On Being American, Or, "A Hybrid? Not Unless It Has Tail Fins"

by: fake consultant

Fri May 22, 2009 at 11:44:46 AM EDT

You know why?

Because for the most part, they have no...style.

The Prius?
If you look at it sideways, and squint, it looks more like a pepita than a car.

The Insight?
They say it's stylish...but it looks like a Prius to me.

You know what I want?
I want someone to build the biggest, nastiest, most oversized hybrid the world has ever seen.

Something drenched with chrome, with seating for...many, and a convertible top; and maybe, if all my dreams come true: tail fins.

Something crazy.
Something ridiculous.
Something...American.

Well, guess what?

Somebody's already gone out and had one built-and ironically, that somebody is Neil Young, Canadian.

From Niagara Falls To NYC: It's Time For High Speed Rail

by: phillip anderson

Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 13:56:34 PM EDT

At a decidedly low-speed press conference featuring over a dozen speakers, David Paterson and Chuck Schumer, with great fanfare, unveiled an updated state rail plan that calls for greater rail-freight use as well as high-speed passenger rail from Niagara Falls to New York City.

Paterson called the plan "honest and achievable," promising that with $3 billion of funding, the high-speed service (110 m.p.h.!) that upstaters have long lusted for could become reality within three to five years.

He likened the project's significance to the Erie Canal.

"We know what needs to be done," said Schumer. "We have the means to attack the mountain that was lack of money."

The means, of course, being the federal stimulus package.

The project is indeed, using the buzzword of the last few months, "shovel ready" and long overdue. A press release from the Governor's office fleshes out some details:

The Plan presents an inventory of freight and passenger rail system infrastructure needs in New York State totaling more than $10.7 billion during the next 20 years. The Plan also presents trends in rail freight and passenger use and was the focus of considerable public review, including a 45-day public comment period and public workshops held last summer in Buffalo, Binghamton and New York City.

The Plan outlines priorities for funding consideration from the $9.3 billion dedicated for Intercity Rail in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the reauthorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Act which is due October 1, 2009 and for the development of the next State transportation plan, which will succeed the current plan following the 2009-10 State Fiscal Year.

Specifically, it calls for:

         o Doubling the number of intercity rail passengers along New York's three major corridors: New York City to Albany, Albany to Niagara Falls and Albany to Montreal, as well as strategies to increase reliability on all three corridors;
         o Providing frequent and convenient passenger rail service connecting cities across the State as an energy and time-saving alternative to driving or flying, helping to reduce congestion on highways and at airports. Rail plan goals include:
                     # Achieving on-time performance of at least 95 percent between Albany and New York City;
                     # Improving rail service between Albany and Niagara Falls, with connections in Utica, Syracuse and Rochester. The Plan includes a Third Track Initiative, which aims to establish a dedicated third track for high speed passenger rail service across Upstate from Niagara Falls to Albany with a potential for reducing the travel time by 2 hours or more;
                     # Shortening the travel time for rail service between Albany and Montreal. Currently, trains take about eight hours to make that trip. The Plan's goal is to reduce that time to 6.5 hours; and
                     # Establishing new passenger service, where viable, such as between Saratoga and Albany, Niagara Falls and Buffalo, and Binghamton and New York City;
         o Increasing freight rail usage by 25 percent to reduce growth of truck traffic and energy consumption;
         o Allowing modern freight cars to access the New York City metro area and Long Island along routes east of the Hudson River;
         o Adding at least three new intermodal facilities/inland ports across the State to serve the rapidly growing container segment of rail traffic, which will help remove long-haul trucks from highways and deliver products to consumers faster; and
         o Creating the first "green" short line fleet in the nation.

In addition to the Third Track Initiative, the Plan identifies a number of rail infrastructure initiatives that would strategically improve intercity passenger rail service across New York State. Estimated to cost $671 million over the next five years, these priority projects are expected to be eligible for federal funding assistance. These rail infrastructure improvements would be implemented in partnership with rail service providers.

In establishing goals for the future, New York State's 2009 Rail Plan makes clear the critical importance of a strong federal partnership in support of modern, efficient rail service. Historic federal legislation authorizing funding for intercity passenger rail was approved last year, making a State rail plan a condition of receiving federal rail funds. Since much of the rail system in New York is privately owned, the Plan also highlights the need for partnering with private railroads and other stakeholders to make infrastructure improvements that will make rail travel more attractive to consumers and the business community.

Rail service can be an important contributor to reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Rail consumes less energy than most modes of long-distance travel and reduces congestion and vehicle emissions as well. A single intermodal freight train can carry hundreds of cargo containers, removing as many as 280 trucks from roadways while using significantly less energy than highway travel. Trains can move a ton of freight an average of 435 miles with each gallon of fuel. Furthermore, intercity passenger rail uses 20 percent less energy per passenger mile traveled than automobiles and 17 percent less than airline travel.

The Rail Plan is the product of collaboration between public agencies, elected officials, planners, Amtrak and New York's privately owned freight railroads. This effort included an extensive outreach program including daylong, interactive, public workshops to obtain direct input and comments from transportation advocacy organizations, rail industry stakeholders and the public. This approach was aimed at maximizing the Plan's benefits for all New Yorkers and ensuring that proposed rail capital and service improvements are consistent with public needs.

Of course, the high speed rail provisions are but a portion of the overall plan, though I think it's the sexiest part. The entire plan can be read here. It's good stuff.

Call Slaughter And Arcuri To Support Nadler, SUPERTRAINS

by: phillip anderson

Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 14:49:56 PM EST

Things are moving fast on the stimulus bill, but a short window has opened where we can make a difference on rail and mass transit funding in the stimulus. Here is the situation:

As reported by WI Dem in Quick Hits, several House members are submitting amendments to  increase rail funding to the stimulus package:

The amendment would distribute $1.5 billion for the Transit Capital Assistance Program and $1.5 billion for Capital Assistance Grants, known as the New Starts Program.

The bill is introduced by Representative Nadler, and can be read here. There are other amendments introduced by Representatives C. Brown and Hare, that would increase rail funding by $3.9 billion and $500 million respectively. Any and all amendments to increase rail funding would be great.

These amendments must be approved by the House Rules Committee today in order to be considered on the floor tomorrow. The Rules Committee will be meeting at 3:30 p.m. eastern to consider amendments to the stimulus bill.

This gives us two hours to make our voice heard for more rail funding in the stimulus bill. To do so, please contact the Rules Committee. Politely state your support for the Nadler, Brown and Hare amendments for increased rail funding. Ask the committee to approve these amendments for a floor vote tomorrow.

Their phone number is 202-225-9091.

This is a very short window, as the situation is fluid and happening fast. However, this also means we can make a difference. Please call now, and let the Rules Committee hear your support for the Nadler, Brown and Hare amendments to increase rail and mass transit funding.

Here's the contact info for Reps Arcuri and Slaughter:

Chair Louise Slaughter, New York 28th
(202) 225-3615

Rep. Michael Arcuri, New York 24th
(202) 225-3665

Light 'em up.

Bail Out or Build Anew

by: Dan Jacoby

Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 13:44:55 PM EST

As speculation continues over whether, and how, the Bush administration will choose to tap the TARP for $14 billion to bail out two enormous, domestic-owned automobile manufacturers, little discussion is given to whether there is a better way. While people debate the wisdom of keeping alive companies that have made many terrible business decisions in the past, nobody is debating whether to switch from automobiles to some other form of transportation. We should.

Our blindness to transportation systems other than automobiles is nothing new, and is the result of decades of propaganda, as well as monopolist and other crooked business practices, in the auto industry and related businesses.

Undeniable Spending

by: BingChester

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 13:12:47 PM EDT

Dredging up a trucking trainwreck in the 125th

by: simonstl

Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:20:04 AM EDT

It's been a very up and down week for Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton.

On the bright side, she announced $2 million for dredging Cayuga Inlet, addressing an expensive problem that had been getting worse for a long long time.

On the other, she generated headlines like "Assemblywoman Lifton irritates garbage truck task force, others" because of an event she held where she was would be "facilitating a meeting with the Upstate New York Safety Coalition Task Force to discuss the ongoing issue of trucks hauling solid waste on two-lane state highways".

It sounds like the meeting didn't quite go as planned. Her Republican fellow legislators asked why she wasn't joining them in sponsoring legislation that would "designate the state Department of Transportation as the truck-routing agency that would have the authority to designate what routes trucks can travel."

Lifton protested that the DOT was opposed, and that the bill wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Democratic U.S. Senator Schumer's representative at the meeting, however, disagreed:

"I do have to respectfully disagree in terms of the constitutionality component," she said. "We've done a lot of vetting and truck agencies absolutely can be created. There are states where they exist. The key element is that reasonable access is afforded because that is where we get into some of those interferences with clauses. As long as that's done we have every assurance that there is precedent constitutionally to do so."

The DOT doesn't seem so clear in its opposition, either:

Skip Carrier, a public information officer at the DOT, said the department has not taken a position yet. Carrier was not at the meeting.

"We're looking at the legislation and are reviewing it," he said. "We haven't taken a position on these bills yet."

Lifton's current position seems to be that a "blue-ribbon commission" is needed to further study the issue.

So, what do you think? Is this a case of a Democratic Assemblywoman doing a properly cautious job, or a case where a legislator doesn't want to push on a Democratic conference (and maybe the Governor) who'd prefer to keep trash rates down?

[Sorry, Robinia - this was just too richly conflicted a story to pass up.]

Spitzer announces $30.7 million in transit funding

by: robert.harding

Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 14:32:45 PM EST

Governor Eliot Spitzer today announced $30.7 million in state and federal transit funding for urban and rural public transportation systems to purchase new, clean-fuel buses and support infrastructure improvements to transit facilities. Collectively, these systems help transport more than 240 million passengers annually.

Counties, cities and Upstate regional transportation authorities in urban areas will receive $16 million in state-funded Transit Capital grants. An additional $14.7 million in federal funds will be provided to smaller public transportation systems in the state's rural areas.

"This significant investment in transit will help provide more efficient, reliable bus, rail and ferry services to residents all across New York State," said Governor Spitzer. "The funding will also encourage transportation agencies and municipalities to reduce pollution by using clean-fuel vehicles while also supporting regional economic vitality by providing consumers greater access to businesses for needed goods and services."

This is huge for the urban and rural areas of New York State. In the urban areas, this will help cities purchase clean-fuel buses and improve railways and ferry systems. Overall, not only does this help improve infrastructure, but it also promotes utilizing clean energy in transporting citizens of a city.

I speak from experience how important this funding is for the rural areas is as well. We have a state highway in the Town of Shelby/Village of Medina, Route 31, which is seeing more and more business growth. We have an ethanol plant, a brand new Aldi grocery store, and then a plethora of other businesses (Valu, Dollar General, Pizza Hut, McDonald's, another pizza place, insurance agency, and a Tops plaza).

This is the list of cities and counties receiving this transit funding. Not only will this promote cleaner energy and improved transit systems, but it will also help spur economic development.  

Bruno Pretends to Care About Intercity Rail

by: Roatti

Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:42:25 AM EDT

While these improvements are certainly needed, acting as if $22 million is some significant amount almost causes more harm than the good these monies create- creating a first-rate intercity high-speed rail infrastructure in NYS will cost in the tens of billions of dollars- acting like $22 million is significant just makes the potential larger and necessary appropriations look that much more burdensome and scary to legislators. 

If we are ever going to get serious about intercity rail in New York, the back-patting for miniscule amounts of pork has to stop.

Finding a Path for Upstate New York

by: simonstl

Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 13:41:44 PM EDT

Upstate New York is trapped by its past and offers a glimpse of the rest of the country's future.

Its past was one of wealth and innovation, providing a place where the ideas and commerce of New York City melded with that of the rest of the country. Canals and railroads brought people, goods, and ideas through it and to it. The "Empire State" was more than just the city that shares its name, a much larger place that grew wealthy in prosperous times and developed its own sense of place.

That glorious past came to an end after World War II. At least symbolically, Upstate's decline can be marked from the opening of the St.Lawrence Seaway. What had been a vibrant transportation corridor since the Erie Canal's opening in 1825 began a slow drift into a world of uncertainty. The Port of New York's steady decline, the rapid growth of road networks, and the shift of manufacturing toward ever-cheaper places took away Upstate's powerful position as a good place to start or run a business.

The place most obviously damaged by these shifts in transportation was Buffalo, the city where the grain elevator was invented to ease the transfer of grain between the Great Lakes and the Erie Canal. Its decline as a transfer point reduced its advantages dramatically, though Niagara Falls still provides hydropower. It's not just Buffalo or even the "Thruway cities" (formerly "canal cities") - Hornell's Erie Railroad repair shops shut down, as did shops across the state. Manufacturing now had less reason to be here, as new transportation corridors opened all over the county. New York agriculture found it harder to compete against California produce, which could break the seasonal cycle thanks to cheap transportation.

As hard as current New York residents may find it to believe, an intricate web of business relationships used to connect Upstate and Downstate tightly together. The New York Central might have been most famous for Grand Central Station, but its core routes roughly followed the old Erie Canal route before shifting south of the Great Lakes. Goods flowed to and from the Port of New York, and to and from the incredibly diversified manufacturing that flourished in New York City. As both of those keys to New York City's importance declined, the value of placing businesses along those routes declined too. New York City doesn't have any intrinsic need to get much - except for its water supply - from Upstate. (Connections to the midwest simultaneously declined in importance, as did the old ties to Pennsylvania coal transport.)

Congestion Pricing: STILL Good for New York's Middle Class

by: ElanaDMIBlog

Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 14:05:21 PM EDT

This year on Earth Day, Mayor Bloomberg unveiled a sweeping 127-point plan for New York City to confront the challenges of population growth, aging infrastructure, and environmental sustainability over the next 25 years. As many New Yorkers know, one part of the plan is a proposal to implement congestion pricing in Manhattan below 86th Street. The Drum Major Institute analyzed the congestion pricing proposal, invited the Deputy Mayor of London to speak with New York City policymakers about her city's experience with congestion pricing, and concluded that the congestion pricing proposal would have a positive impact on the city's current and aspiring middle class. By the end, we were so impressed overall by PlaNYC's bold vision for a sustainable city that DMI honored Mayor Bloomberg for creating it.

But like so many policies crucial to the city's fate, congestion pricing requires approval from Albany before it can be implemented. Governor Spitzer supports the plan. The State Senate passed legislation to implement it. But the State Assembly has refused to act, despite the fact that $500 million in federal transportation funding may depend on quick action.

Today a new report (not yet available online) released by the Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions, chaired by Richard Brodsky, sheds some light on the Assembly's disagreement with the plan.  Unfortunately, at a time when New Yorkers need a serious discussion about the city’s growth over the next 25 years, about how we will deal with clogged streets, poor air quality, underfunded mass transit system, and the threat of global warming, the Assemblyman Brodsky's report instead offers a grab bag of critiques that fail to understand crucial aspects of PlaNYC 2030 and the congestion pricing plan specifically. 

First of all, it is absurd to describe a plan that would massively redistribute resources from drivers, who have a higher average income, to transit riders, many of whom who have very low incomes, as regressive. By proceeding as though the right to drive a private car cheaply into Manhattan were an evenly distributed "public good" to begin with, Assemblyman Brodsky fails to notice the millions of New Yorkers trying to work their way into the middle class who don't own cars and have no choice but to take mass transit, no matter how poor the quality. These New Yorkers are among those with the most to gain from congestion pricing and the nearly half a billion dollars in transit investment it would generate annually.

"Equity" cannot be defined as everyone having a chance to engage in behavior that has inherently inequitable impacts. As demonstrated in DMI's recent report, "Congestion Pricing: Good Policy for New York’s Middle Class," congestion itself disproportionately impacts the city's current and aspiring middle class. Middle-class New Yorkers already pay price for congestion with poor health, environmental damage, lower quality of life, and less economic growth, even though the majority of them never drive a car into midtown Manhattan.

Assemblyman Brodsky's critique systematically overlooks the negative impact of driving cars as compared to other means of transportation. Despite the fact that concern about reducing greenhouse gases is a major motivation for the congestion pricing plan, no reference to climate change or global warming can be found anywhere in the Committee report.

As an alternative to congestion pricing, Assemblyman Brodsky suggests we consider a far more regressive plan -- raising fees on mass transit riders (that is, "time of day pricing on mass transit.")  Not only would this proposal disproportionately burden lower-income transit riders, it would do little to alleviate congestion in our streets, would not improve air quality, and would worsen global warming by discouraging New Yorkers from taking less-polluting mass transit. Suggesting an increase in mass transit fees as an alternative to congestion pricing shows that Assemblyman Brodsky fundamentally misunderstands the aims of the congestion pricing plan.

we're liveblogging the congestion pricing panel

by: ElanaDMIBlog

Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:41:04 AM EDT

May 18 in the Marketplace of Ideas: Congestion Pricing

What can New York City learn from London about congestion pricing? Find out on May 18th when Nicky Gavron, Deputy Mayor of London, joins us in an event cosponsored by DMI and the Partnership for New York City. Deputy Mayor Gavron is a leader in the efforts to combat global warming and responsible for London's work in this area, including congestion pricing. 

Freeing 3 Million Bus Riders from the Tyranny of Traffic; An immediate and often overlooked benefi

by: ElanaDMIBlog

Fri May 11, 2007 at 15:59:41 PM EDT