember that most of the agencies you listed are primarily highway builders. The City of Houston has a lot of other expenses to worry about.

It's clear that surface roads (not freeways) do not recieve enuogh funding in Houston. Freeways have plenty of funding, but there are so many roads in Houston and in order to keep them in good condition there needs to be more funding. That's what I believe anyway.

[TheNiche]

If he's a rail apologist, you are a road apologist.

Remember, all that I have advocated is that the issues should be analyzed with cold analysis, accounting for all externalities, financing mechanisms, and opportunity costs. I do not advocate roads for their own sake, but they are a part of a sound regional transportation plan.

I am an apologist for anti-apologism.

[Slick Vik]

Remember, all that I have advocated is that the issues should be analyzed with cold analysis, accounting for all externalities, financing mechanisms, and opportunity costs. I do not advocate roads for their own sake, but they are a part of a sound regional transportation plan.

I am an apologist for anti-apologism.

Criticizing rail as a method of transport should be aligned with criticizing roads as well; neither are a money making venture, except for those who do the construction and those politicians who get kickbacks as a result.

[MetroMogul]

I apologize as well for flying off the handle. Now that we have that out of the way, allow me to clarify something.....

I don't think Metro bus service has declined because of the Red Line. I actually think that the implementation of the Red Line was a logical starting point for a future "rail empire." It's corridor is low hanging fruit as far as potential ridership is concerned with a number of bus routes that can be fed into it, redevelopment going on around it, and a number of activity centers already along the line. The problem is that Metro got drunk off the success of the Red Line and decided to throw the maintenance and expansion of the current bus system into the bushes (a hip hop term). You can't starve your bus system while you incompetently grope around for federal monies to build a rail system. Despite the success of our one rail line, the buses are doing the heavy lifting and you must maintain that system not only after the rail system is completed (well, part of what we were promised anyway), but before it's completed. If not, once your rail system is in place, your bus system would be in shambles and not much use to the rail system it's supposed to work in cohesion with.

While we wait for the rail system to come online, there are a number of things Metro could and should be doing to provide better transit in the interim that they are not. The refusal to provide these improvements and expansions in favor of only rail-centric policies is what I take issue with. Not the idea of rail as a whole.

[TheNiche]

Criticizing rail as a method of transport should be aligned with criticizing roads as well; neither are a money making venture, except for those who do the construction and those politicians who get kickbacks as a result.

As a public good, roads are an absolute necessity. Goods cannot get to stores and without roads; agriculture, manufacturing and distribution also require roads to ship and receive material. And for practical purposes, there are some kinds of jobsites that simply cannot be made dense and transit-friendly. Connections to rural areas definitely require roads. Don't tell me that roads don't make money. Imagine our economy if we had no roads.

(OTOH, it is possible to spend more on roads than the economic benefit that they add. From my observations in Texas, overspending on roads happens most frequently in rural areas. There are many paved ribbons of asphalt that really should just be gravel.)

Transit is by its nature more difficult to justify in economic terms. Transit is what happens when strips of pavement, by themselves, become inadequate due to demand for that pavement that exceeds its capacity...or as a mechanism for poor people to access employment. Buses happen first, but they also require roads and a viable route. More capital intensive forms of transit follow buses when the demand for a route justifies it (without a transit agency having to game the numbers, because opportunity cost is also a consideration), but not merely for the sake of its own existence. Transit can contribute to a vibrant economy on net.

The problem with transit contibuting toward the economy, as I see it, are constituents like yourself. You want what you want without intellectually honest or substantive discussion. The other BIG problem, however, is the way that transportation agencies are set up and funded. Roads and transit are not disimilar. They do not serve different purposes. However, our elected officials have compromised into existence numerous independent overlapping little fiefdoms that treat subsystems as independent systems within which careerist bureaucrats build an empire by lobbying for funds with a narrow and myopic objective. And so we the constituents get bogged down (by necessity) into a contrived argument, roads versus rails. They do the same thing, they're part of the same system.

Success should be measured in how much we've paid as a society to reduce an increment of time spent in motion. It should not be thought of as having anything to do with light rail, per se.

[mfastx]

I don't think Metro bus service has declined because of the Red Line. I actually think that the implementation of the Red Line was a logical starting point for a future "rail empire." It's corridor is low hanging fruit as far as potential ridership is concerned with a number of bus routes that can be fed into it, redevelopment going on around it, and a number of activity centers already along the line. The problem is that Metro got drunk off the success of the Red Line and decided to throw the maintenance and expansion of the current bus system into the bushes (a hip hop term). You can't starve your bus system while you incompetently grope around for federal monies to build a rail system. Despite the success of our one rail line, the buses are doing the heavy lifting and you must maintain that system not only after the rail system is completed (well, part of what we were promised anyway), but before it's completed. If not, once your rail system is in place, your bus system would be in shambles and not much use to the rail system it's supposed to work in cohesion with.

I understand what you are saying, but what do you suggest that METRO do to the bus system? They are replacing buses at a decent rate, they are building hundreds of more bus shelters, among other things. What do you think would improve the bus system? I also think they could improve the bus system in other ways, like providing displays at major stops indicating when the next bus will arrive, repairing the displays on the buses so that riders can actually read which line they are about to board, and also simply getting new buses. I do agree that METRO sucks at maintaining the dispays which show the route number, but they are building a lot of shelters and replacing buses.

So, while I agree that improvements could be made, I don't notice thet METRO is doing anything less than they've always done in terms of maintaining the bus system. They've always sucked at it IMO.

While we wait for the rail system to come online, there are a number of things Metro could and should be doing to provide better transit in the interim that they are not. The refusal to provide these improvements and expansions in favor of only rail-centric policies is what I take issue with. Not the idea of rail as a whole.

I agree, but I also think that they simply don't have the funds to improve the bus system on a large scale. Of course I am in favor of giving more funds to METRO, but the question is if METRO would use those additional funds to help out the bus system, or build more rail. I'd like a combination of both.

As for ridership, I'm going to start a thread in a few minutes that shows ridership as far back as the APTA has been taking numbers, since 1997. It'll show bus and rail ridership in addition to total system ridership. I find this very interesting.

As a public good, roads are an absolute necessity. Goods cannot get to stores and without roads; agriculture, manufacturing and distribution also require roads to ship and receive material. And for practical purposes, there are some kinds of jobsites that simply cannot be made dense and transit-friendly. Connections to rural areas definitely require roads. Don't tell me that roads don't make money. Imagine our economy if we had no roads.

Completely agree, but one could argue that freeways, much like transit, aren't necessary. Now, of course I and most others are completely in favor of building freeways and investing in freeways because they are good to have. I have the same view about public transit.

[IHB2]

Criticizing rail as a method of transport should be aligned with criticizing roads as well; neither are a money making venture, except for those who do the construction and those politicians who get kickbacks as a result.

In the Houston metro area a well-designed road grid is the most efficient method of moving one individual to that individual's destination.

Public transit, and especially fixed-guideway systems, are the least efficient for any given individual in an metro area sprawled like Houston.

Niche's point about the money-making role of roads is absolutely true. I think Obama just got raked over the coals by the Repubs over his comment about how essential society's investment in infrastructure is to individual success in business growth

[Slick Vik]

As a public good, roads are an absolute necessity. Goods cannot get to stores and without roads; agriculture, manufacturing and distribution also require roads to ship and receive material. And for practical purposes, there are some kinds of jobsites that simply cannot be made dense and transit-friendly. Connections to rural areas definitely require roads. Don't tell me that roads don't make money. Imagine our economy if we had no roads.

(OTOH, it is possible to spend more on roads than the economic benefit that they add. From my observations in Texas, overspending on roads happens most frequently in rural areas. There are many paved ribbons of asphalt that really should just be gravel.)

Transit is by its nature more difficult to justify in economic terms. Transit is what happens when strips of pavement, by themselves, become inadequate due to demand for that pavement that exceeds its capacity...or as a mechanism for poor people to access employment. Buses happen first, but they also require roads and a viable route. More capital intensive forms of transit follow buses when the demand for a route justifies it (without a transit agency having to game the numbers, because opportunity cost is also a consideration), but not merely for the sake of its own existence. Transit can contribute to a vibrant economy on net.

The problem with transit contibuting toward the economy, as I see it, are constituents like yourself. You want what you want without intellectually honest or substantive discussion. The other BIG problem, however, is the way that transportation agencies are set up and funded. Roads and transit are not disimilar. They do not serve different purposes. However, our elected officials have compromised into existence numerous independent overlapping little fiefdoms that treat subsystems as independent systems within which careerist bureaucrats build an empire by lobbying for funds with a narrow and myopic objective. And so we the constituents get bogged down (by necessity) into a contrived argument, roads versus rails. They do the same thing, they're part of the same system.

Success should be measured in how much we've paid as a society to reduce an increment of time spent in motion. It should not be thought of as having anything to do with light rail, per se.

You can throw freight rail as a form of rail if you're using roads in such a discussion. And as I said before, roads have plenty of funding from a variety of agencies.

In the Houston metro area a well-designed road grid is the most efficient method of moving one individual to that individual's destination.

Public transit, and especially fixed-guideway systems, are the least efficient for any given individual in an metro area sprawled like Houston.

Niche's point about the money-making role of roads is absolutely true. I think Obama just got raked over the coals by the Repubs over his comment about how essential society's investment in infrastructure is to individual success in business growth

Have you ever seen BART?

[TheNiche]

You can throw freight rail as a form of rail if you're using roads in such a discussion.

Absolutely, yes.

And as I said before, roads have plenty of funding from a variety of agencies.

So do freight rail, heavy passenger rail (AMTRAK), commuter rail, buses, light rail, water taxis, etc. But just saying so doesn't mean anything, which is my beef with you.

Have you ever seen BART?

Have you ever even seen a map of San Francisco? Different geographies pose different challenges. Because Houston grew in every direction unimpeded by the sea or by mountains, we don't need as much heavy transit to handle the same commuting workforce. And with less centrality to our commuting patterns, we have commuters going every which way on our roads at all times of day, putting the infrastructure to more efficient use than a highly centralized city.

[IHB2]

You can throw freight rail as a form of rail if you're using roads in such a discussion. And as I said before, roads have plenty of funding from a variety of agencies.

Have you ever seen BART?

yes, I've been lucky enough to spend a few yrs in the bay area although I'm a Houston native. BART's great but not as efficient as a single vehicle for one person, and the road grid in the bay area cannot be compared to the Houston metro area. along with the hilly terrain and having a bay smack in the middle of the grid that big ocean is a serious roadblock to westbound traffic

[mfastx]

Interesting point about efficiency. There are two ways to look at it. One way is that roads and highways are most efficient at transporting individuals. But one can look at it another way and say that roads/highways are least efficient in the sense that so much space is needed to transport a small number of people. For example, whenever I am caught in a traffic jam, I look around and notice that every car usually only has one person in it. And I think to myself that all of these people could fit on one bus, or one train. So much more road space and lanes are taken up by people commuting to work in their automobile, while other modes are more efficient in their usage of space.

So while roads and freeways work best to transport people in automoblies in terms of time and convenience, mass transit works best to transport large amounts of people using space efficiently.

[TheNiche]

Interesting point about efficiency. There are two ways to look at it. One way is that roads and highways are most efficient at transporting individuals. But one can look at it another way and say that roads/highways are least efficient in the sense that so much space is needed to transport a small number of people. For example, whenever I am caught in a traffic jam, I look around and notice that every car usually only has one person in it. And I think to myself that all of these people could fit on one bus, or one train. So much more road space and lanes are taken up by people commuting to work in their automobile, while other modes are more efficient in their usage of space.

So while roads and freeways work best to transport people in automoblies in terms of time and convenience, mass transit works best to transport large amounts of people using space efficiently.

I am more prone to think of things in terms of human time and direct capitalized expenditures, which both are extraordinarily more valuable than a strip of right-of-way in Texas.

[kylejack]

If IHB is correct and cars are the most efficient for any individual, it seems to me that we should just eliminate our mass transit and issue every citizen a car, and pay the maintenance, insurance, and registration costs for them. The greater efficiency will allow us to save some money.

[Slick Vik]

I am more prone to think of things in terms of human time and direct capitalized expenditures, which both are extraordinarily more valuable than a strip of right-of-way in Texas.

What about envirOnmental impact?

[Slick Vik]

If IHB is correct and cars are the most efficient for any individual, it seems to me that we should just eliminate our mass transit and issue every citizen a car, and pay the maintenance, insurance, and registration costs for them. The greater efficiency will allow us to save some money.

Hahaha

Absolutely, yes.

So do freight rail, heavy passenger rail (AMTRAK), commuter rail, buses, light rail, water taxis, etc. But just saying so doesn't mean anything, which is my beef with you.

Have you ever even seen a map of San Francisco? Different geographies pose different challenges. Because Houston grew in every direction unimpeded by the sea or by mountains, we don't need as much heavy transit to handle the same commuting workforce. And with less centrality to our commuting patterns, we have commuters going every which way on our roads at all times of day, putting the infrastructure to more efficient use than a highly centralized city.

You are a modern day Robert Moses

[TheNiche]

If IHB is correct and cars are the most efficient for any individual, it seems to me that we should just eliminate our mass transit and issue every citizen a car, and pay the maintenance, insurance, and registration costs for them. The greater efficiency will allow us to save some money.

That has actually been proposed in some quarters because it would be less expensive than operating a transit system and would enable poor people to have better and more reliable transportation, which is related to finding employment and earning decent wages.

[TheNiche]

What about envirOnmental impact?

Build stormwater detention ponds. Trench through the expensive neighborhoods, erect sound barriers in the middle class neighborhoods, and never mind about the ghetto. It's not really a big deal.

The fact is, people are going to live where they are predisposed to and then drive whether its convenient or not. (Growth in the northwest suburbs in spite of 290 is proof of that.) If they're outputting fewer emissions per mile at cruising speed, then speeding them up makes the adjoining neighborhoods have cleaner air. But then...passenger cars are barely an issue in the first place. Trucks and industrial facilities are the big contributors to harmful pollutants. And those things are pretty much going to be wherever makes sense for their business, regardless of congestion. (Again, 290 is proof.)

[Slick Vik]

Build stormwater detention ponds. Trench through the expensive neighborhoods, erect sound barriers in the middle class neighborhoods, and never mind about the ghetto. It's not really a big deal.

The fact is, people are going to live where they are predisposed to and then drive whether its convenient or not. (Growth in the northwest suburbs in spite of 290 is proof of that.) If they're outputting fewer emissions per mile at cruising speed, then speeding them up makes the adjoining neighborhoods have cleaner air. But then...passenger cars are barely an issue in the first place. Trucks and industrial facilities are the big contributors to harmful pollutants. And those things are pretty much going to be wherever makes sense for their business, regardless of congestion. (Again, 290 is proof.)

Saying passenger cars have little impact is simply not true. Also if people are going to live out farther don't you think commuter rail should be built?

[Slick Vik]

That has actually been proposed in some quarters because it would be less expensive than operating a transit system and would enable poor people to have better and more reliable transportation, which is related to finding employment and earning decent wages.

More cars! More roads! Are you a scholar of Robert Moses?

[IHB2]

That has actually been proposed in some quarters because it would be less expensive than operating a transit system and would enable poor people to have better and more reliable transportation, which is related to finding employment and earning decent wages.

Beat me to the punch. I think the original Solutions opposition published #s basically making that point.

The problem for people like kylejack is they don't want to think of alternatives to fixed guideway, high-capacity transportation -

How about every bus & truck over 1 ton on any road in the U.S. must be natural gas powered? How about big govt tax incentives for using "city cars" w/4 person capacity MiniCooper size or less, electric or nat gas power w/a low top speed thereby increasing roadway/parking capacity w/tax incentives rising per provable passenger (HOT Lanes are a damn joke in the METRO rapid/mass/public transit system b/c they reward inefficient behavior) - with corresponding tax increases on standard size/gasoline power cars & trucks using any fwy/tollway from the Beltway in? How about lowering speed limits from Beltway 8 to the CBD to 40 or 45 mph so the EPA would let us raise speed limits in the 8 county area above 65 for a net reduction in pollutants? How about subsidizing GM or Ford to develop some bigass mass transit vehicles that can use existing roadways, use HOV Lanes but be able to couple & decouple to take passengers in different directions along the route?...

[mfastx]

The problem with the "cars only" approach is that unfortunately (or fortunately depending on what kind of person you are) Houston is getting denser and will continue to densify inside the inner loop. On top of that, streets and roadways will not be able to handle all of the traffic in the next 50, 75, 100 years. Now hopefully by then flying cars will be invented and using airways above the city to get around, which would make roads and rails obsolete. But until then, alternatives have to be considered.

I feel like many are thinking with the assumption that Houston will remain relatively low density forever and will keep growing just outwards, not upwards.

[Slick Vik]

Freeways are incredibly costly, and not just the $300 million per mile price tag for the pouring of concrete itself. Some of the most irreparable costs are not financial, but comprise the loss of mature neighborhoods, historic fabric, and the dislocation of thousands of people (typically those of color and minimal income– i.e. those who offer the least possibility of political resistance). Highways have also irreversibly altered the development patterns of our cities and towns, enabling the centrifugal sprawl of suburbs and edge cities. Such sprawl development has proven to be economically and environmentally unsustainable. These ex-urban areas face continuous revenue shortfalls from the costs of new infrastructure, services, and schools that such development requires. The loss of undeveloped and agricultural land, and the associated air, water, and soil pollution are significant environmental costs.

Despite the massive highway-building program, traffic has become an insurmountable problem. The idea that more freeways and more roadway lanes decrease traffic has been proven a syllogism. (As one progressive transportation engineer puts it: “Fighting traffic by adding more lanes is like fighting obesity by loosening your belt.”).

[Pleak]

How about every bus & truck over 1 ton on any road in the U.S. must be natural gas powered? How about big govt tax incentives for using "city cars" w/4 person capacity MiniCooper size or less, electric or nat gas power w/a low top speed thereby increasing roadway/parking capacity w/tax incentives rising per provable passenger (HOT Lanes are a damn joke in the METRO rapid/mass/public transit system b/c they reward inefficient behavior) - with corresponding tax increases on standard size/gasoline power cars & trucks using any fwy/tollway from the Beltway in? How about lowering speed limits from Beltway 8 to the CBD to 40 or 45 mph so the EPA would let us raise speed limits in the 8 county area above 65 for a net reduction in pollutants? How about subsidizing GM or Ford to develop some bigass mass transit vehicles that can use existing roadways, use HOV Lanes but be able to couple & decouple to take passengers in different directions along the route?...

You (and the US Gov't) are going about this all wrong. The end result is wanting to change peoples behaviour.

So for the last 30-40 years, they have been trying to ineffectually raise the mileage requirements for passenger cars to save gas and reduce emissions, blah blah blah. But meanwhile leaving loopholes that you can drive a SUV through. And this wasn't a Republican or a Democrat problem - it was both. Meanwhile, Europe got it right. Tax the crap out of fuel. If it cost $6-8 a gallon every time to fill up your tank, you would make darn sure that when you bought a vehicle, it was sized just right so that there was a butt in every seat. In a short time, we would be awash in small and micro vehicles just like the rest of the world as people vote with their pocketbook. It would also help with the deficit in highway funding for a while - then as we switched to a more-efficient fleet, funding would decrease and would have to be made up for some other way.

This is the common sense way to change people's behavior. Instead, we have a mucked up CAFE system full of rules, loopholes, etc which hasn't changed squat in the last 30 years. I don't like paying taxes any more than anybody else - but this would put the ball in my court - If I want to drive a honking big truck - fine - just pay the gas taxes to do so. If I want to save the taxes - fine - just by a Vespa. It's my choice. I like that.

[samagon]

You (and the US Gov't) are going about this all wrong. The end result is wanting to change peoples behaviour.

So for the last 30-40 years, they have been trying to ineffectually raise the mileage requirements for passenger cars to save gas and reduce emissions, blah blah blah. But meanwhile leaving loopholes that you can drive a SUV through. And this wasn't a Republican or a Democrat problem - it was both. Meanwhile, Europe got it right. Tax the crap out of fuel. If it cost $6-8 a gallon every time to fill up your tank, you would make darn sure that when you bought a vehicle, it was sized just right so that there was a butt in every seat. In a short time, we would be awash in small and micro vehicles just like the rest of the world as people vote with their pocketbook. It would also help with the deficit in highway funding for a while - then as we switched to a more-efficient fleet, funding would decrease and would have to be made up for some other way.

This is the common sense way to change people's behavior. Instead, we have a mucked up CAFE system full of rules, loopholes, etc which hasn't changed squat in the last 30 years. I don't like paying taxes any more than anybody else - but this would put the ball in my court - If I want to drive a honking big truck - fine - just pay the gas taxes to do so. If I want to save the taxes - fine - just by a Vespa. It's my choice. I like that.

I agree wholeheartedly. Problem is, even if there were one person willing to commit political suicide and even put a bill before Congress to raise fuel taxes, you'd not find a majority of members of congress willing to do the same with him, even if the ship is sinking to the bottom of the ocean.