-
Assessing a Week of Scandal
May 17, 2013 | 131 comments
-
After Obamacare
May 16, 2013 | 24 comments
-
The New Paternalism
May 3, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Please Point the C-Span Camera This Way
April 29, 2013 | 32 comments
-
Knuckle Draggers and the Pro-Life Enlightenment
April 26, 2013 | 85 comments
The Obama Watch
LaHood Gives the Green Light
Transportation is the linchpin of Obama’s statist policies.
At a National Press Club event last year, a panel moderator decided to quiz Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood on his department’s policy. “Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative,” he said. “Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”
“It is a way to coerce people out of their cars,” answered LaHood, with a blunt frankness rare for a politician.
These days, the Department of Transportation is sticking its nose into everyone’s lives. DOT has teamed up with the Environmental Protection Agency and Housing and Urban Development to create the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Their actual purpose is somewhat foggy and loaded with Orwellian language — something about creating more “livable” and “healthy” environments. As transportation goes, that means creating more “choices” for commuters: the choice to leave your car at home and take the train, for example. Or ride your bike. Or walk.
It’s an alarming fact that’s eluded even many conservative commentators: The core of the president’s progressive agenda is to fundamentally change in the way we move from one point to another.
American transportation is dominated by the car. According to a USA Today study, 91% of Americans drive to work. Another study by Experian Automotive found that an American household has an average of 2.28 cars in the garage. That’s a dire crisis for a president who thinks the entire economy should “go green.” With cap-and-trade having gone rigor mortis in Congress, the Obama Administration needed easier ways to create serious environmental change.
Enter the Department of Transportation. Prior to the Obama presidency, the DOT was of relatively small importance, spending its time enforcing obscure railroad regulations and trying to get people to buckle up. The department gained some attention during the Bush Administration after airline screeners were nationalized under its authority, but it still took a backseat to most other cabinet-level federal agencies.
But with the Obama agenda in full swing, the DOT has come front and center. Joe Biden even called Secretary LaHood “the star of the Cabinet.” Much of this attention is thanks to LaHood’s fiery crusades against Toyota, but that’s not the whole picture. Obama wants a major shift in transportation policy and LaHood is overseeing it.
As LaHood wrote not long ago, “Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”
Perhaps LaHood’s most important responsibility so far has been the awarding of $1.5 billion in Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants. Recipients were supposed to be transportation projects that “will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area or a region.” But many of LaHood’s choices seemed like sepia-toned throwbacks to the Industrial Era. One was a $23 million grant for a bike path through Philadelphia and southern New Jersey. Many more went to rail projects. Others were aimed at green bugaboos and had little to do with transportation at all. One $22.3 million grant went to a business park in Rhode Island that’s home to several wind power companies.
Fourteen of the TIGER grants were spent on projects that were “multimodal” — a new buzz word in the Obama age referring to multiple modes of transportation. In Obama’s America, seen through a dreamy progressive lens, just as many people travel on trains and bicycles as in cars. At least LaHood, who bikes on the weekends, is leading by example.
Another product of the DOT-EPA collaboration was the recent clampdown in mileage standards. Under the new rules, car companies must have a fleet average of 35.5 miles a gallon by 2016 — up from an average 27.5 miles per gallon today. It’s a massive increase with a short amount of time for car companies to comply. Automakers’ only real solution is to put popular truck and SUV models — like the 14 mpg Ford F-150 — on the chopping block and invest more in hybrid cars.
Previously, these regulations have been run through Congress. But after a Supreme Court ruling gave the executive branch unilateral authority to enforce the Clean Air Act, the EPA and DOT can pretty much do whatever they want.
One of LaHood’s allies in Congress, Rep. James Oberstar, has introduced a bill that would essentially federalize the nation’s entire transportation network. Called the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, the legislation frets that states have “great discretion to shift [federal transportation] funds between programs” and bemoans the “lack of clear Federal priorities and system-wide objectives” for transportation. In other words, grey-suited managers in Washington don’t have enough power to dictate transportation projects.
To solve this problem, the bill has the federal government gobbling up transportation power from the states and forcing them to meet certain benchmarks. States are essentially coerced to make sure their transportation networks are environmentally friendly and include plenty of rail lines and buses. How bad is it? The bill actually requires the DOT to create an U.S. Bicycle Route System similar to our interstate highways. Yes, the progressive Oberstar actually imagines a day when so many people will travel by bicycle that we’ll need transcontinental bike paths. I believe there’s a word for that: “China”.
The Heritage Foundation’s Ronald Utt concludes that the STAA would “shift substantial numbers of passengers from cars to public transit and nonmotorized forms of transportation.” The entire bill would cost an estimated $500 billion over six years, which would require a 112% increase in the federal gas tax.
About the Author
Matt Purple is The American Spectator’s assistant managing editor.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (133) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matt Purple
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/19/lahood-gives-the-green-light
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Robbins Mitchell| 4.19.10 @ 6:14AM
Oh,yea?...well for his scathingly brilliant observation a while back that the government was going to have to "force people out of their cars", I give La Hood the "green wienie"
Purpleguy| 4.19.10 @ 2:01PM
So what happened to offering consumers choice? No one is going to actually "force" you, except by incentive to use public transportation.
txn4ever| 4.19.10 @ 4:09PM
What you saying PG? Are you in favor of this crap?
Or, are you being sarcastic?
JimE| 4.19.10 @ 6:04PM
Purplemoron supports whatever he is told to support.
Purpleguy| 4.20.10 @ 12:15AM
I'm in favor of choice - in many parts of this country you have no choice by travel by car. I personally would like more choices than airlines for high-speed regional travel. Airline travel has become overcrowded, service sucks, and fees are mounting faster than a lion in heat.
Ricky| 5.13.10 @ 2:47AM
Choice is a form of freedom, and railways and bicycle paths enhance choice. There's no reason for conservatives to be against more choices, especially when the added speed at greater energy efficiency benefits the country in the long run. A good high-speed train can move troops rapidly, and with the cramped and prisonlike atmosphere of airplanes, the train is an attractive choice.
Sara| 4.19.10 @ 6:31PM
Really? In two years I won't even be able to have the lightbulb of my choice. My choice has been outlawed.
I feel a little dreamy nostalgia for rail travel too. When my grandmother was a girl, it was possible to travel to all the tiny villages in my rural Alabama county by rail. Few could afford it though. But I recognize my dreams for what they are. Maybe the Obama administration should bring back the mule-drawn wagon. It's relatively carbon neutral and makes organic fertilizer too. And when you get home, you can hook him up to the plow and ready the lawn for organic lettuce crops.
Speaking of organic fertilizer, is cap and trade really dead? That would be something to cheer about.
But is cap and trad really dead?
Bohred| 4.19.10 @ 9:03PM
Choice?!!
They didn't give me a choice, they made me pay for it!
Purpleguy| 4.20.10 @ 12:20AM
But you weren't given a choice for the Interstate Highway System either , but that's worked out pretty well for us. There are new transportation jobs to be had with high-speed rail that can't be outsourced; it provides more choices for consumers; it's a national security issue to reduce our dependence on FOREIGN oil, not our own - there are many benefit to accrue from pursuing high-speed rail. You know, there might something valuable here for our country.
Robbins Mitchell| 4.19.10 @ 6:14AM
Oh,yea?...well for his scathingly brilliant observation a while back that the government was going to have to "force people out of their cars", I give La Hood the "green wienie"
Deborah D | 4.19.10 @ 6:56AM
What is a country to do when the people in charge are out of their collective rockers? There must be a way to rein these whackos in, but when the entire executive branch and a good portion of the legislative branch (along with 4-5 of the Supremes) are in lockstep as they merrily march the country off the cliff -- what do the rest of us do?
There should be (in addition to treason) a way to remove people from office for insanity or for ruining the country. When can we throw people in jail for their abuse of the country?
Purpleguy| 4.19.10 @ 2:03PM
"When can we throw people in jail for their abuse of the country?" - when you can prove that they actually have done something criminal, or as you say "crazy" not simply because you don't like some plans or actions taken by the leaders of the country.
Deborah D | 4.19.10 @ 2:24PM
Well, then what's considered criminal? Is it criminal to knowingly put the country on an unsustainable path toward bankruptcy? It sure seems like it is.
Is it criminal when Obama and his minions use the United States of America and its taxpayers as a giant lab experiment for "transforming" the country without any debate, any input from the American people, or any "consent of the governed?" Just asking...
Purpleguy| 4.20.10 @ 12:27AM
"Is it criminal to knowingly put the country on an unsustainable path toward bankruptcy? " - no it is not. If it was, there would have been quite a few Presidents in jail. not to mention several hundreds of Congressmen and Senators.
As far as transforming - he hasn't transformed anything yet. Talking about it doesn't really do it, does it? He seems to have a lot of people riled up, if you wanna call that "transformative"....
Len| 4.19.10 @ 6:05PM
Purpleguy we don't have leaders in this country we have paid servants who act as agents for the people in regards to powers delegated to them. This means that the people are the bosses, not the other way around. This means that the only authority federal officials have is what is allowed to them by the instrument of our government the US constitution.
As it say in the US constitution...The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people....
and the reason for this amendment is given in the preamble to the Bill of Rights....THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
As it says TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE. When those in the federal government act without power granted they are abusing the position granted to them. As no power for the "greening" of America, or encouraging people to get out of their cars has been granted, then the our servants have gotten out of line and are violating our rights, regardless of whether or not you or a portion of America wants it. You and your ilk cannot unilaterally decide to bypass the US constitution without amending it.
As to your statement concerning throwing people in jail there are two considerations. One is which party has the force to impose it's will. The other is will those usurping power not delegated back down from their violations or force us as the sovereigns to protect our rights and punish those who have misused the positions erected for few and defined (declaratory and restrictive) powers and nothing more(again all other powers NOT DELEGATED).
Purpleguy| 4.20.10 @ 12:40AM
Oh, Len, I'm sorry you're so wrong... 1) We have a Republic and a Constitutional Democracy - when we elect members of Congress we invest them with the power to decide for us - period. Lobbyists and constituents can try to persuade, but the decision is the elected representatives themselves.
2) The power of the Federal Government is limited to what the Supreme Court says it is limited to or by.
3) There are many ways the Constitution is never "strictly" adhered to. The Founders never expected 100% adherence to the Constitution - that's why they gave us the power to Amend the Constitution. Unfortunately, for good or ill, the Amendment process has not been used to it's fullest extent. You will find nowhere in the Constitution the power to induct Steelworkers into the Army to avert a steel strike - as Harry Truman did. You will not find the power to create the Interstate Highway System at the Federal level - As Dwight Eisenhower did. You will not find the power to suspend Habeas Corpus for an attack on the US - as George W Bush did. There are many, many examples where prevailing attitudes, emergencies and common sense perceptions were used to circumvent the US Constitution. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either uninformed or lying.
Your jail argument is too rambling to make sense of, so I will not comment, except to say, if laws have been broken, on to jail with them. But, in this country you have to PROVE guilt, not through innuendo, or what makes you feel good.
Len| 4.20.10 @ 11:10AM
Purple guy you are either a liar or an idiot. Elections are held to fill offices created by the instrument of the US constitution. It is the US constitution that directs the federal government as to what it can and cannot do, not the Supreme Court. You clearly have trouble comprehending the English language, for the US constitution speaks only of delegated powers, not powers authorized by the Supreme Court.
As to your amendment statement, well it makes the case for you being an idiot. Amendments would be enacted under the US constitution and become part of it. That means that the US constitution would be adhered to, not violated if further powers are granted.
It is further idiocy to point out violations of the US constitution and then say they are legitimate due to prevailing passions or what have you. As there is no proof of such , one can as easily say and I do, that people either were afraid to stop illegitimate actions or not enough cared. Either way to argue that the actions themselves are proof of legitimacy is absurd, and shows your inability to properly apply logic.
The only factor making something legitimate is whether or not through the instrument of the US constitution a power and then an action based on such power is granted. Again those in power are agents acting on delegated power, thus any power assumed that is not granted is an usurpation. I know, I know, I shouldn't use facts or logic, but rather make ethereal unprovable assertions such as "the will of people(when was that on the ballots)", or prevailing sentiments (really we took a poll of every US citizen). No, the will of the people is found through the formality of the US constitution, and until amended remains so.
Lullaby's and Legends and Lies| 4.19.10 @ 7:06AM
Jethro Tull has a song from 1978, called Heavy Horses (off the album with the same name), that addresses the demise of technology and the triumphant return of the Clydesdale Horse. I only thought it was a good song back then, I didn't know Ian Anderson was predicting the future. I'm investing in oats from now on, and bike helmets!! But it's still a great Tull song, even if it is a depressing future!!
Old Soldier| 4.19.10 @ 7:30AM
How do we come to be governed by dope-addled sophomores?
Trains stink and Americans don't want them. New train routes are incredibly expensive to build because, unlike the 19th century, the valuable routes will be through towns and farms - not virgin forests. Just the cost of land acquisition will never, ever be recouped. The rails will never compete with cars and planes.
Does LaHood realize the bike paths around Philly were under 3+ feet of snow last winter? I’m supposed to ski to work? Go back to the campus, light up another bowl, and leave us alone.
PJ| 4.19.10 @ 8:54AM
Old Soldier,
You're absolutely correct! Train routes are expensive to build & also maintain. I visited Lithuania a few yrs ago & saw that their train system was horrible. ------ It was never maintained adequately during the Soviet era. Instead they invested in a bus system & it works for now: modern & clean buses running ontime. 1 reason why it's successful because there are not alot of cars traveling on the highways competing for lane space. Also, Lithuania is not a wealthy country. I'm wondering if this is what Obama has in mind.
Thomas Wilbur| 4.19.10 @ 11:43AM
You are right - buses not trains - just back from 16 years in Lithuania. Though they did manage to waste some money on last year's useless airport train station (2 mile trip to town).
Old Soldier | 4.19.10 @ 12:47PM
California and the federal government are spending $45 billion (before cost overruns double it) for high-speed rail from San Diego to San Francisco.
You can fly this route on Southwest for $100. How the train will be cheaper and ever pay for itself is a mystery that no politican has ever answered.
Flee| 4.19.10 @ 3:02PM
Not to mention all the environmental impact reports that will never let this so-called rail project get through the central valley unscathed. Can you imagine all the endangered species in the path of this boondoggle? I am more and more unhappy to be a resident of CA but hope we can fight our way through the morass.
Louis Jenkins| 4.19.10 @ 9:30AM
I'll tell ya what the Pretender n Chief has in mind. He has a third world country on his mind. He's already said as much. We'll be bicycling or walking to work where I live. About 12 miles one way. I only hope we can hang on until retirement.
Martin Owens| 4.19.10 @ 11:13AM
Retire?
pugsley| 4.19.10 @ 2:28PM
LJ-don't know how far you are from retirement but you assume there will be a job left to retire from. About the only way the gov can get people out of their cars is to raise the tax on gas to where a gallon costs about 10 dollars. I watched during the last runup when the cost went past 4 dollars people started making adjustments. Imagine another 3-4 dollars on the cost and you can see things taking a turn per gov whim. I don't know what the people living outside a ten mile ring from work would do other than move into the city. As for folks living in say west Texas or Montana where the distances can be mind boggling just to get groceries well at that point they would have to have a job deemed important enough to live out like that, farming or maybe oil production even though that may be outlawed in the rat future who knows? One thing is for sure, these rats (progressives) are bound and determined to have their way with us if they can.
Brent| 4.20.10 @ 1:01PM
It's curious, though -- here in L.A., I can usually drive my 10 mile commute in about 45 minutes, while bicycling it would take probably 55 minutes. There have been many times that I wish I had the real option to ride my bicycle, but the streets are just too dangerous.
Deborah D | 4.19.10 @ 10:03AM
These folks don't care about how this will actually affect the American people. They care about their "vision" of the country. Their utopian wish for us to turn the clock back (not them, mind you, just us!)
Walter Williams has asked if it's time we parted company from those who don't want to live by the Constitution.
"If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?"
Food for thought. You can read Dr. Williams here: http://townhall.com/columnists.....ng_company
Matt| 4.20.10 @ 10:47PM
Trains stink...
All opinion.
Fact: intercity rail ridership is up.
Up when the economy is far from recovered.
Why?
People are choosing them.
Le Cracquere| 4.19.10 @ 7:54AM
I have no patience with planners who would force Americans out of their cars. I have equally little patience with planners who have spent their working careers forcing us INTO them.
Right now, no one can speak coherently about what Americans want or would use, because their choices (spare me the scare quotes, Purple) and the free market have been trammelled by a transportation model at least as authoritarian as Ray LaHood. Thanks to Eisenhower-era social-engineering fads, Procrustean zoning codes, NIMBY special pleaders, and the corrupt land speculators and roadbuilders who comprise state DOTs, our current method of getting Americans from point A to point B is redder than a baboon's fundament.
If you want to take a whack at letting the free market dictate the pattern and modes of transportation...well, we can try it, but don't pretend it'll be anything but a first in our lifetimes. The government's been telling us how and to where we can and can't commute for generations, and NOW TAS finally has a problem with it?
Ryan| 4.19.10 @ 9:18AM
Seriously?
That's a bit overstated. The automobile is one of the finest expressions of freedom ever invented. Where are you prevented from going in America?
Paul from SA| 4.19.10 @ 10:40AM
Ryan,
Yep, and that's the most important point to remember: freedom.
And that's why liberals hate citizens having their own transportation that they cannot control.
Plus public transportation means more union crime, perverts, disease, and targets for terrorism, and billions of wasted dollars -- and miliions of wasted man-hours, waiting and waiting and waiting. Public transportation is for poor people.
Liberals in San Antonio have been dreaming of and pushing for a train-rail sytem or a trolley system for our city for 30 yrs. Our city is not designed like NY.... And I still don't understand how a train can pick me up at my house 15 minutes before work and drop me at work just in time.
Le Cracquere| 4.19.10 @ 2:46PM
So, Paul ... as long as I choose the single conservative-approved transportation mode on tap, denying myself and others the option to choose another one, I’m doing my part for freedom? And automobile users in S.A. DON’T waste billions of dollars and millions of man-hours, and experience comparatively little “waiting and waiting and waiting”? You might want to try commuting in Atlanta or L.A., and get back to me about how efficiently and freely the American motorist spends his days.
And I confess I’ve never run into the perverts on a train of whom you speak, but then how does the adage go... “If you can’t tell who the pervert on the train is, it’s you.” Uh-oh.
2Anglico| 4.19.10 @ 3:39PM
If you want to crawl on your belly to work, nobody is stopping you. Nobody is "forcing" you to drive a car. But the subject of the article would, if he could, FORCE a whole lot of people OUT of their cars. Therein lies the difference.
Le Cracquere| 4.19.10 @ 4:07PM
Only in the virtual, imprecise way that current policies force commuters INTO cars. In neither case do the policies amount to a literal proscription: they simply harass and inconvenience and prod consumers into a predetermined “choice.” Like you, I’m opposed to LaHood’s proposal of such measures. But I don't countenance such measures when they have the converse effect, either.
Le Cracquere| 4.19.10 @ 2:36PM
Is it? Well, then, I trust it can prosper under free-market conditions. I am glad to see that we’ve suddenly gotten religion about federal-transportation boondoggles and other related big-government abuses, but while we’re showing the door to rail lines, bicycle paths, and other such small potatoes, let’s not neglect to defund the Interstate Highway System, eliminate zoning laws, and stop our complaisant, taxpayer-funded construction of roads, power lines, and sewer pipes to any and all new developments. If the automobile remains Americans’ overwhelmingly preferred method of transport after these measures, I’ll concede your point.
And your last question strikes me as a non sequitur: I can go anywhere my means permit, and could go anywhere my means permitted even if the country sported more trains. So could you. For my part, i suppose I’d go considerably fewer places by car ... an exercise of choice that inexplicably strikes TAS as anti-freedom.
carnot| 4.19.10 @ 9:43PM
yawn. typically myopic pov on the services automobiles (and trucking) provide....much more than moving someone from point A to point B.
your thinking is one dimensional. it speaks to cost and not value.
Le Cracquere| 4.20.10 @ 8:21AM
Stirring, vague stuff. If you mean that autos carry less obvious benefits that other modes don't, one could point to an equal number of second-order DRAWBACKS that leave us back at square one--without any more justification for pro-auto social engineering than for the anti-auto species.
In short, I don't see why it's only NOW that conservatives are troubled by governmental monkeying with market estimates of automobiles' cost/value balance.
Ryan| 4.20.10 @ 8:39AM
Then you've been missing something. We haven't been actively promoting autos, but it's a near across-the-board conservative effort to limit public transportation as something rarely - if ever - cost-effective - PARTICULARLY rail.
Le Cracquere| 4.20.10 @ 12:49PM
Actually, "we" have been perfectly complaisant while Democratic and Republican administrations alike have, indeed, been actively promoting autos. Take a look at 20th-century U.S. transportation policy, and you'll find an unrelieved mess of big-government interference, pork-barrelling, and misbegotten sociological engineering that leaves us precious few data to say WHAT's most cost-effective under free-market conditions.
Ricky| 5.13.10 @ 3:04AM
I suspect that different free markets would work out different solutions to the same problem, based on population density, on wealth, on whomever's bullying their way through businesswise, and so on and so forth. Granted, a free market would probably involve plenty of driving, unless the development was dense enough to prohibit cheap parking, but such development would of course promote transit usage (or, in its absence, vanpooling and carpooling). And density has been known to crop up in unusual situations... why is Miami (a late blooming American city) so skyscraper-filled? Would development be denser in the absence of zoning and building requirements? What would happen? I know one thing - per capita infrastructure would probably be cheaper in a denser environment than in a more countrified one.
Ricky| 5.13.10 @ 3:07AM
Then conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot, because (if you haven't noticed) they haven't been actively limiting autos, which aren't very cost effective themselves. Sure, they generate money for those selling them, but otherwise?
Ryan| 4.20.10 @ 8:40AM
Taking tax money involuntarily from citizens to fund rail is NOT a free-market alternative. Public rail is more often a net loss.
Le Cracquere| 4.20.10 @ 12:58PM
Nor are gas taxes on cars that may or may not be using the interstates. Nor are publicly funded utilities (using tax money taken involuntarily from citizens) that undergird new development projects designed solely for automobile transit. NO option currently on tap is a free-market solution.
Brent| 4.20.10 @ 7:58PM
@Ryan: Does the U.S. highway system make money, or is it a net loss?
Matt| 4.20.10 @ 10:53PM
The federal government and a number of states have been transfering general fund monies to highway and transit programs for several years now. The fuel tax has been eroded by inflation, increased MPG vehicles, and less VMTs because of the recession.
Ricky| 5.13.10 @ 2:58AM
Not just the automobile, but also the airplane, train, ship, bus, and bicycle, and the notion of travel itself. The automobile, however, is an expensive expression of freedom, requiring taxes and insurance to maintain, and other forms of drudgery such as making sure everything's in working order. Furthermore, if you're in the backseat of one of those things, how can you be sure of where you're going? At least on a train or an airplane or a bus you have a clue. Also, if you're driving, you need to pay attention to the road all the time, lest you get into a damaging and expensive accident. That often leaves people with stiff necks after a long trip. At least on a train, ship, bus, or plane someone else does the driving while you can relax and do whatever.
Anything that takes anyone anywhere is a fine expression of freedom because it's able to take people somewhere. Unless, of course, that something is a prisoner transport. But that's a different story.
Melvin| 4.19.10 @ 8:03AM
Well, I thought I would never concede defeat to these people, but maybe Ray has a point... I'll trade in my motor vehicle for a government issued, "Jackass," and I'll ride the old girl to work to stop Global Warming.
"Giddyup Hillary, can't you plod any faster?" "Yee-ha; Yee-haw."
Mimi| 4.19.10 @ 9:29AM
Heh Melvin: Just wondering..... if the methane from the donkey poop will Give us more global warming!!! those Libs are so smart. I'm sick of being in their "TRY STUFF" lab.
Deborah D | 4.19.10 @ 11:42AM
Mimi -- Amen, lady! "TRY STUFF" lab is a perfect description of what they want the country to be. Just throw crapola against the wall and see what sticks...problem is it sticks to us!
carnot| 4.19.10 @ 9:45PM
hey...since Obama quickly dropped the objective of accountability in the government work force (performance based assessment).....your idea fits right in with Maobamaist attitudes toward government productivity and integrity!
Pingback| 4.19.10 @ 8:26AM
Obama’s Transportaion Dept. wants you out of your car -”It is a way to coerce people links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Dean| 4.19.10 @ 8:42AM
Can't wait to ride my bicycle on my 14-mile commute to work in northern Illinois in January.
carnot| 4.19.10 @ 9:50PM
can't wait to load 10 bags of mulch and 10 bags of top soil next Spring onto the train!
and my bad back? hey...tough xxxx...we live in the age of Maobama: individuals don't count (except when it comes to sexual proclivities). ride a bike!
FTM| 4.19.10 @ 8:53AM
I used to live in the middle of the National Socialist People's Republic of Illinois. Ray LaHood was a congressman from the NSPRI. He was an idiot then and some things never change. As a matter of fact, if you get out a map of the NSPRI and look you'll see that the only real good thing about this town's location was that whatever direction that you decided to leave town you were leaving the NSPRI.
Did I mention that the NSPRI is a jack-booted, government thug police state?
The town that I lived in in the NSPRI had a big "Rails to Trails" thing going back then, big left wing hippy, tree-hugger element. This town had two universities and lots an lots of elites more than happy to 'splain to you how you should live your life. This was in the midst of Komrad Klinton's "administration." I commented to my cop buddy that we were building a very convenient set of escape trunks all over town for window-peepers and burglers and vandals and bangers and the like. How nice, a trail that you can't get a cop car down. The cop buddy didn't agree at first, he's an avid hobby bicyclist. A year after the completion of the trails it was apparent to everyone with a pulse that the trails were being used by all manner of petty criminal for a variety of criminal activities as well as the local gang-bangers to move their wares about town without cop-car bourn interference.
So, based on the rip, rip, yippie-zip, roaring success of this fiasco in LaHood's own (former) constituency the only sane, logical thing to do is to make sure that everybody else in towns all across America get to enjoy the same set of problems.
Remember folks, Forrest Gump's Mama said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Purpleguy| 4.20.10 @ 1:05AM
what a ridiculous rant. Downstate Illinois has always been Republican country, and to say police cannot police trails and paths is just bull. But you knew that, didn't you?
George S| 4.19.10 @ 9:02AM
This is one shoe accelerating under gravitational pull... the other is when the federal government starts tying in highway funds to more and more of these initiatives being undertaken by the states. As states go broke, the prospect of a greater amount of highway funds will simply make them roll over.
As far as cars go, the higher mpg's will simply make us look like Europe -- small but fast and agile cars. However, the Europeans were never thwarted by the size of cars, what got them was the excise tax on automobiles, making them very expensive to buy new. The high cost of auto travel was one reason they embraced the high speed railways, for example. Look for taxes on new cars to be the next step.
It's all about getting our minds right. The real issue here is the freedom to get up and move whenever and wherever we want with no one telling us otherwise. Statists simply cannot stand that.
falcon | 4.19.10 @ 9:14AM
The larger issue here is the attempt (again) by the feds to take power from the states that belongs to them under the 10th Amendment. And states that depend on the Interstate Highway system (such as Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and the other less-heavily populated Western states) would see a decline in almost everything - from tax revenue to creativity - if cars were taken away from people. It may not fall under the same category as firearms, but many folks will react the same if you attempt to take away their independence (cars) - "you can have it when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."
Brent| 4.20.10 @ 1:42PM
But doesn't the Federal Government give States about 80 percent of their highway money? And if so, can't it dictate how it should be spent?
Back when (idiot) Carter lowered speed limits to 55MPH, no State was forced to do anything. But because every State suckles at the fount of Federal Highway Fund, they all went lockstep into that good night. That's what you call States with no backbone...
FTM| 4.19.10 @ 9:07AM
Along with LaHood, there was Carol Mosely-Braun. Idiot. There was Jessie Jackson Junior. Idiot and chip off the 'ol block. There was George Ryan, Idiot. And of late, Blago-whatever. Idiot. Seems to me that the NSPRI has a time honored tradition of exporting this type of "Progressive Thinker."
Condolences to the citizens of the State of Illinois that have long suffered this legacy of foolishness.
Martin Rheaume| 4.19.10 @ 9:12AM
So trains and bike paths are paths to socialism, but government subsidized roads and highways are....?
alert1201| 4.19.10 @ 9:51AM
Sorry Martin. Roads and highways are not subsidized. They pay for themselves through gas taxes.
victor| 4.19.10 @ 8:56PM
What would bike lanes be subsidised by? Hot Air?
carnot| 4.19.10 @ 9:53PM
hopefully...only by those who use them.
mark| 4.20.10 @ 9:45AM
No they don't. The Highway Trust Fund was broke last year and had to be bailed out by the general fund to the tune of $8 billion in 2009. I'd call that a subsidy.
And most people who own bikes also own cars. They're paying in, contrary to what most people on this message board are saying.
Brent| 4.20.10 @ 12:55PM
1) Gas taxes haven't paid the full bill for highways in years. For instance, the Texas DOT's website estimates it would need to raise gas taxes 175 percent to "keep the roads free (of tolls)."
2) Gas taxes have never addressed exterrnal costs such as bad air quality next to highways, toxic tire and lead-acid battery disposal, etc.
I plan to keep driving, but I don't know that we charge drivers anywhere near their "true cost."
Matt| 4.20.10 @ 10:59PM
Billions have been spent every year since the early 1970s by the Navy to secure the Straits of Hormuz to guarantee affordable fuel.
Whether you drive or not, you pay.
Its about choice! I drive 20,000 miles a year. But I would rather take a comfortable train on many of those trips were it available.
Ricky| 5.13.10 @ 3:12AM
First of all, that's still a subsidy. People are not necessarily subsidizing only the roads they are traveling on with those taxes, but they are also subsidizing the roads they DON'T use. Furthermore, it's a TAX... Second of all, the tax does NOT necessarily completely fund the roads and highways anymore, because cars are getting more efficient. Furthermore, people have to individually subsidize their cars with plenty of their own funds. That amounts to a lot of personal financial losses without any farebox recovery for the auto owners.
Becky| 4.19.10 @ 9:15AM
I just returned from the Kitchen and Bath show in Chicago. They are held every other year at the McCormik Center, this makes the sixth I've gone to.
It was dismal. I was shocked at the low turn out and the number of missing vendors. As a matter of fact, it was more notable for me by who or what was not there, than by what was. Missing: Bosch, LP, Whirlpool, Maytag, Samsung, no models in swimsuits in showers and whirlpools, no KBIS bookstore, no Meridith Corporation design idea houses, less celebrity cooks.
A show that used to take two days to walk and see could be covered in a few hours. This year there was a lot of room at the cafes to sit and eat. Easy to park.
The connection? The trajectory of expectations for middle class life is down. Not only will your cars be smaller, your lives will be also. Goodbye middle class dreams of granite countertops, 4' ranges, etc., as well as a two car garage. Goodbye having a little piece of property to teach your kid to catch, grow a patch of tomatoes, etc.
We will be living an inverse of Green Acres if we continue.
How will the black market in cars work? I profess all command economies have parallel black markets (they seem to be a more accurate example of free markets), and encourage more criminal activity than they discourage.
carnot| 4.19.10 @ 9:55PM
bingo.
it's already started in my area at a small level. there are now more personal services with folks specifically asking for cash transactions only that cannot be monitored by the gov't.
Ricky| 5.13.10 @ 3:17AM
....In some city, dreams may be different, but perhaps about as big as traditional American suburban middle class dreams. Some might dream of living in luxury skyscrapers with their own indoor swimming pools, granite and marble countertops, enormous stoves, a gleaming subway or fine old trolley with soft seats, first class service by bullet train, baseball in the central park, volunteer farms in the same park, a nice bicycle-path park with dog runs and playgrounds...
in other words: the car isn't really necessary for people to have wealth and freedom...hmm.
But of course people who never lived in New York City might not be aware of that.
owyheewine| 4.19.10 @ 9:20AM
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson
It was obvious over 200 years ago.
Mimi| 4.19.10 @ 2:06PM
Heh OWY: Europe... Europe Duh...Didn't that get settled in 1776. We then chose to become FREE thinkers,do-ers, independent liberty lovers. These libs should read some Alexis de Tocqeville . And get with the program! Oh well , we'll have to wait til November and 2012 for the sane, adults. We're showing our might, spunk, and they can call us being seditious, but we shall continue to aggravate them. KEEP UP THE FIGHT!!!!
Pingback| 4.19.10 @ 9:41AM
Driving Green News Watch » LaHood Gives the Green Light links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ellis Wyatt| 4.19.10 @ 9:55AM
This is delusional thinking that will disappear once adults regain power in DC. Its worth a good laugh now and a few years from now we will all look back and ridicule this administration. The American public will decide by its wallet what standard of living we seek and simple minded politicians will be dismissed when you start telling people they can't drive the car they want or live the life they desire.
carnot| 4.19.10 @ 9:58PM
you may be missing the point: this only peripherally about highways/transportation. it's really all about threatening State budgets and independence to realize centralized control exercised from inside 495.
randyinrocklin| 4.19.10 @ 10:00AM
LaHood was a Republican congress critter from IL. IL is ready to send another RINO to Congress Mark Kirk. we dont need anymore RINOs!
Pecos Pete| 4.19.10 @ 10:19AM
Inter/Intra/state bike roads will create the new ecomony ... bike-side rest stops, bike-side coffee shops, bike-side hospitals ... the new economy!
Pingback| 4.19.10 @ 10:35AM
Rebellion News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Maddox| 4.19.10 @ 10:42AM
Repeal, reverse, restore
Re-conservatize Republicans
Remember in November!
alert1201| 4.19.10 @ 10:54AM
You forgot...re-privatize!
Majito| 4.19.10 @ 10:50AM
Wow...after all these years this stinking thinking surfaces again? I was part of a planning commission back in the early 90's in a city adjacent to Washington State's capital of Olympia...the so called 'city fathers' and planners were trumpeting these 'grandiose' communities...they way the saw it was all these families living in z-lot concentration neighborhoods (a z-lot is a home with a backyard of 10x10 sq ft). all good citizens will walk to work so no auto was required...this walking would have promoted good health which in turn will reduce health care costs. Also, because of the proximity of work to the homes, they mandated the builder(was part of the licensing requirements) to build some type of community rec centers for the toddlers so they could be left there and employers will allow for flex schedules so workers could take turns and volunteer to take care of kids and thus reduce expenses...wow it was all so nice and peaceful...that's until the question came up...wait a minute, this is Washington state, it kinds of rain quite a bit and during the dark months (oct - mar) is dark, windy and very miserable outside so going to and coming from work became not so nice...then what? also, where are the companies that are going to locate so these utopias can work...how about businesses? once one started to dissect the plan, it came unraveled because the devil is always in the details...one eager entrepreneur bought several acres in what the city had expected to be their government hub and have it paved/zoned...all he needed was companies that wanted to tap into this nirvana...well the companies never came...the site was 5 miles away from the closest major highway, the state refused to put any buildings there (while they were building elsewhere), the city was too small to move their offices there and the guy with the land waiting for it all to happen almost went bankrupt..15 years later he convinced the city to change his permits to allow for single family homes to be build there...city agreed with two catches: 1. 10% of the property had to be for low income (they referred to it as 'affordable') housing. 2 15% of the property had to be set aside for a neighborhood park..Then the guy convinced lennar to come in there...however the 'community' homes were never built...homebuilders did not see a market for this type of community...what they were selling(and folks buying) was suburban type neighborhoods with ample yards in front and back (city ordinances mandating 25 ft setbacks front/rear plus 12 ft lateral setbacks ensure this) main access roads lost one lane to make a bike lane (both ways) and in general the traffic came to a crawl...did all these measures took folks out of their cars into the public transit? no...when u take public transit among the items you must deal with (besides weather and scheduling) is the incivility(stench) of so many of the younger riders...so i can't believe after almost 20 years these leftist/progressive clowns still at it...of course because they're so important, they still have their chauffeur (at taxpayer expense) executive sedans (taxpayer leased) transportation. the ones that need adjustment are we the peons...take arnie in california...all have to reduce expenses except him. living at the governor's mansion in sacramento is so beneath him he must cruise in his gulfstream vii to/from la everyday...but don't worry he's buying carbon credits in al gore's company to offset the energy usage/carbon footprint...is this was not incredibly, stupidly ridiculous it'll be funny
toms| 4.19.10 @ 10:50AM
Where's Monte Hall when you need him ?
Albert| 4.19.10 @ 11:04AM
Ray LaHood suffers from government tunnel vision. Only that which is begotten of government is good, and all else is evil. La Hood is an idiot, as was stated in an earlier post. Cars did not become the dominant mode of travel by accident or by governent program. Free people found a way to freely travel great distances. Before cars, there were horses, and horse drawn wagons and carriages. But the mode was still individual transportation, not collectivized transportation (mass transit). The car only mechanized independent travel and enlarged its range. The government did not lead this development by building roads first and waiting for cars to follow. Government FOLLOWED the trend by building roads in response to the need (e.g. market demand). The people drove the expansion of auto travel, and roads, infrastructure, gas stations, motels, etc... all followed. LaHood thinks that by facilitating alternatives, by building bicycle paths, high speed railways, etc... the people will follow government's lead and change their behaviors. But history shows that people's behavior (e.g the market) leads and government follows. LaHood thinks he and government can change human nature with a government program. LaHood is wrong, of course, but his blind adherance to anything government centered will never allow him to see this simple reality. Government builds bike paths all over the place, and only very few people use them. The people are not following. This of course illustrates the fundamental difference of worldviews between conservatives, who see the reality of human nature and take advantage of it, and liberal-socialists who see human nature as something to be overcome and changed by force of government. It can not be done, but idiots like LaHood will never understand that.
Brent| 4.20.10 @ 4:20PM
I'm not sure your history is quite accurate. Long distance travel before the car was done by rail, and before that was done by horse drawn coach or ship. (And before that, long distance just wasn't done, aside from exploration.) These methods were all private, "collectivized transport."
Petronius| 4.19.10 @ 11:13AM
The one thing missing in this piece is who the government is targeting in a tactical sense: business professionals who require the means to move to run their companies, and "Bubba" who wants a Tahoe to tow his boat to go fishing or a camper to hunt. If the day does come when he can't afford a vehicle big enough to chase bambi for a week there might be an open season on hippies and econazis with no limit. I'd also mention the weekend hot rodders of yore, but the modern engines and low octane ethanol finished them off 25 years ago.
SCM| 4.19.10 @ 11:51AM
Maybe we can buy all the used bicycles that the Chinese are trading in for new cars.
Pingback| 4.19.10 @ 12:17PM
April 19 - Steve's Links links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
LeChat| 4.19.10 @ 12:35PM
This is just another example of why the Democrat Party must be crushed in November. These people need to be flushed out of the system. Stay angry and vote.
Toni | 4.19.10 @ 12:50PM
I looked for the bill at Govtrack and couldn't find it. All I saw were Surface Transportation Extension bills. Could you please include a reference to the bill number? Thanks.
Pingback| 4.19.10 @ 1:44PM
Coercing people out of cars. « PoliticallyEmpowered.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.19.10 @ 1:52PM
Right Ohio » The Creepy-Crawly, Statist Agenda Behind Ted Strickland’s 3C Slow Train links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ned Ferguson| 4.19.10 @ 2:24PM
What an appropriate use of the word "eschatology."
RealityCheck| 4.19.10 @ 2:49PM
All that's going to happen is billions of wasted taxpayer dollars for rail lines, bike paths, and other idiotic ideas that will end up NOT being used. Like GUNS, Americans WILL NOT give up their cars.
These buffoons, idiots, and losers in the government are complete wastes of carbon.
Matt| 4.20.10 @ 11:07PM
"Americans WILL NOT give up their cars"
and no one is saying they have to. LaHood's comment was likely taken out of context.
Evidence: the majority of the stim money went to road construction, not rail or transit.
Northern Rebel| 4.19.10 @ 3:27PM
I find it telling that a RINO from Chicago's last name is "Lahood."
Now I know why it looked like he was puking in his mouth, during the house's impeachment proceedings against Clinton, over which he presided
Purpleguy| 4.20.10 @ 1:21AM
He's not from Chicago, you dittohead, he's from downstate Illinois - Republican country. You're completely wrong.
Marc Jeric| 4.19.10 @ 4:33PM
One can measure the degree of freedom by the number of orivate cars the people have. There is only one system of transportation that serves 24/7, that goes door-to-door, and is never on strike - and that is the privately owned car. That and the Constitution is what makes the freest people in the history of the world; and that is the main reason our communist government is bent on killing the private car.
Ricky| 5.13.10 @ 3:23AM
Hmmm.... what about sneakers, bicycles, motorcycles, Segways, scooters.......
It is not a communist government, it is not bent on killing our freedom, and it is, however, bent on giving the private car some competition. And what's wrong with competition?
IRISH22| 4.19.10 @ 5:29PM
Take away the cars. . . people move to the cities . . . Who lives in cities? . . . Democrat voters ! Adios "flyover states" !
Susan Grant| 4.19.10 @ 6:01PM
This article actually proves how 'out of touch' these liberal gurus are with everday life in America. LaHood wants care to avearage 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, which is a joke on him. We already have cars on the streets and expressways today that average 40 mpg!!!!! Maybe Mr. LaHood should get out of the office more and go by a Honda dealer an drive a new Honda Civic Hybrid. I have one and it averages 40 to 42 mpg depending on the traffic .What boozoos we have directing this nonsense in our lives today. In one area of Tennessee, the local sheriff had to stop bicycle riders from riding on some of the raodways because the roads were so narrow , several of them were killed over a two year span. They tried to sue the county and it was thrown out of court, so I guess they are riding in their driveways now because they are NOT allowed on our country roads in our county.Let's see Bams tell our governor he has to widen the country roads to accommodate the bicycle riders. I can just hear the laughter from the governor's mansion from here!!!!
Mike D. | 4.19.10 @ 6:31PM
There are many reasons to agree with this article.
That being said, I'll give a little of a defense on the HSR side as a result of my being an advocate for it, and please hear me out instead of mindlessly ripping my post.
First off, the "Vision for HSR in America" map is abysmal. Some of the projects are absolutely unnecessary (there's that government inefficiency again) and should not be included. That doesn't mean that if used strategically, HSR couldn't be a successful enterprise in America. I'd look at 4 lines in particular. First would be continued upgrade of the NE Corridor. This has already been aggressively started. If we could at least get the entire run to 120 mph, that's improvement enough for me. We're not going to hit 150 as it will need new catenary infrastructure which is far too costly as the passenger expansion ability is dwindling. However we can fix logjams like the CT section and get that up to snuff with the rest of the line. It is important to note that Amtrak has made significant strides on focused runs like the NE corridor. In 2001, Amtrak represented approximately 47% of commercial passenger trips between cities on the NEC, today that number has risen to 60%, a clear sign that on the right lines rail can be efficient.
Second would be true high speed from NY to Chicago. Incredibly, the Obama plan has mapped out a Chicago Hub network to Cleveland and the Keystone line to Pittsburgh but not linked the two. As the main goal of such a service is major intercity rail, why would this line not be complete? Stupidity, and your government inefficiency again. Currently, the options out of NYC are to go to DC then back up, or to go to Chicago via Albany and Buffalo. Both trips take around 19 hours due to being both out of the way and on relatively slow rails. Creating high-speed service from Harrisburg, PA to Chicago directly would have huge impacts on the timetable for NY and DC to Chicago. By car, 30th street Philadelphia to Union Station Chicago is 13 1/2 hours. By 120-150mph rail for the distance of the trip, that time is cut to 6 2/3 to 5 1/3 hours, and becomes competitive, especially when you factor in the ability to jump between Chicago, Toledo, South Bend, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Harrisburgh, and Philly. Add just over an hour to those times and you have Washington and New York in approximately 6.33 to 7.5 hours each. This time frame has shown to be competitive in the Northeast Corridor with flights, despite flight times in the 1.5-2.5 hour range, because as mentioned above Amtrak holds 60% of commercial passenger miles here. Additionally this opens up several regional rail connection options that may already be in place. Toledo-Detroit, Toledo-Dayton-Cincinnati, Cleveland-Columbus, etc. would all be accessible on this route.
The second of two "new" lines would be the California projects. Bay Area - SD high speed rail would be a great project for that highly populated area.
Finally, my last focus point would be expansion of the NEC to at least Raleigh if not Charlotte. This allows for increased efficiency of the existing NEC as it stretches stably into the southern portion of the DC metro as well as the Richmond and Triangle metro areas. Additionally, you increase efficiency of services that continue to the south, such as Auto Train, Silver Star, Crescent, etc. by improving times on these services just that little bit more.
I don't expect HSR to be the go-to mode of transportation in the US because we're so spread out. Even seemingly quality projects as the CHI-STL-KC system don't look all that enticing to me, the populations just aren't dense enough for me for that line to be warranted. But there's no reason we can't build off what we have in a very efficient manner. Amtrak has shown that it can be very competitive, and very efficient in dense markets. If you want to still drive Boston to DC and potentially face 4 major sets of traffic logjams, be my guest. I'll be on the rails with my laptop out and my headphones on, stretched out with possibly a beer and one of the best hotdogs on the planet.
It's all about compromise with HSR here, people. Do I think we'll get that from Obama, sadly not, but HSR isn't quite the bane some try to make it out to be.
Sara| 4.19.10 @ 6:50PM
I look forward to the day when every bicyclist in this country using a street meant for automobiles must buy a tag and pay road taxes, and must pass a test to get a biking license. We have so many bikers on our two lane mountain road that car traffic often crawls, while bicyclists weave in between cars at any speed they choose. They don't stop for stop signs or traffic lights either. If there's an accident though, the driver of the car is sued.
Hey guys! That yellow stripe down the center of the road in not the bike path.
uncle curmudgeon| 4.20.10 @ 2:14PM
Don't forget the state requirement to carry adequate libility insurance, Sara. Most of our local cyclists are public menaces, and self-righteously smug ones at that. I live in a college town and have seen the facts in this article played out almost perpetually for thirty years. The local buses drive around empty all day. The vast majority of the statistically insignificant bycycle traffic is recreational in nature. The most appalling part of all of this is the amount of money in various Housing, Transportation, and HHS slush funds that support "transportation" and othe "community" "activists" at the local levels. Come November we must kick these bums to the curb; with extreme predjudice!
Brent| 4.20.10 @ 8:05PM
@uncle curmudgeon: Have you had many drivers die or suffer injury because of cyclists? I haven't seen much statistical evidence of that.
Ricky| 5.13.10 @ 3:30AM
I agree on the buses - many bus routes are run by vehicles much too large for their crowds and could be better served by jitneys - but bicyclists are not public menaces, and their traffic would not have been so completely recreational if there were more places for them to go within cycling range (stores, jobs, etc.) In November, I will likely be voting FOR those bums, likely because the conservatives aren't sticking to their principles when they swoon for highway and airport building and rail and bicycle exclusion.
Ricky| 5.13.10 @ 3:25AM
...and this is one reason why the government is building bicycle paths.
streetfighter| 4.19.10 @ 7:19PM
Rail everywhere in the country is heavily subsidized. If people who used it actually had to pay an honest fare no one would ride. Same is true for any mass transit scheme.
Mike D. | 4.19.10 @ 11:18PM
That doesn't mean it's not a necessary part of our infrastructure. Try taking out the NYC subway, Metro-North, LIRR, and NJ Transit for 3 months and see what happens for example.
Brent| 4.20.10 @ 1:31PM
I believe every kind of transportation is subsidized, one way or another. The issue more one of degree than kind. Many drivers take it on faith that gasoline taxes cover the costs of driving, but that's a convenient fiction. The highway trust fund receives regular subsidies from the general fund.
TheRover| 4.19.10 @ 9:30PM
If you think about it what are the first things Communists always do when they take over a country....take control of the TV stations (media) and limit everyones travel. Soon, you'll be granted permission to visit grandma at Christmas 500 miles away, but only allowed to take your family of six on these two Schwinns. Happy Pedaling!
carnot| 4.19.10 @ 10:03PM
you know...without wanting to be incendiary...it has always been my belief that it might not be in the best interests of liberals to force us all into more "communal" societal relationships where we have to spend more time in close proximity.
Pingback| 4.20.10 @ 7:56AM
Streetsblog Capitol Hill » Today’s Headlines links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.20.10 @ 11:16AM
Transportation For America » Today’s Headlines – 4/20/10 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Charlie| 4.20.10 @ 11:45AM
It's about time we started having choices about how to get around. There is a huge pent up demand for walking, bicycling, and transit, but in many places our communities and our roadways are shaped almost entirely around the automobile. Having choices is something that Americans pride ourselves on, and the freedom to travel by whichever mode suits us best should be part of that. I don't want to force anyone of their car, but I would hope that the other options are appealing enough so that most people won't have to or want to drive for every trip.
Ricky| 5.13.10 @ 3:33AM
And that is exactly why conservatives should be FOR walking, bicycling, and transit, rather than AGAINST!
joshuadf| 4.20.10 @ 12:15PM
In Britain the Conservatives are proposing high-speed rail as a far cheaper way to move people between major cities than building new highways or subsidizing air travel. (And they offer another option during volcano episodes.) Japan Rail has privately operated high speed rail for decades. Why are US conservatives anti-rail?
Le Cracquere| 4.20.10 @ 1:08PM
Some of them appear convinced that people who live in the densely-populated areas that do best with rail are all liberals or members of the underclass, and should be thwarted by hook or by crook. Many posters above would flense the "civitas" from "civilization," if they could.
Many are also wrongly persuaded that their exurban houses, and the roads & utilities that lead to them, are totally the result of the free market at work.
Brent| 4.20.10 @ 1:18PM
Yeah, I don't get it. I consider myself conservative, but I can't understand why many other conservatives see transportation issues solely through the lens of cars, planes, and oil. It was a liberal who gave us the interstate (thank you President Johnson), and now it seems like conservatives are those the most invested in keeping it. Why? Meantime, we're killing 100 people a day on our roads, our commutes are getting slower, our children can't walk to school anymore, and our health is getting worse. And we want to preserve this way of life?
MAT| 4.20.10 @ 2:50PM
Wow, never read this magazine before. I'm shocked by the neanderthalic language used by the so-called patriots who post in support of overthrowing our current government. Where were you when Herr Bush was leading our nation down a path to annhilation? Gleefully trailing along, no doubt. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class becomes non-existent. That is the Conservative way. Thanks for destroying the American dream, morons.
canuckistani| 4.20.10 @ 4:16PM
Keep reading and responding.....the general readership is a mix of disaffected urbanites and isolated suburban basement dwellers that likely do not even vote.
If you're a fiscal conservative (as I am), you'll blush at the rants on here. Obama, for all of his faults, was right when he suggested these fools cling to their guns and religion as ways to legitimatize their bigotry. Unamerican language pervades......enjoy!!
Tenn Slim| 4.21.10 @ 8:47AM
All
Opine
bt
I travel the SE Hwys, to NE Ark, and beyond. Note of late. Independents are not out there. Corp OTR rigs highly visible, but not indys.
bt
DOT, EPA cooperation is simply one Action Front of the OBNA. We can refer to almost any OBNA Agency, Cabinet Dept and note similar activity. The Urgency of the OBNA is evident. They know full well the clock is ticking. An informed USA Electorate is moving forward and the OBNA fears this greatly. IAW with this article as a spring board, I offer the following.
bt
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Your Choice:
A Socialistic USA or Capitalistic Republic USA?
Opine:
We stand at a Cultural Crossroads, Socialism ala Obama presidency vs. Capitalism ala the Founders Republic.
In order to properly decide, to make your personal choice in this point in our history, I recommend your attention to this analogy.
Just as the Blues Musicians did, so long ago, we now stand at the Crossroad of the Nations Hwy 61. Down this road comes a long limousine filled with promises of a Cradle to the Grave Support. The driver and passengers are dedicated, anxious and eager to promote their cultural life style. On the other path of this Hwy of National Decision comes a 4 wheeler, dirty, sturdy, filled with Can Do Workers, also dedicated, obviously in a hurry for your decision, as the cultural life style they espouse is individualistic and risk filled.
Your choice.
Here is a process to help you decide.
Educate your mind via your information sources, your spouse, and your children, know your enemy.
Compare your resources, validate your information thrice over, and know your intelligence sources veracity in depth.
Correlate your knowledge, measure thrice, cut to your decision with power, valid knowledge, and act quickly with decisiveness.
Decide, move forward thru the center, always watching your flanks, never be blindsided again.
Reference texts for your review.
“Masters of Deceit” Circa 1954 J. Edgar Hoover.
History 20th century USA, till 1950.
“Come Nineveh, Come Tyre“, Allen Druryer Circa 1973 ce
Novel of USA decision making process, while faced with absolute disaster
“Russia” D. J Shipler Circa 1973 ce
Survey of Soviet Russia 1900 to 1980, cultural, personal histories.
“Let History Judge” Roy A. Medvedev Circa 1971 ce
Dissident Russian viewpoint of Soviet Russia.
“Rules for Radicals” Circa 1965 S. Alynski.
A text depicting methodology for revolutions.
“Art of War” Sun Tzu Circa 1500 ce
Methodology used for centuries to conduct internal and external conflicts. How to win via Chinese Historical methods.
“Common Sense” Circa 1781 Thomas Paine.
A treatise on the Trials of Men in creating a government For the People, By the People, of the People.
“Constitution of USA” Circa 1787 Founders
Our Current Rule of Law.
“Bill of Rights of USA” Circa 1775 Founders
Our Initial statement of Independence.
“9/12 Values and Principles” Circa 2010 Conservative Independents.
Current Moral and Value statement of Conservatives.
“Common Sense” circa 2010, G. Glenn
Text on Principles of Conservative values.
“A Time for Freedom” L. Cheney Circa 2101.
Timeline of American Exceptionalism events.
“WW2 Reason De Terre” 4 Four Freedoms statements.
Freedom from Want, Fear, Freedom of Religion, Speech.
Recommended Analysis Method for your decision.
Read:
Evaluate, apply to today’s Societal and Cultural changes as embodied in the OBNA Fundamental Transformation of USA movement.
Compare:
The details, the pros and cons of each imbedded idea & statement vs. the OBNA Movement for Fundamental Transformation of the USA Culture.
Correlate:
The historical results outlined vs. the OBNA predictions and actual Czar controlled Action Fronts, as contained in the Fundamental Transformation Movement agendas.
Make an educated decision:
Currently the nation stands divided. Your choice will make a difference.
Semper Fi
End
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Danny L. Newton| 4.21.10 @ 9:56PM
La Hood is a dangerous progressive. Watch for the Interstate to be tolled after the 2010 elections.
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4672
Brent| 4.24.10 @ 7:59PM
Would road privitization be preferable? If the current gasoline taxes aren't enough to pay for upkeep -- and it seems they aren't -- then perhaps the government could lease out the roads for, say, 99 years to private entities, who could then be responsible for their maintenance. That way, instead of the government raising taxes or charging tolls, we could just pay tolls to a private corporation instead, which presumably would no longer be a progressive idea, but rather the free market at work.
kelbel| 5.4.10 @ 11:25PM
jeeesus you guys are angry. Maybe it is from sitting in traffic all day. I'm sure that most of you do not live in these areas (Phoenix, LA, Miami, ect), but there are many places where people would gladly trade in their car for anything else if there was only an option to do it safely and efficiently. I'm not just regurgitating a party line--I talk to people all the time who can't believe how much they enjoy the new lightrail here in Phoenix. You guys don't want to participate, fine; cars do make much more sense in many situations. You act like Lahood is going to personally firebomb every car in America.
Here in Phoenix, I ride my bike most everywhere because it is usually faster and more pleasant than driving my car. I can only imagine how many more people would make the switch if measures were taken to make the cycling environment less scary to less experienced riders. These measures do not have to use many of your precious tax dollars (that I pay too, mind you. And I'm not terribly happy when they get thrown away on inane foreign conflicts.). Infrastructure does not have to be drastically changed. A few signs making motorists aware of the laws pertaining to bicycles will suffice if EVERYONE is held accountable for following the rules of the road. You complain about cyclists weaving in and out of traffic and behaving unpredictably. This should not be ignored by law enforcement, and it rightfully makes motorists angry. No one wants to kill someone just because they are acting like an ass. Likewise, I should not have to fend off drink cups and angry gestures when I am in complete compliance with the laws. I would happily pay a tag fee and get a license if it would convince you guys that we are legitimate users of the road.
fdsjk| 7.1.10 @ 1:29AM
beijing massage shanghai girl