"Let's start with Barack Obama. Sen. Obama has been quietly hailed as the candidate with the most forward positions on mass transportation. Of course, this really shouldn't come as any surprise, as the Illinois lawmaker has been interested in the topic for years - he petitioned for more efficient transit through low-income areas of Chicago in 2003, and mentioned in May of this year that he's had interest in copying the efficiency of the Northeast Corridor system in the Midwest: "One of the things I have been talking bout for awhile is high speed rail connecting all of these Midwest cities -- Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis." Speaking of Amtrak, Obama is a big supporter. He was a backer of the Lautenberg-Lott Amtrak bill in 2007, which would provide about $11.6 billion to Amtrak over the next six years. Obama's energy and climate stance includes promises to "reform the tax code to make benefits for driving and public transit or ridesharing equal," and to change the "transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account." Obama also opposes a federal gas tax holiday - instead, he believes that high prices of gasoline should "give individuals much more of an incentive to look at trains and mass transit as an alternative."
Of course, most of the recent Obama love from transit-types has come from his remarks in Portland, Oregon:
"It’s time that the entire country learn from what’s happening right here in Portland with mass transit and bicycle lanes and funding alternative means of transportation. That’s the kind of solution that we need for America. That’s the kind of truth telling that we are going to do in this campaign and when I am President of the United States of America. We don’t need gimmicks.”
McCain...
If we ignore the speech he made the other night where his elderly, pale countenance on the green background promoting "change" made him look like cottage cheese on a lime jello salad, he has next to nothing to say so far (after 20 years in Washington):
Then there's John McCain. Well, Sen. McCain doesn't have too much to say when it comes to national transit objectives (we suppose it's a case of 'if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all'). But if there's one thing that we do know, it's that McCain hates Amtrak - at least in its current state. The Arizona Senator has been attempting for years to dissolve Amtrak and create small, privately owned rail companies. In fact, McCain has sworn that if elected, the shuttering of Amtrak would be a "a non-negotiable issue."
We'd also imagine that if McCain were to be elected president, current Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters would either remain at her post or handpick a successor. While Peters does favor congestion pricing, she also shows no signs of wanting to change the ratio of mass transit and highway spending from current levels.
McCain's web site does have a Climate Change issues section, but doesn't mention anything regarding transit's potential to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. He is in favor of the gas tax holiday that was so lambasted earlier in the primary season - but on the other hand, he found trouble in Michigan's primaries for failing to pander (to put it kindly) to American automobile makers. McCain on transit is anonymous at best, regularly quixotic, and could likely be a downright killer of projects like future Metro expansion.
Obviously, there are plenty of other pressing issues to vote on in this election cycle, but one that is so widely linked with economic growth and the ability of Americans to get to work should be close to the top of the list.
The problem with mass transit is government - thats why transit has slowly decayed for the last 75 years.
You can pay NYC size taxes to subsidize a system that was largely built over 75 years ago - or let the courts expand eminent domaine ( in the name of transit specifically) and let private lines operate autonomously. They will find the best routes because where the best routes go are the peoples. Then by magic of investment the areas that are to be developed can be done so by extending the network in a self amplifying feedback cycle.
Of course as much as this is true and in fact has already occurred - I dont expect Obama or any other politicians to do much about it. Until the courts and business get on the same side its gridlock.
Oh - and Amtrack blows. Sorry Make, but airplanes, despite the problems today, are still the best way to travel efficiently. I think rails are for freight and bulk tonnage.
I think there can be a partnership in public transit. it is far, far to valuable a public resource to be turned completely over to private companies. But i do think there could be a sort of cooperative development policy. With local governments operating as a sort of incubator whos soul job would be to serve underutilized region in hopes of stimulating more development. It could grow each line until a certain level of stability had been achieved and then sell it off to private companies. In chicago for instance, the red, ohare branch blue, brown and purple lines on the north side could probably all benefit from private ownership. but the south and west side green, blue and red lines are likely not profitable enough to be maintained by companies requiring certain profit levels.
There are pseudo examples of this in the states that i know of. Privitely ran light rail systems have been proposed in Kansas City (but never built), and the light rail in Minneapolis is at least partially run privately between downtown and places like the airport and mall of america (correct me if im wrong). Also, look at Chicago's selling of the SkyBridge, and likely Midway Airport.
A local government or city is in a unique position to act as, like a said before, an incubator. channeling funds to aid the development of a public utility until such time that it is financially self sustaining and could benefit from privatization. But privatizing any public utility in hopes of rescuing it from ruin i think is the wrong move. privatize already successful things, not things losing money.
i promise that if the CTA were privatized, south and west side lines would be disbanded immediately, and neighborhoods now barely clinging to life, would die.
"i promise that if the CTA were privatized, south and west side lines would be disbanded immediately, and neighborhoods now barely clinging to life, would die"
But this needs to happen in order to move on. And most green line riders are comming from Oak Park, River Forest and Forest Park and just jumping the westside. My family all came from the west side - they were driven out by government interference ie social rengineering that left their homes and business worthless and often times burned in riots. Thats what good intentioned government gets you - disintegration. The west side of Chicago at one time was the ultimate middle class urban experiance - largely do to the Gross development company and the west side transit company - the builders of the green line ( Lake st line) congress line - now blue line, the garfield park line ( demolished) the Paulina line ( somewhat rebuilt but a far cry from its former self) and the douglas park and austin lines ( both demolished).
Private investment will never seriously take root in the west side until the government stops hyper concentrating poor minorities into government housing. Its not racist to think this way although thats what people say. The best thing to happen to the westside i think is to allow the forces of supply and demand to work with minimal regulatory alterations to the settlement landscape.
I would love to take commuter rail from Naptown to Chicago. I would utilize that system twice monthly at least - my husband would use it at least once a week.
Do we privitize O'Hare? Air traffic control towers? How much technology from the defense budget has been transfered into commercial aviation? GE jet engines were developed for the military, should the airlines or Boeing have to pay the American people back for using them?
These matters are one of evidence rather than broad sweeping statements that privatization is always good and money spent by the government bad. The government can do a lot of good and is involved in subsidizing all forms of transport here in the USA. It all starts with the price of gasoline which, once you count the Iraq war in and the cost of having 2 carrier battle groups in or around the Straits of Hormuz, is about $9 or $10 a gallon.
Should Exxon instead hire its own Navy to keep the sea lanes open?
Should Southwest be entrusted with their own Air Traffic control Towers?
There's a balance here and I think it's shifting towards limited government involvement that helps push the country towards a lower carbon future.
well ironicaly in Europe they are privatizing the airports and we may be to starting w midway.
LB - high speed rail corridor from Chitown to Naptown would make sense but at some point distance is best served by airtravel. Im not a mathematician but I bet an inter regional midwest high speed rail corridor would work given the terrain, the low density of farm lands and short travel times. But once the trip starts taking 3,4,5 hours it loses its advantages - it could prob be drawn as an equation smarter folks than i could explaine. Chitown to Naptown is prob similar to Paris to Amsterdam (well we wish)
If you look at the great robber barons of the last century they were able to build these rail systems because they controled the tertiary industries - like in there will be blood - the oil companies controled the rails who controled the shipping costs - the system worked well to build infrastructure. Once built the laws had to change. i think its time to go back to allowing a new era of robber barons to profit and build out these giant projects - for everyones gain. I guess the government could do it but at a much higher cost and at the exspense of other things the government should be doing.
In Houston we have public transit which is electric and has created tons of development in areas that were previously not really economically productive. Pro business constituents said that it would fail and no one would ride the rail. Within a year there was more than 80% ridership.
In Austin, on the other hand, there were private proposals that were largely boondoggles in the form of older diesel trains being sold to the public as light rail and would have been subsidized by the public, but for private gain. Luckily for Austin they voted it down. Make, makes some very good points.
On the regional rail, Amtrack as it is, is not an answer, it is a joke. But, if government could help get MagLEV off the ground you would find that it can be much more efficient than planes due to electric use as opposed to the inefficiency of plane fuel use. The investment would be too large for private industry to take on but would save tons to the greater populace in all sorts of forms from less pollution, less cars on the road - so less road maintenance, etc.
Private industry is fine in many realms. but the reality is that there must also be a core public infrastructure which is not based purely on profit but more on delivery of need...the idea that private industry is always better is a myth.
"i think its time to go back to allowing a new era of robber barons to profit and build out these giant projects - for everyones gain"
Yeah, let Haliburton - or the like - deal with it...because they have been proven to deal with things like say, war, with the utmost of efficiencies...whatever.
Private industry loves to toot the horn of efficiency while at the same time lobbying the hardest for handouts, deregulation, tax breaks, and more...the mortgage industry is a great example of what happens when you let the wolves watch over the hen house.
There's a bid difference between privatizing O'Hare and building it from scratch. There are very few developers with the resources to do something like this. Where would the payoff be? The airlines, except for Southwest, are broke.
No one would risk it. That's where the government has stepped in.
The whole reason the CTA exists today (as well as New York's MTA, Amtrak, and many other government-operated transit systems around the country) is because the private companies who built and operated the systems were bankrupt and the infrastructure was falling to pieces.
Here in NYC, you had two private transit companies (the IRT and BMT) and one city-owned transit company (the IND) all trying to put each other out of business, regardless of the public good. You'd have a BMT-owned elevated line running above a major avenue, and then the IND would come along and build a parallel subway line under the same avenue in order to force the BMT line out of business. Meanwhile, there's still huge portions of Queens that have no subway service today. Is that really the best use of construction funds?
How about when General Motors formed a front company to purchase private streetcar lines all over the country, with the sole intent of shutting them down and forcing cities to purchase diesel busses? Chicago had the largest streetcar network in the world until GM came along.
Are those the days we want to return to? Sorry, but I think the government has an important role to play in the development and promotion of public transit.
Can we just let Amtrak die and then start from scratch with some new tracks and some decent trains (that are preferably fast, clean, affordable, and not silver-colored)?
Gin everything your describing came AFTER the trust busters. Of course they lost money - their not allowed to profit from their creations any more after roosevelt. The point of building transit was to then profit on the real estate.
Private capital could build airports - in fact they kind of do since theyere capitalized by banking houses and secured collateral as bonds.
Its ebb and flow - some eras are "wide open" and a lot gets done and other eras are slow and sort of try to catch up. But one things for certain and its that it will be built only if someone can profit from it.
The whole reason the CTA exists today (as well as New York's MTA, Amtrak, and many other government-operated transit systems around the country) is because the private companies who built and operated the systems were bankrupt and the infrastructure was falling to pieces.
The privately owned toll roads in the United States are very profitable and IMO much better kept than the standard gov't maintained roads. The CTA as well could be very profitable under private ownership but it would require the gov't to quit subsidizing the roads which cars travel. Charge per vehicle mile driven or toll all roads somehow. Gov't intervention in the "public" transportation sector over the 20th century was done for the "poor" nothing else.
HERES THE FRIGG'N PROBLEM - THE G TOOK OVER THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND EXPANDED IT AND MAINTAINED IT GREAT, ESPECIALLY AFTER WW2 WHEN AMERICAN DOLLARS WERE MORE THAN GOLD, AN ARMY MENTALITY PROLIFERATED. THE PENSIONS AND WAGES GOT SO HIGH THEY MORTAGED THE FUTURE AND RAISED TAXES. NOW WE CAN BARELY KEEP THE MANTAINENCE UP DUE TO THE PENSION OBLIGATIONS OF GOVERNMENTS LET ALONE BUILD ANYTHING NEW. SO ALAS - ITS TIME TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO PRIVATE INDUSTRY.
NOT ALL ROADS - JUST ARTERIES OR BRANCHES OF HIGHWAYS THAT NEED CONSTANT MANTAINENCE AND REPAIR DUE TO A LOT OF ELEVATION CHANGE, OR BRIDGES. THE G CAN HANDLE THE ASPHALT OVER STONE ON COMPACTED FLAT GROUND. THEYRE INCOMPETENT BUT NOT COMPLETELY RETARDED
LB - high speed rail corridor from Chitown to Naptown would make sense but at some point distance is best served by airtravel. Im not a mathematician but I bet an inter regional midwest high speed rail corridor would work given the terrain, the low density of farm lands and short travel times. But once the trip starts taking 3,4,5 hours it loses its advantages
but...there is also an advantage to trains for longer trips when sleeper cars are taken into account. who wouldn't want to travel from new york-to-chicago if you could get dinner, drinks and a decent night's sleep? if it looks even half as good as it did in north by northwest then i'm all for it.
similarly traveling via boat/cruise ship although much slower than airplanes can actually be much more pleasant and efficient. i suppose that boats aren't as practical for much of the united states...but the point is that more options are explored rather than settling for one-size-fits-all approach of "everybody just buy a car...and don't drink else we'll bust you (unless you're good friends with the police chief/judge/governor)"
Amount spent a year on subsidizing Amtrak = $200 million
Amount spent per year subsidizing the price of oil and by extension, gasoline = $200 billion and up
So McCain is worried about spending $200 million on Amtrak when there's so much fat in the military budget that you could run Amtrak and then some on the $671 million that is spent everyday n the war in Iraq.
There's more waste in military operations as billions are completely unaccounted or were used to bribe and influence various parties. Remember that $12 billion in $100 bills was sent to Iraq and vanished in a matter of months:
yeah but we'd need a lot more than the current $200 million to make amtrak actually a decent customer experience. right now it's too slow, too expensive, too limited in its service, too uncomfortable, on too old, gross, and poorly designed trains.
even the ten year old ICE-3 trains in Germany are a dream come true compared to any train i've been on in america. in fact, i don't even want mass transit in america if it's gonna suck.
Amtrak's biggest problem (aside from funding, of course) is that outside the Northeast Corridor, it's forced to run its trains on tracks shared by the freight railroads, which inevitably leads to major delays. Technically, the freight railroads must give priority to Amtrak trains and they face fines for failure to do so, but I suspect this rule is rarely enforced. When it is enforced, the freight railroads just consider it another business expense.
In the short term, the penalties for interfering with Amtrak trains need to be drastically increased and rigorously enforced. But in the long term, passenger rail needs to be separated onto its own dedicated right-of-way. This is how most passenger rail in Europe and Japan operates, and that needs to be the example we follow here.
In many ways, I can understand the argument that plan travel is more practical... Planes are faster, save time, and currently, a ticket by plane costs roughly the same as a ticket by rail.
That being said, rail is a more sustainable way to travel, it burns much less fuel, and, lets not discount a *huge* factor: the spatial and geographic connectivity that train travel provides that airplanes completely eiminate... Travelling by train, you see all of the places in between, the landscape and cities in between your point of departure and the point of arrival. In planes, all of this disappears, so there is, experientially, a sense of spatial separation, a lack of continuity in terms of your mental map in the region. What I mean to say is, when you take a plane, your mental map consists of the airport, the plane cabin, and then the other airport. The "in between" disappears. Cities, even those that are relatively close, in the same region, become much more distinct separate entities, so you lose the identity of "regional"... In other words, the experience of travelling from Seattle to Portland for example by plane, really, is not that different from travelling from Seattle to any other city... Even though there is really alot more regional connection behind the scenes.
To think about the benefits of modernizing our rail systems, we should look to countries like Japan for example... The trains in Japan are amazingly quiet, high tech, extremely efficient and comfortable, extremely fast and smooth, almost like you don't feel the ground... You feel like you are floating across the landscape at near sonic speeds on a cushion of air... The seats are extremely comfortable, interiors are better designed than airplane interiors, and you get a sense that rail companies take their business seriously. They are geniuinely in competition with airlines. And when you travel by train, the diverse food packages, the station "bento boxes" you can pick up in the stations are a big draw... Every station has its own unique delicious bento boxes: including hot meals like omlettes with sausages, creative meals in little packages you can take on the train... Every year, there is a magazine ranking of the best train bento boxes, and each stop has its own regional bento special. Trains are extremely efficient. They are never late... Far more efficient and on schedule reliable in Japan than planes which have to deal with weather contingencies. The express bullet trains can carry you from one end of Japan to the next with amazing speed, and yet there are cities along the way that receive economic lifeblood from the connectivity and convenience of rail stations.
The freight sharing issue aside, imagine if the Unites States were connected withas efficient and service oriented a rail system as Japan... Of course the U.S. is much larger, but the benefits of having a system like this, even regionally, say in the Northeast or Midwest or West Coast could be amazing... Trains can bring ongoing increasing economic stimulus to cities in between. Increased connectivity, Sense of place and regional identity, and cross fertilization of culture, including "train culture" which IMHO is kindof cool... And they are more enegry efficient and better for the environment than planes. In fact, they make people more aware of their environment too...
so evil, that sounds to me like, for long distance travel, trains don't offer much of an advantage: a decent savings of fuel but is it worth it is your trip takes you 16 hours instead of 2??
actualy passanger rail is 2x as exspensive to mantain even though its about 1/2 the fuel - regardless of time (lost productivity) which is another story.
It takes billions to mantain railroads. thousands of miles of track, switches, control stations etc.
Theres a reason Amtrack is dying - it simply doesnt work. It might work Chicago to Indy - short enough to be effective. But NY to LA? No way. Maybe a maglev train would save so much fuel it could be none - but I suspect if it could be done profitably it would be happening already.
And Japan and Europe are so compact the rail system makes better sense. As it does in the New englad corridor.
Just like solar panels, once public transit is implemented more widely the prices will come down
Public transit has the potential to be much more energy efficient because it can use non-fossil fuels much easier than than airplanes.
Good public transit can save the environment in so many ways by taking cars off the roads, by encouraging city development that doesn't sprawl across the countryside and doesn't require much driving.
Environmentalism aside, it also helps create great walkable places that many of us who have lived places other than the suburbs very much appreciate.
I agree Nicholas - but I think it works better in dense locations like urban regional areas - LA, Bos/NY/Phil - Chi/MIL/IND/SL
Theres no doubt it takes cars off the road and makes quality of life and public space better as businesses and neat districts sprout near transport nodes.
But thats very different than Amtrak. And airplanes are just awesome.
I guess when I think of mass transit it's intra-city transport that comes to mind. Most cities in China are investing billions in subways and American cities could do the same in the name of national competitiveness. Gridlock is costing our country billions. If we had $200 billion a year to invest in subways, light rail and heavy rail, our metro areas would see a great benefit and the growth of our carbon footprint would be slowed.
Imagine if after 9/11 Bush had done the real gutsy thing and raised the price of gas to $6 a gallon, gave income tax credits to truckers and the lower income folks and invested the money in Mass Transit?
Instead we had the status quo which is what John "gas holiday" McCain is offering.
I should add - although i support Obama and welcome his green jobs initiative - it needs to be lazzie fare - mandating green jobs and industries will be a failure - stimulating their self generation is whats needed - ill leave it to the economists to think out
Yeah, it's true that so much of our domestic manufacturing is related to cars and our car driven society... Even energy for cars...
But that's a good point, the key being how to stimulate the growth of other industries, alternative industries involving sustainable technologies including things like rail transit... If the market is there, industry will follow... Forcing people to use only cars or planes is not necessarily good in the long run for the economy, it only limits competition... The problem I think is in being too entrenched in what's already been done before, and failing to innovate... As with most things, diversifying creates more economic stability... Reliance largely on one mode of transportation and failing to advance in others simply because of a fear of competition will result only in economic and technological stagnation... Creating competition is good for both industries, cars and transit alike, in the sense that it can create more diversity in manufacturing jobs, makes your economy more robust, and encourages (by the free market) innovation in both in the long run...
Because, for example, without competition, anyway other countries that have the competition will innevitably innovate more and you're likely to face competition in your automotive industry from foreign players anyway... It's just that with all the eggs in one basket, you are at greater risk than more diverse manufacturing nations...
Some of these issues will have to work themselves out over an extended period of time. Mass transit lines in the united states will never operate with the efficiency that we see across Europe, Japan, or Hong Kong until the geographic make up of population changes.
Most urban areas in the united states lack the ideal density for a major public transit system to function properly. At the same time, the United States already possesses a massive interstate highway system which runs in direct competition with rail and air travel. This highway system is proving to be difficult to fund and maintain, as we see most evidently with the considerable deterioration in many of our bridges (I-35W being the tragic example).
Gas prices are in the midst of a major escalation over the past year. This increase in price has already reduced holiday travel over the recent memorial day weekend. If the price of gas continues to rise, as projected, a change in the mindset of US citizens will follow. Driving a car over a long distance to and from work each day will become a less financially appealing choice. Instead, people will consider a) moving closer to the areas they need to travel to most and b) selecting a cheaper transit method. These two options will result in an increased demand for mass transit, whether it is publicly or privately funded.
A similar shift is likely to occur on medium length intercontinental flights compared rail services. As the price of air travel increases, a long with a decline in service (think of being harassed by security, not being allowed to travel with additional bags, etc etc.) passengers may once again look to train service for inter city trips throughout the US. Longer trips (ie. NY to LA) will likely remain air travel trips as the overwhelming time savings offsets some of the negatives concerning quality and price.
We, as the US government, or as design conscious professionals, can not force demand for mass transit, it needs to develop organically in a manner similar to what I have described above. As increased density and increased demand develop, existing transit systems will be asked to develop faster, more efficient and better overall service. The additional demand will provide the necessary funding to make these developments a reality.
"We, as the US government, or as design conscious professionals, can not force demand for mass transit, it needs to develop organically in a manner similar to what I have described above. As increased density and increased demand develop, existing transit systems will be asked to develop faster, more efficient and better overall service. The additional demand will provide the necessary funding to make these developments a reality."
This is true, you cannot really "force" demand... You make some good points about the factors that will lead to increaisng demand for mass transit - population density, increasing gas prices, costs of maintaining the highways, etc. It would make sense that as the demand for transit increases, it will naturally develop...
But this assumes that it is a free market that is working competitively... The reality is, there are powerful interest groups that encourage and subsidize car related industries. It may not be really a free market to begin with, because there is politics at play, and powerful industries have been established that rely on car culture to survive... billions of dollars invested in car infrastructure... Monied interests in people's consumption and reliance on oil products... Rail projects are so political... if we assume that it is not really fair competition, that there is a political component to this, then it's not so much a matter of "forcing" demand, as "reinforcing" demand... Placing new, more sustainable industries on equal footing with existing dominant ones that may be hindering free market innovation and growth potential...
i think government and design professionals will play an essential part in the development of better transit solutions... government because legislation allows and disallows projects to happen at all... design professionals because we are part of the market too, but simply the part of the market that is equipped with the knowledge to think about solutions... we are in thee business of ideas and problem solving... if new transit projects emerge, we will be the ones designing the infrastucture...
Point well taken. The only caveat I would put in is that I would prefer to use the government to stop the existing automobile and oil subsidies etc. instead of using it put in new subsidies for mass transit. It seems goofy to be subsidizing both sides of a competitive market, but I do see you point, it may be the most practical solution, given the present oil leaning, biased market.
synergy, yeah, I agree... I'm not sure what the solutions are, but I think it's a good mindset to allow free competition...
Well one thing for starters, not having a policy of "gas tax holiday" subsidies which don't really save people a significant amount of money, but which are simply a token to encourage people to continue to use their cars... IMHO, the gas tax holiday is just like a bit of "social anaesthetic" against market forces... It maybe acts momentarily to numb people against the pain in their pocket book, but it does nothing to stop the bleeding or help people avoid the injury... But beyond this, it doesn't even work, because people don't see the savings... It's really more of a subsidy for the oil companies.
MR. RUSSERT: You do write this, and it’s a very interesting observation, “When you watch Clinton vs. Gingrich or Gore vs. Bush or Kerry vs. Bush”—so that’s ‘98, 2000, 2004--“you feel like these are fights that were taking place back in dorm rooms in the sixties. Vietnam, civil rights, the sexual revolution, the role of government - all that stuff has just been playing itself out, and I think people sort of feel like, Okay, let’s not re-litigate the sixties 40 years later.” Are you suggesting that those political players are, are the past and you represent a new generation that won’t get caught or bogged down in those kinds of debates?
SEN. OBAMA: I think, I think the categories we’ve been using were forged in the ‘60s. You know, I think the arguments about big government vs. small government, the arguments about, you know, the sexual revolution, military vs. nonmilitary solutions to problems. I think, in each and every instance, a lot of what we think about is shaped by the ‘60s, and partly, you know, the baby boomers is—are a big demographic. I write about the fact that, whether it’s the market for Viagra or how many cup holders are going to be in, in a car, a lot of it’s determined by what the baby boomers want. Our politics isn’t that different, and my suggestion is that—take the example of big government vs. small government. My instinct is is that the current generation is more interested in smart government. Let’s have enough government to get the job done. If, if we’re looking at problems, if the market solution works, let’s go with the market solution. If a solution requires government intervention, let’s do that. But let’s look at what are the practical outcomes. And I think that kind of politics is what the country’s hungry for right now.
Obama vs. McCain on Mass Transit
Check it out:
http://dcist.com/2008/06/05/transit_on_thur_34.php
"Let's start with Barack Obama. Sen. Obama has been quietly hailed as the candidate with the most forward positions on mass transportation. Of course, this really shouldn't come as any surprise, as the Illinois lawmaker has been interested in the topic for years - he petitioned for more efficient transit through low-income areas of Chicago in 2003, and mentioned in May of this year that he's had interest in copying the efficiency of the Northeast Corridor system in the Midwest: "One of the things I have been talking bout for awhile is high speed rail connecting all of these Midwest cities -- Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis." Speaking of Amtrak, Obama is a big supporter. He was a backer of the Lautenberg-Lott Amtrak bill in 2007, which would provide about $11.6 billion to Amtrak over the next six years. Obama's energy and climate stance includes promises to "reform the tax code to make benefits for driving and public transit or ridesharing equal," and to change the "transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account." Obama also opposes a federal gas tax holiday - instead, he believes that high prices of gasoline should "give individuals much more of an incentive to look at trains and mass transit as an alternative."
Of course, most of the recent Obama love from transit-types has come from his remarks in Portland, Oregon:
"It’s time that the entire country learn from what’s happening right here in Portland with mass transit and bicycle lanes and funding alternative means of transportation. That’s the kind of solution that we need for America. That’s the kind of truth telling that we are going to do in this campaign and when I am President of the United States of America. We don’t need gimmicks.”
McCain...
If we ignore the speech he made the other night where his elderly, pale countenance on the green background promoting "change" made him look like cottage cheese on a lime jello salad, he has next to nothing to say so far (after 20 years in Washington):
Then there's John McCain. Well, Sen. McCain doesn't have too much to say when it comes to national transit objectives (we suppose it's a case of 'if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all'). But if there's one thing that we do know, it's that McCain hates Amtrak - at least in its current state. The Arizona Senator has been attempting for years to dissolve Amtrak and create small, privately owned rail companies. In fact, McCain has sworn that if elected, the shuttering of Amtrak would be a "a non-negotiable issue."
We'd also imagine that if McCain were to be elected president, current Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters would either remain at her post or handpick a successor. While Peters does favor congestion pricing, she also shows no signs of wanting to change the ratio of mass transit and highway spending from current levels.
McCain's web site does have a Climate Change issues section, but doesn't mention anything regarding transit's potential to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. He is in favor of the gas tax holiday that was so lambasted earlier in the primary season - but on the other hand, he found trouble in Michigan's primaries for failing to pander (to put it kindly) to American automobile makers. McCain on transit is anonymous at best, regularly quixotic, and could likely be a downright killer of projects like future Metro expansion.
Obviously, there are plenty of other pressing issues to vote on in this election cycle, but one that is so widely linked with economic growth and the ability of Americans to get to work should be close to the top of the list.
McCain is against the Light Rail in Phoenix too
The problem with mass transit is government - thats why transit has slowly decayed for the last 75 years.
You can pay NYC size taxes to subsidize a system that was largely built over 75 years ago - or let the courts expand eminent domaine ( in the name of transit specifically) and let private lines operate autonomously. They will find the best routes because where the best routes go are the peoples. Then by magic of investment the areas that are to be developed can be done so by extending the network in a self amplifying feedback cycle.
Of course as much as this is true and in fact has already occurred - I dont expect Obama or any other politicians to do much about it. Until the courts and business get on the same side its gridlock.
Oh - and Amtrack blows. Sorry Make, but airplanes, despite the problems today, are still the best way to travel efficiently. I think rails are for freight and bulk tonnage.
I think there can be a partnership in public transit. it is far, far to valuable a public resource to be turned completely over to private companies. But i do think there could be a sort of cooperative development policy. With local governments operating as a sort of incubator whos soul job would be to serve underutilized region in hopes of stimulating more development. It could grow each line until a certain level of stability had been achieved and then sell it off to private companies. In chicago for instance, the red, ohare branch blue, brown and purple lines on the north side could probably all benefit from private ownership. but the south and west side green, blue and red lines are likely not profitable enough to be maintained by companies requiring certain profit levels.
There are pseudo examples of this in the states that i know of. Privitely ran light rail systems have been proposed in Kansas City (but never built), and the light rail in Minneapolis is at least partially run privately between downtown and places like the airport and mall of america (correct me if im wrong). Also, look at Chicago's selling of the SkyBridge, and likely Midway Airport.
A local government or city is in a unique position to act as, like a said before, an incubator. channeling funds to aid the development of a public utility until such time that it is financially self sustaining and could benefit from privatization. But privatizing any public utility in hopes of rescuing it from ruin i think is the wrong move. privatize already successful things, not things losing money.
i promise that if the CTA were privatized, south and west side lines would be disbanded immediately, and neighborhoods now barely clinging to life, would die.
"i promise that if the CTA were privatized, south and west side lines would be disbanded immediately, and neighborhoods now barely clinging to life, would die"
But this needs to happen in order to move on. And most green line riders are comming from Oak Park, River Forest and Forest Park and just jumping the westside. My family all came from the west side - they were driven out by government interference ie social rengineering that left their homes and business worthless and often times burned in riots. Thats what good intentioned government gets you - disintegration. The west side of Chicago at one time was the ultimate middle class urban experiance - largely do to the Gross development company and the west side transit company - the builders of the green line ( Lake st line) congress line - now blue line, the garfield park line ( demolished) the Paulina line ( somewhat rebuilt but a far cry from its former self) and the douglas park and austin lines ( both demolished).
Private investment will never seriously take root in the west side until the government stops hyper concentrating poor minorities into government housing. Its not racist to think this way although thats what people say. The best thing to happen to the westside i think is to allow the forces of supply and demand to work with minimal regulatory alterations to the settlement landscape.
I would love to take commuter rail from Naptown to Chicago. I would utilize that system twice monthly at least - my husband would use it at least once a week.
Evil,
Do we privitize O'Hare? Air traffic control towers? How much technology from the defense budget has been transfered into commercial aviation? GE jet engines were developed for the military, should the airlines or Boeing have to pay the American people back for using them?
These matters are one of evidence rather than broad sweeping statements that privatization is always good and money spent by the government bad. The government can do a lot of good and is involved in subsidizing all forms of transport here in the USA. It all starts with the price of gasoline which, once you count the Iraq war in and the cost of having 2 carrier battle groups in or around the Straits of Hormuz, is about $9 or $10 a gallon.
Should Exxon instead hire its own Navy to keep the sea lanes open?
Should Southwest be entrusted with their own Air Traffic control Towers?
There's a balance here and I think it's shifting towards limited government involvement that helps push the country towards a lower carbon future.
well ironicaly in Europe they are privatizing the airports and we may be to starting w midway.
LB - high speed rail corridor from Chitown to Naptown would make sense but at some point distance is best served by airtravel. Im not a mathematician but I bet an inter regional midwest high speed rail corridor would work given the terrain, the low density of farm lands and short travel times. But once the trip starts taking 3,4,5 hours it loses its advantages - it could prob be drawn as an equation smarter folks than i could explaine. Chitown to Naptown is prob similar to Paris to Amsterdam (well we wish)
If you look at the great robber barons of the last century they were able to build these rail systems because they controled the tertiary industries - like in there will be blood - the oil companies controled the rails who controled the shipping costs - the system worked well to build infrastructure. Once built the laws had to change. i think its time to go back to allowing a new era of robber barons to profit and build out these giant projects - for everyones gain. I guess the government could do it but at a much higher cost and at the exspense of other things the government should be doing.
In Houston we have public transit which is electric and has created tons of development in areas that were previously not really economically productive. Pro business constituents said that it would fail and no one would ride the rail. Within a year there was more than 80% ridership.
In Austin, on the other hand, there were private proposals that were largely boondoggles in the form of older diesel trains being sold to the public as light rail and would have been subsidized by the public, but for private gain. Luckily for Austin they voted it down. Make, makes some very good points.
On the regional rail, Amtrack as it is, is not an answer, it is a joke. But, if government could help get MagLEV off the ground you would find that it can be much more efficient than planes due to electric use as opposed to the inefficiency of plane fuel use. The investment would be too large for private industry to take on but would save tons to the greater populace in all sorts of forms from less pollution, less cars on the road - so less road maintenance, etc.
Private industry is fine in many realms. but the reality is that there must also be a core public infrastructure which is not based purely on profit but more on delivery of need...the idea that private industry is always better is a myth.
"i think its time to go back to allowing a new era of robber barons to profit and build out these giant projects - for everyones gain"
Yeah, let Haliburton - or the like - deal with it...because they have been proven to deal with things like say, war, with the utmost of efficiencies...whatever.
Private industry loves to toot the horn of efficiency while at the same time lobbying the hardest for handouts, deregulation, tax breaks, and more...the mortgage industry is a great example of what happens when you let the wolves watch over the hen house.
Evil,
There's a bid difference between privatizing O'Hare and building it from scratch. There are very few developers with the resources to do something like this. Where would the payoff be? The airlines, except for Southwest, are broke.
No one would risk it. That's where the government has stepped in.
Look at the top right hand corner.
You can see that McCain has very carefully considered his position on golf gear.
LOL. This is a screen shot from his website Thursday afternoon.
The whole reason the CTA exists today (as well as New York's MTA, Amtrak, and many other government-operated transit systems around the country) is because the private companies who built and operated the systems were bankrupt and the infrastructure was falling to pieces.
Here in NYC, you had two private transit companies (the IRT and BMT) and one city-owned transit company (the IND) all trying to put each other out of business, regardless of the public good. You'd have a BMT-owned elevated line running above a major avenue, and then the IND would come along and build a parallel subway line under the same avenue in order to force the BMT line out of business. Meanwhile, there's still huge portions of Queens that have no subway service today. Is that really the best use of construction funds?
How about when General Motors formed a front company to purchase private streetcar lines all over the country, with the sole intent of shutting them down and forcing cities to purchase diesel busses? Chicago had the largest streetcar network in the world until GM came along.
Are those the days we want to return to? Sorry, but I think the government has an important role to play in the development and promotion of public transit.
Can we just let Amtrak die and then start from scratch with some new tracks and some decent trains (that are preferably fast, clean, affordable, and not silver-colored)?
Gin everything your describing came AFTER the trust busters. Of course they lost money - their not allowed to profit from their creations any more after roosevelt. The point of building transit was to then profit on the real estate.
Private capital could build airports - in fact they kind of do since theyere capitalized by banking houses and secured collateral as bonds.
Its ebb and flow - some eras are "wide open" and a lot gets done and other eras are slow and sort of try to catch up. But one things for certain and its that it will be built only if someone can profit from it.
The privately owned toll roads in the United States are very profitable and IMO much better kept than the standard gov't maintained roads. The CTA as well could be very profitable under private ownership but it would require the gov't to quit subsidizing the roads which cars travel. Charge per vehicle mile driven or toll all roads somehow. Gov't intervention in the "public" transportation sector over the 20th century was done for the "poor" nothing else.
Maybe 5% of the roads in the US can be profitable. Show me data. DATA! DATA! DATA!
Otherwise it's GW Bush and his "gut" talking.
toll all roads? we have jumped the shark.
HERES THE FRIGG'N PROBLEM - THE G TOOK OVER THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND EXPANDED IT AND MAINTAINED IT GREAT, ESPECIALLY AFTER WW2 WHEN AMERICAN DOLLARS WERE MORE THAN GOLD, AN ARMY MENTALITY PROLIFERATED. THE PENSIONS AND WAGES GOT SO HIGH THEY MORTAGED THE FUTURE AND RAISED TAXES. NOW WE CAN BARELY KEEP THE MANTAINENCE UP DUE TO THE PENSION OBLIGATIONS OF GOVERNMENTS LET ALONE BUILD ANYTHING NEW. SO ALAS - ITS TIME TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO PRIVATE INDUSTRY.
NOT ALL ROADS - JUST ARTERIES OR BRANCHES OF HIGHWAYS THAT NEED CONSTANT MANTAINENCE AND REPAIR DUE TO A LOT OF ELEVATION CHANGE, OR BRIDGES. THE G CAN HANDLE THE ASPHALT OVER STONE ON COMPACTED FLAT GROUND. THEYRE INCOMPETENT BUT NOT COMPLETELY RETARDED
it all makes sense now that you posted in all caps.
IT LOOKS BETTER THAT WAY
no, it really doesn't.
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?
ya it is too hard to read. makes me feel like a city plan checker.
I am PM-7
;-)
but...there is also an advantage to trains for longer trips when sleeper cars are taken into account. who wouldn't want to travel from new york-to-chicago if you could get dinner, drinks and a decent night's sleep? if it looks even half as good as it did in north by northwest then i'm all for it.
similarly traveling via boat/cruise ship although much slower than airplanes can actually be much more pleasant and efficient. i suppose that boats aren't as practical for much of the united states...but the point is that more options are explored rather than settling for one-size-fits-all approach of "everybody just buy a car...and don't drink else we'll bust you (unless you're good friends with the police chief/judge/governor)"
Amount spent a year on subsidizing Amtrak = $200 million
Amount spent per year subsidizing the price of oil and by extension, gasoline = $200 billion and up
So McCain is worried about spending $200 million on Amtrak when there's so much fat in the military budget that you could run Amtrak and then some on the $671 million that is spent everyday n the war in Iraq.
There's more waste in military operations as billions are completely unaccounted or were used to bribe and influence various parties. Remember that $12 billion in $100 bills was sent to Iraq and vanished in a matter of months:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1
www.globalpolicy.org/security/ issues/iraq/dfi/2006/0320awash.htm
Iraqis said they played soccer with bricks of $100 bills.
And this is ok, Mr. McCain? This makes Amtrak look like chump change!
Imagine if we could have gotten two or three major mass transit projects built with this money instead.
yeah but we'd need a lot more than the current $200 million to make amtrak actually a decent customer experience. right now it's too slow, too expensive, too limited in its service, too uncomfortable, on too old, gross, and poorly designed trains.
even the ten year old ICE-3 trains in Germany are a dream come true compared to any train i've been on in america. in fact, i don't even want mass transit in america if it's gonna suck.
Amtrak's biggest problem (aside from funding, of course) is that outside the Northeast Corridor, it's forced to run its trains on tracks shared by the freight railroads, which inevitably leads to major delays. Technically, the freight railroads must give priority to Amtrak trains and they face fines for failure to do so, but I suspect this rule is rarely enforced. When it is enforced, the freight railroads just consider it another business expense.
In the short term, the penalties for interfering with Amtrak trains need to be drastically increased and rigorously enforced. But in the long term, passenger rail needs to be separated onto its own dedicated right-of-way. This is how most passenger rail in Europe and Japan operates, and that needs to be the example we follow here.
transport mode cost per eregy per
mile passanger mile reliability
Domestic airlines 12.0¢ 3,890 BTUs 0.02 deaths 82%
Intercity buses 12.9¢ 3,698 BTUs 0.05 deaths N
Amtrak 26.0¢ 2,100 BTUs 0.03 deaths 74%
Autos N/A 3,597 BTUs 0.80 deaths N/A
ALLLLLL ABOOOOAARDDDD!
In many ways, I can understand the argument that plan travel is more practical... Planes are faster, save time, and currently, a ticket by plane costs roughly the same as a ticket by rail.
That being said, rail is a more sustainable way to travel, it burns much less fuel, and, lets not discount a *huge* factor: the spatial and geographic connectivity that train travel provides that airplanes completely eiminate... Travelling by train, you see all of the places in between, the landscape and cities in between your point of departure and the point of arrival. In planes, all of this disappears, so there is, experientially, a sense of spatial separation, a lack of continuity in terms of your mental map in the region. What I mean to say is, when you take a plane, your mental map consists of the airport, the plane cabin, and then the other airport. The "in between" disappears. Cities, even those that are relatively close, in the same region, become much more distinct separate entities, so you lose the identity of "regional"... In other words, the experience of travelling from Seattle to Portland for example by plane, really, is not that different from travelling from Seattle to any other city... Even though there is really alot more regional connection behind the scenes.
To think about the benefits of modernizing our rail systems, we should look to countries like Japan for example... The trains in Japan are amazingly quiet, high tech, extremely efficient and comfortable, extremely fast and smooth, almost like you don't feel the ground... You feel like you are floating across the landscape at near sonic speeds on a cushion of air... The seats are extremely comfortable, interiors are better designed than airplane interiors, and you get a sense that rail companies take their business seriously. They are geniuinely in competition with airlines. And when you travel by train, the diverse food packages, the station "bento boxes" you can pick up in the stations are a big draw... Every station has its own unique delicious bento boxes: including hot meals like omlettes with sausages, creative meals in little packages you can take on the train... Every year, there is a magazine ranking of the best train bento boxes, and each stop has its own regional bento special. Trains are extremely efficient. They are never late... Far more efficient and on schedule reliable in Japan than planes which have to deal with weather contingencies. The express bullet trains can carry you from one end of Japan to the next with amazing speed, and yet there are cities along the way that receive economic lifeblood from the connectivity and convenience of rail stations.
The freight sharing issue aside, imagine if the Unites States were connected withas efficient and service oriented a rail system as Japan... Of course the U.S. is much larger, but the benefits of having a system like this, even regionally, say in the Northeast or Midwest or West Coast could be amazing... Trains can bring ongoing increasing economic stimulus to cities in between. Increased connectivity, Sense of place and regional identity, and cross fertilization of culture, including "train culture" which IMHO is kindof cool... And they are more enegry efficient and better for the environment than planes. In fact, they make people more aware of their environment too...
Passenger trains use about 54% the fuel per passenger of an airplane
so evil, that sounds to me like, for long distance travel, trains don't offer much of an advantage: a decent savings of fuel but is it worth it is your trip takes you 16 hours instead of 2??
actualy passanger rail is 2x as exspensive to mantain even though its about 1/2 the fuel - regardless of time (lost productivity) which is another story.
It takes billions to mantain railroads. thousands of miles of track, switches, control stations etc.
Theres a reason Amtrack is dying - it simply doesnt work. It might work Chicago to Indy - short enough to be effective. But NY to LA? No way. Maybe a maglev train would save so much fuel it could be none - but I suspect if it could be done profitably it would be happening already.
And Japan and Europe are so compact the rail system makes better sense. As it does in the New englad corridor.
Just like solar panels, once public transit is implemented more widely the prices will come down
Public transit has the potential to be much more energy efficient because it can use non-fossil fuels much easier than than airplanes.
Good public transit can save the environment in so many ways by taking cars off the roads, by encouraging city development that doesn't sprawl across the countryside and doesn't require much driving.
Environmentalism aside, it also helps create great walkable places that many of us who have lived places other than the suburbs very much appreciate.
I agree Nicholas - but I think it works better in dense locations like urban regional areas - LA, Bos/NY/Phil - Chi/MIL/IND/SL
Theres no doubt it takes cars off the road and makes quality of life and public space better as businesses and neat districts sprout near transport nodes.
But thats very different than Amtrak. And airplanes are just awesome.
I guess when I think of mass transit it's intra-city transport that comes to mind. Most cities in China are investing billions in subways and American cities could do the same in the name of national competitiveness. Gridlock is costing our country billions. If we had $200 billion a year to invest in subways, light rail and heavy rail, our metro areas would see a great benefit and the growth of our carbon footprint would be slowed.
Imagine if after 9/11 Bush had done the real gutsy thing and raised the price of gas to $6 a gallon, gave income tax credits to truckers and the lower income folks and invested the money in Mass Transit?
Instead we had the status quo which is what John "gas holiday" McCain is offering.
the problem is deeper - 60% of all domestic manufacturing is somehow related to automobiles
I should add - although i support Obama and welcome his green jobs initiative - it needs to be lazzie fare - mandating green jobs and industries will be a failure - stimulating their self generation is whats needed - ill leave it to the economists to think out
Yeah, it's true that so much of our domestic manufacturing is related to cars and our car driven society... Even energy for cars...
But that's a good point, the key being how to stimulate the growth of other industries, alternative industries involving sustainable technologies including things like rail transit... If the market is there, industry will follow... Forcing people to use only cars or planes is not necessarily good in the long run for the economy, it only limits competition... The problem I think is in being too entrenched in what's already been done before, and failing to innovate... As with most things, diversifying creates more economic stability... Reliance largely on one mode of transportation and failing to advance in others simply because of a fear of competition will result only in economic and technological stagnation... Creating competition is good for both industries, cars and transit alike, in the sense that it can create more diversity in manufacturing jobs, makes your economy more robust, and encourages (by the free market) innovation in both in the long run...
Because, for example, without competition, anyway other countries that have the competition will innevitably innovate more and you're likely to face competition in your automotive industry from foreign players anyway... It's just that with all the eggs in one basket, you are at greater risk than more diverse manufacturing nations...
Some of these issues will have to work themselves out over an extended period of time. Mass transit lines in the united states will never operate with the efficiency that we see across Europe, Japan, or Hong Kong until the geographic make up of population changes.
Most urban areas in the united states lack the ideal density for a major public transit system to function properly. At the same time, the United States already possesses a massive interstate highway system which runs in direct competition with rail and air travel. This highway system is proving to be difficult to fund and maintain, as we see most evidently with the considerable deterioration in many of our bridges (I-35W being the tragic example).
Gas prices are in the midst of a major escalation over the past year. This increase in price has already reduced holiday travel over the recent memorial day weekend. If the price of gas continues to rise, as projected, a change in the mindset of US citizens will follow. Driving a car over a long distance to and from work each day will become a less financially appealing choice. Instead, people will consider a) moving closer to the areas they need to travel to most and b) selecting a cheaper transit method. These two options will result in an increased demand for mass transit, whether it is publicly or privately funded.
A similar shift is likely to occur on medium length intercontinental flights compared rail services. As the price of air travel increases, a long with a decline in service (think of being harassed by security, not being allowed to travel with additional bags, etc etc.) passengers may once again look to train service for inter city trips throughout the US. Longer trips (ie. NY to LA) will likely remain air travel trips as the overwhelming time savings offsets some of the negatives concerning quality and price.
We, as the US government, or as design conscious professionals, can not force demand for mass transit, it needs to develop organically in a manner similar to what I have described above. As increased density and increased demand develop, existing transit systems will be asked to develop faster, more efficient and better overall service. The additional demand will provide the necessary funding to make these developments a reality.
synergy,
"We, as the US government, or as design conscious professionals, can not force demand for mass transit, it needs to develop organically in a manner similar to what I have described above. As increased density and increased demand develop, existing transit systems will be asked to develop faster, more efficient and better overall service. The additional demand will provide the necessary funding to make these developments a reality."
This is true, you cannot really "force" demand... You make some good points about the factors that will lead to increaisng demand for mass transit - population density, increasing gas prices, costs of maintaining the highways, etc. It would make sense that as the demand for transit increases, it will naturally develop...
But this assumes that it is a free market that is working competitively... The reality is, there are powerful interest groups that encourage and subsidize car related industries. It may not be really a free market to begin with, because there is politics at play, and powerful industries have been established that rely on car culture to survive... billions of dollars invested in car infrastructure... Monied interests in people's consumption and reliance on oil products... Rail projects are so political... if we assume that it is not really fair competition, that there is a political component to this, then it's not so much a matter of "forcing" demand, as "reinforcing" demand... Placing new, more sustainable industries on equal footing with existing dominant ones that may be hindering free market innovation and growth potential...
i think government and design professionals will play an essential part in the development of better transit solutions... government because legislation allows and disallows projects to happen at all... design professionals because we are part of the market too, but simply the part of the market that is equipped with the knowledge to think about solutions... we are in thee business of ideas and problem solving... if new transit projects emerge, we will be the ones designing the infrastucture...
bRink,
Point well taken. The only caveat I would put in is that I would prefer to use the government to stop the existing automobile and oil subsidies etc. instead of using it put in new subsidies for mass transit. It seems goofy to be subsidizing both sides of a competitive market, but I do see you point, it may be the most practical solution, given the present oil leaning, biased market.
synergy, yeah, I agree... I'm not sure what the solutions are, but I think it's a good mindset to allow free competition...
Well one thing for starters, not having a policy of "gas tax holiday" subsidies which don't really save people a significant amount of money, but which are simply a token to encourage people to continue to use their cars... IMHO, the gas tax holiday is just like a bit of "social anaesthetic" against market forces... It maybe acts momentarily to numb people against the pain in their pocket book, but it does nothing to stop the bleeding or help people avoid the injury... But beyond this, it doesn't even work, because people don't see the savings... It's really more of a subsidy for the oil companies.
This is interesting:
MR. RUSSERT: You do write this, and it’s a very interesting observation, “When you watch Clinton vs. Gingrich or Gore vs. Bush or Kerry vs. Bush”—so that’s ‘98, 2000, 2004--“you feel like these are fights that were taking place back in dorm rooms in the sixties. Vietnam, civil rights, the sexual revolution, the role of government - all that stuff has just been playing itself out, and I think people sort of feel like, Okay, let’s not re-litigate the sixties 40 years later.” Are you suggesting that those political players are, are the past and you represent a new generation that won’t get caught or bogged down in those kinds of debates?
SEN. OBAMA: I think, I think the categories we’ve been using were forged in the ‘60s. You know, I think the arguments about big government vs. small government, the arguments about, you know, the sexual revolution, military vs. nonmilitary solutions to problems. I think, in each and every instance, a lot of what we think about is shaped by the ‘60s, and partly, you know, the baby boomers is—are a big demographic. I write about the fact that, whether it’s the market for Viagra or how many cup holders are going to be in, in a car, a lot of it’s determined by what the baby boomers want. Our politics isn’t that different, and my suggestion is that—take the example of big government vs. small government. My instinct is is that the current generation is more interested in smart government. Let’s have enough government to get the job done. If, if we’re looking at problems, if the market solution works, let’s go with the market solution. If a solution requires government intervention, let’s do that. But let’s look at what are the practical outcomes. And I think that kind of politics is what the country’s hungry for right now.
Well he's right - lets see it happen
Compare his response to the mortgage crisis to Hillary's or his response to the rising price of gasoline to McCain's gas holiday.
McCain's gas holiday is really stooooooo-pid!
Yes, Obama is right.
This is worth a look:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/06_transportation_puentes.aspx
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.