Comments on: How does the new transportation bill draft measure up? http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/ Wed, 23 May 2012 03:00:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rep. Oberstar planning markup on full transportation bill after recess | Unrolled Views http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/#comment-2786 Rep. Oberstar planning markup on full transportation bill after recess | Unrolled Views Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:34:20 +0000 http://t4america.org/?p=2373#comment-2786 [...] the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is planning a full committee mark-up of the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 as soon as Congress comes back from the August recess. Appearing at an economic recovery [...] [...] the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is planning a full committee mark-up of the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 as soon as Congress comes back from the August recess. Appearing at an economic recovery [...]

]]> By: Gene Putman http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/#comment-2503 Gene Putman Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:03:50 +0000 http://t4america.org/?p=2373#comment-2503 Funding transportation with Gas Tax is not equitible, nor effective. This needs to be a better user based cost. I.e. Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee! We all need to pay for the use of the transportation system on a miles driven manner. We will not have a world class transportation system unless we all pay for it equitabliy. From the food we eat, the cloths that we wear, to the material for our homes. We must pay the piper! This country is not making good transportation nor transportation funding discusions. We have allowed our transportation system to become old, un-maintained, and in constant congestion. We are paying for it. Like the old saying "Pay me now or Pay me later" fits our current problems. We for 18 years have said I will pay later, it is now LATER and it is time to pay up. Funding transportation with Gas Tax is not equitible, nor effective. This needs to be a better user based cost. I.e. Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee! We all need to pay for the use of the transportation system on a miles driven manner. We will not have a world class transportation system unless we all pay for it equitabliy. From the food we eat, the cloths that we wear, to the material for our homes. We must pay the piper! This country is not making good transportation nor transportation funding discusions. We have allowed our transportation system to become old, un-maintained, and in constant congestion. We are paying for it. Like the old saying “Pay me now or Pay me later” fits our current problems. We for 18 years have said I will pay later, it is now LATER and it is time to pay up.

]]> By: Obama, Oberstar Differ on Course of Action for Transportation Bill | NextStop STL http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/#comment-2479 Obama, Oberstar Differ on Course of Action for Transportation Bill | NextStop STL Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:26:25 +0000 http://t4america.org/?p=2373#comment-2479 [...] House Transportation Committee and ranking committee member Rep. John Mica (R-FL),  released a new $500 billion transportation authorization bill that promises to bring sweeping changes to federal transportation programs to face the [...] [...] House Transportation Committee and ranking committee member Rep. John Mica (R-FL),  released a new $500 billion transportation authorization bill that promises to bring sweeping changes to federal transportation programs to face the [...]

]]> By: Surface Transportation Authorization Act 2009 « Crossroads http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/#comment-2460 Surface Transportation Authorization Act 2009 « Crossroads Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:41:58 +0000 http://t4america.org/?p=2373#comment-2460 [...] For America, a coalition partner of RenewLV, has provided their analysis of the national bill, specifying the positive features, as well as pointing to some areas that [...] [...] For America, a coalition partner of RenewLV, has provided their analysis of the national bill, specifying the positive features, as well as pointing to some areas that [...]

]]> By: Harvey I Kahler http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/#comment-2456 Harvey I Kahler Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:58:01 +0000 http://t4america.org/?p=2373#comment-2456 Affordability of public transit is a reasonable goal; but what is the cost? The cost for a long trip can be substantial in a large metropolitan area. Whether unique to Chicago, the CTA is seen as affordable even though Metra is very competitive with CTA on a cost per seat-mile basis. However, the artificial flat and zone fare systems give questionable justification to competing CTA rail extensions (and CTA and Pace buses) of parallel "affordable" services. The question of the true cost of affordability is not addressed, nor is the impact of duplicate services on the ability to reach a substantial population without any service. In one instance, a costly new light rail system is proposed to replace an existing suburban line, largely because it will be "affordable" and erroneously assuming the frequency of the existing service cannot be improved. Affordability of public transit is a reasonable goal; but what is the cost? The cost for a long trip can be substantial in a large metropolitan area.
Whether unique to Chicago, the CTA is seen as affordable even though Metra is very competitive with CTA on a cost per seat-mile basis. However, the artificial flat and zone fare systems give questionable justification to competing CTA rail extensions (and CTA and Pace buses) of parallel “affordable” services. The question of the true cost of affordability is not addressed, nor is the impact of duplicate services on the ability to reach a substantial population without any service.
In one instance, a costly new light rail system is proposed to replace an existing suburban line, largely because it will be “affordable” and erroneously assuming the frequency of the existing service cannot be improved.

]]> By: Steve Davis http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/#comment-2452 Steve Davis Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:12:45 +0000 http://t4america.org/?p=2373#comment-2452 James, yes it should be. Thanks for catching that. We'll fix it now. James, yes it should be. Thanks for catching that. We’ll fix it now.

]]> By: James Newberry http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/#comment-2451 James Newberry Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:33:38 +0000 http://t4america.org/?p=2373#comment-2451 Areas in need of improvement, number 2: Is $100 million really billion? Areas in need of improvement, number 2:
Is $100 million really billion?

]]> By: Clifton Perez http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/#comment-2441 Clifton Perez Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:04:06 +0000 http://t4america.org/?p=2373#comment-2441 Once again, people with disabilities are being left out! There was a perfect opportunity to maximize accessibility, to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are finally addressed which, could have been easily rectified at the very beginning when it stated: " ... , address the mobility and access needs of people...". It could have simply read: address the mobility and access needs of people with disabilities, or address the needs of all people, including people with disabilities.This would have been a very good beginning toward maximizing transportation accessibility for persons with disabilities and, it would have also smoothed the way toward the elimination of the continued discrimination by the Private Transportation Industry such as: taxis, limousines, shuttle services, over-the-road-busess (Greyhound, Trailways, etc.). We must never forget that what may be an inconvenience for abled-bodied persons is - for the most part - an imposibility for many people with disabilities. When you live in a rural area and you need a ride somewhere because there is no Public Transportation, you could ask a neighbor, a friend or a family member but when you are a wheelchair user, unless someone has a wheelchair equipped van - you will not be going anywhere. Then there is winter and snow. Have you ever thought about how you would get to work or any other place for that matter, if you were a wheelchair user and the only path to the bus stop is covered in snow? Will we address that? There are many more obsticles in the way of people with disabilities, preventing them from benefiting and accessing Public transportation and efficiently utilizing public rights-of-way (padestrian safety). Fuel efficiency & universal design (wheelchair accessibility) should go hand-in-hand. If you can regulate fuel efficiency because that is important, then why would you not ensure that all Public Transportation be universally designed, to maximize accessibility for people with disabilities. Is that segment of the population not sufficiently important or powerful enough to warrant that level of concern or care? Must there come a time when our Government will have to apologize for the wrong they have perpetrated upon Americans with Disabilities as they have had to do for Japanese Americans and African Americans? What must happen in order for Americans with Disabilities to be treated the same way as everyone else and allowed access to all of societal goods, programs, services & activities? We have the technological ability to fully maximize societal access by and for persons with disabilities, we just lack the will and the Humanity to end discrimination against our own citizens with disabilities! Once again, people with disabilities are being left out! There was a perfect opportunity to maximize accessibility, to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are finally addressed which, could have been easily rectified at the very beginning when it stated: ” … , address the mobility and access needs of people…”. It could have simply read: address the mobility and access needs of people with disabilities, or address the needs of all people, including people with disabilities.This would have been a very good beginning toward maximizing transportation accessibility for persons with disabilities and, it would have also smoothed the way toward the elimination of the continued discrimination by the Private Transportation Industry such as: taxis, limousines, shuttle services, over-the-road-busess (Greyhound, Trailways, etc.). We must never forget that what may be an inconvenience for abled-bodied persons is – for the most part – an imposibility for many people with disabilities. When you live in a rural area and you need a ride somewhere because there is no Public Transportation, you could ask a neighbor, a friend or a family member but when you are a wheelchair user, unless someone has a wheelchair equipped van – you will not be going anywhere. Then there is winter and snow. Have you ever thought about how you would get to work or any other place for that matter, if you were a wheelchair user and the only path to the bus stop is covered in snow? Will we address that? There are many more obsticles in the way of people with disabilities, preventing them from benefiting and accessing Public transportation and efficiently utilizing public rights-of-way (padestrian safety). Fuel efficiency & universal design (wheelchair accessibility) should go hand-in-hand. If you can regulate fuel efficiency because that is important, then why would you not ensure that all Public Transportation be universally designed, to maximize accessibility for people with disabilities. Is that segment of the population not sufficiently important or powerful enough to warrant that level of concern or care? Must there come a time when our Government will have to apologize for the wrong they have perpetrated upon Americans with Disabilities as they have had to do for Japanese Americans and African Americans? What must happen in order for Americans with Disabilities to be treated the same way as everyone else and allowed access to all of societal goods, programs, services & activities? We have the technological ability to fully maximize societal access by and for persons with disabilities, we just lack the will and the Humanity to end discrimination against our own citizens with disabilities!

]]> By: Steve Davis http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/#comment-2440 Steve Davis Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:08:49 +0000 http://t4america.org/?p=2373#comment-2440 Cornelius, it's actually worse than that. The number of transit agencies is closer to 100. Check out <a href="http://t4america.org/transitcuts" rel="nofollow">http://t4america.org/transitcuts</a> Cornelius, it’s actually worse than that. The number of transit agencies is closer to 100. Check out http://t4america.org/transitcuts

]]> By: CORNELIUS HENRY http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/24/how-does-the-new-transportation-bill-draft-measure-up/#comment-2439 CORNELIUS HENRY Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:05:59 +0000 http://t4america.org/?p=2373#comment-2439 The bill refuses to recognize the need to provide additional funding for operating assistance. This would allow for service improvement and expansion programs to meet the demand for transit , in spite of the ridership increses due to gasoline prices,and unemployment over 30 transit agencies are considering cuts in service. Furthermore, operating assistance would have an immedite impact on unemployment since most of the money would be used to higher people. The bill does not address uraban sprawl or energy consevation in the planning and development of transportation project. One way to impact irrational land-use decisions is to require and impact of the cost of extending, building or improving capacity to serve a particuilar land-use activity.Also, planning agencies should be required to have a energy consevation component as part of the longe range transportation /land-use planning process The bill refuses to recognize the need to provide additional funding for operating assistance. This would allow for service improvement and expansion programs to meet the demand for transit , in spite of the ridership increses due to gasoline prices,and unemployment over 30 transit agencies are considering cuts in service. Furthermore, operating assistance would have an immedite impact on unemployment since most of the money would be used to higher people.

The bill does not address uraban sprawl or energy consevation in the planning and development of transportation project. One way to impact irrational land-use decisions is to require and impact of the cost of extending, building or improving capacity to serve a particuilar land-use activity.Also, planning agencies should be required to have a energy consevation component as part of the longe range transportation /land-use planning process

]]>