apple juice

Excellent article from the Boston Globe that was reprinted at Common Dreams. Derailing Amtrak

Does this seem right to you?

Bush’s budget proposal includes $35 billion for highways, $14 billion for airports, and no operating subsidies for Amtrak.

Or this?

Other countries long ago boarded the express. Even Bush’s fellow Republicans can see that. In 2002 John Robert Smith said, “We literally spend more collecting road kill off the nation’s highways than we spend on the entire passenger rail system.”

We need a strong passenger rail system in America. It is as simple as that. And people want it:

This is despite the amazing fact that no matter how much Bush wants to kill Amtrak on the false premise that it must be self-sufficient (when airlines and automobile gasoline of course are not), people vote with their feet that they want rail. A record 25 million passengers took Amtrak trains last year. This was not just an East Coast commuter phenomenon. Ridership was up 14 percent in Iowa last year. Amtrak ridership is up 13 percent in car-crazy California.

Read the article. Call your representatives. etc. etc.

Dear Amtrak Co-workers:

Earlier today, President Bush sent to Congress his
proposed budget for FY ’06. It provides no funding for
Amtrak. In contrast, this year we are spending $1.4
billion, of which $1.2 billion is from a federal
appropriation to support our operations and capital
programs across the country.

The President’s proposal does provide $360 million to
the Surface Transportation Board for continued commuter
and freight operations on the NEC only after forcing
an Amtrak bankruptcy. It also isn’t accompanied by any
kind of plan for how Amtrak could continue operations.
In a word, they have no plan for Amtrak other than bankruptcy.

Obviously, the proposal is irresponsible and a surprising
disappointment. It doesn’t acknowledge all the hard work
you’ve done over the past two years to run a tighter and
better ship. Our costs are more under control than ever
before Рthat’s quite an accomplishment.

It is critical that reforms and improvements must continue,
however. Amtrak’s management is engaged with its board,
the Department of Transportation and others for this purpose.
That work continues. We are committed to an efficient and
productive rail passenger system. The plan to force us into
bankruptcy would be counterproductive to this goal.

The President’s proposal is only the start of a long
legislative process, and we are taking it very seriously.
This process has a lot of twists and turns, and it always t
akes six to nine months to sort out. It won’t have any
impact through the ’05 fiscal year, but there’s going to
be very little cash left at the end of this year. Rest
assured that after all we have been through, I am committed
to doing everything I can to secure adequate funding for ‘06.
We have strong support in Congress and a lot of support
across the country.

The best thing that all employees can do is to do their
jobs professionally, delivering the highest quality
passenger service we know how. If we really care about
our passengers, others will care about us. As I travel
in the Midwest this week, you can bet that I’m going
to be looking at service standards. Stay safe out there,
and keep your heads up.

Sincerely,

/s/ David L. Gunn

More info here from the National Association of Rail Passengers

The market share in Europe of diesel-powered passenger vehicles reached a new high this year. More than 50% of new passenger vehicles registered in were diesels. This compares with (i’m guessing here) about 2% of American vehicles being diesels.

This change will come to America as well, but the holdup is manufacturers waiting for the 2006 changes in fuel regulations and emissions. Once these changes are in place, the use of particulate filters and advanced pollution controls will become possible, as it has in Europe over the past year.

As the article mentions, a diesel engine uses one third less fuel than a comparably sized gas engine. That kind of overall increase in efficiency could substantially reduce our oil consumption as a country.

Hit the jump for some bragging about how much money you could save by driving a diesel.
Read more »

Riddle me this, Batman. In this supposed “Hydrogen Economy” Bush keeps talking about, where do we get all the Hydrogen?

By electrolyzing water using electricity from “clean coal” technologies.

Right..

I’m telling you, The Answer is Biodiesel

Diesel-electric hybrids… you think that Prius is sweet? A Diesel-Electric Dodge Intrepid that Chrysler is working on gets 76 mpg on average. Not a small car by any means. Just wait for 2006….

Well, lo and behold, someone egged my car last night. Perhaps I dredged up some bad karma by calling Bush supporters fools in my previous post. On the other hand, I doubt the teenage pricks that egged my car read my blog. I don’t think I’m doing a good job reaching that demographic here.

So I spent most of lunch washing the side of the car, and I thought I had it looking all nice and clean. On the way back to work, I had the windows down, feeling the breeze. In the parking lot, windows up… ewwwww! More egg on the window! It must’ve seeped down inside the window a bit.

Bastards!

So maybe I’ll see if I can put my iSight camera to good work, I think there is some motion-sensitive recording software! I could catch the little buggers on video!

Ah, well, I probably won’t get around to that. Twins game tonight!

Of course, the GAO report I’ve cited before has been roundly criticized by the light-rail advocacy groups.

Here is a link to their article, GAO’s “BRT” Report: Errors, Anomalies, Misinformation

And a link to an entire page of info about BRT, BRT Analysis

One thing will be continually clear as I try to sort this out, a transit solution is needed for 35W. I want to see the best long term option utilized.

I attended the public meeting and presentation yesterday regarding a proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) solution for 35W. I applaud the elected officials who have been working to include a transit solution for 35W. My main conern, which I shared with the group last night, is that BRT is being looked at as the sole transit option. Given the overwhelming success of the Hiawatha Light Rail line, it seems silly to exclude LRT as an option.

I have been doing research into the comparison, BRT vs. LRT, and the obvious difference is the lower initial capital cost. In a very interesting article (if you’re into this sort of thing) done by the GAO, entitled Bus Rapid Transit Systems Show Promise, they conclude that on average, there was lower capital costs for BRT. However, the costs can approach each other if BRT is constructed in their “best case” scenario. Which means basically constructing BRT to be as similar to an LRT system as possible.

The reason this is the best case, is because exclusive right of ways and rail like stations and schedules provide the best rider experience. The buses are allowed to move at the fastest speeds, because of the seperated roadway.

Unfortunately, this is not the design put forth by the consulting firm as their recommended proposal.

Another point that I made last night was that BRT could be designed and implemented as an interim step to a LRT line. Designed properly, stations and right of ways can be reused, and the ridership is already in place.

I think this represents our best option. Design the BRT with exclusive right of ways and limited entrances to the dedicated lanes. DO NOT allow other HOVs into these lanes, and design the stations and basic infrastructure in a way that would allow a smooth upgrade to LRT.

Quoting the GAO report:

Bus Rapid Transit also has the advantage of establishing a mass transit corridor and building ridership without precluding future changes. The development of a busway secures a transit right-of-way for the future. Some cities have identified Bus Rapid Transit as a means of building transit ridership in a travel corridor to the point where investment in a rail alternative becomes a cost-effective choice. For example, one of the projects in FTA’s demonstration program, the Dulles Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project in Virginia, hopes to build transit ridership in this fashion.

I would argue that we already know that this corridor, which was described last night as “the most heavily traveled corridor in the state” already has the ridership to support the scalability of LRT service, but I understand completely that the funds for the capital investment that LRT would require here are not available.

So my hope is that 35W/62 reconfiguration will not, in the future, require another major redesign to support LRT. Even if we never got to LRT for this corridor, the BRT experience would be far better with a design that was as “rail-like” as possible.

So:

1. Raise the gas tax. It’s at 20 cents right now, 10 more cents would raise approximately $320 million a year. (We should also tie gas tax revenues to transit solutions in some creative way.)
2. Think about the 30 year future.

One more note, I brought up Denver’s T-REX project. They are doing a complete reconstruction of I-25, 19 new miles of LRT, something like 40 bridges, etc.

From start of construction to expected completion, 5 years. They received $525 Million from the federal government for the light rail construction. Total Cost, 1.67 Billion.

Staggering yes, but check out the site to get a feel for the scope of the project, and the forward-thinking leadership it took to do something like that.

We could do that in Minnesota too.