Several years ago it was predicted that the Highway Trust Fund would stop being able to meet budgeted funding levels in 2009. The reduction in VMT due to gas prices has moved up the crisis point to, well… now.
It’s bad enough that even President Bush is considering reversing his position on transfering funds into the Trust.
The local impact is still being sorted out.
0 responses to “Highway Trust Fund Running on Fumes”
Just another example how conservative “economics” has run this country into the ground. Mention a gas tax increase to make up the shortfall and listen for the screeching monkeys… they would rather play a shell game than address the real economic problems in this country.
to be fair, the entire country is running on fumes.
The question is, if we somehow wriggle out of Iraq (btw, don’t listen to people who say we spend $X million a day on the way, a majority of that money is being spent if those guys are home or abroad) and drastically changed our nation from one of World Policeman to say, happy independent state (ala, say, Canada), how much could we shave off of our military budget? With Russia stepping up it’s posture a bit, what are the risks of vastly stepping down our military spending?
(btw, don’t listen to people who say we spend $X million a day on the way, a majority of that money is being spent if those guys are home or abroad)
Actually, various estimates I’ve seen of this have mentioned that their figures are above and beyond standard procurements for peacetime troop costs. YMMV.
Mention a gas tax increase to make up the shortfall and listen for the screeching monkeys
The unfortunate part of that statement is that the screeching monkeys make up more than half the public.
It’s downright freaking scary!
A large part of the reason the Federal Highway Trust Fund is running out of money is because of the socialistic control policies promoted by Congressman Blumenauer, Mayor Elect Adams, Metro and others. In practice, these elitist policies support raiding motorist paid roadway funds (20 percent or more of the Federal Highway Trust Fund) to finance swanky streetcars, transit systems and transit oriented development; bicycle infrastructure; and wasteful spending media propaganda programs such as the drive less save more campaign. Federal Highway Trust Fund money comes from only one source, the taxes paid by motorists on motor fuels, There is no financial reimbursement into the fund from alternative modes of transport or drive less schemes that include a the collective line of attack to get people out of their cars. Higher fuel mileage standards also add to the depletion of the Federal Highway Trust Funds.
All this purely demonstrates the need to implement both a national tax and locally collected taxes on transit fares, and both a national and a local bicycle tax. The extorting motorist paid roadway taxes to subsidize and fund other modes of transport is completely outdated and must come to an end.
Yes, let’s end socialism by raising taxes. Brilliant idea, Terry.
Chris Smith wrote: The reduction in VMT due to gas prices has moved up the crisis point to, well… now.
What is interesting is that the recent news articles do not point out that the HTF was known to exhaust its surplus not because of a reduction in revenues, but rather overspending of the available balance. (Thank you, #43.)
It doesn’t help that 20% of the revenues get skimmed off and go to the “Mass Transit Account”. which is often propped up with other sources of revenue (general fund). However the 20% reallocation is hardly anything new, IIRC it’s been in place since the 1970s.
It also doesn’t help the massive runup in inflation in the last few years has helped increase project costs, helping to further deplete this account.
The reduction in vehicle miles travelled is a small factor, and hardly the only factor, as to why this fund is being depleted.
For comparison’s sake, the Airports & Airways Trust Fund has a MASSIVE surplus because few projects which are funded through that account are actually getting anywhere. So while airport users and airline passengers get to pay that $2.50 PFC tax (among other taxes), the money gets to sit in a nice bank account.
Terry Parker:
Federal Highway Trust Fund money comes from only one source, the taxes paid by motorists on motor fuels,
Uh, well, not entirely.
How is the HTF funded?
Tax revenues directed to the HTF are derived from excise taxes on highway motor fuel and truck-related taxes on truck tires, sales of trucks and trailers, and heavy vehicle use. The Mass Transit Account receives a portion of the motor fuel taxes, usually 2.86 cents per gallon, as does the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, usually 0.1 cent per gallon. The General Fund receives 2.5 cents per gallon of the tax on gasohol and some other alcohol fuels plus an additional 0.6 cent per gallon for fuels that are at least 10 percent ethanol. The Highway Account receives the remaining portion of the fuel tax proceeds.
Jeff, thank you for the clarification.
Still all the money in the Federal Highway Trust Fund is derived from motor vehicle users and not transit passengers or bicyclists that are using infrastructure paid for and/or subsidized by the fund. That is my point. Using the money on programs where they don’t pay taxes directly back into the fund is self destructive of replacing the original dollars. With roadways, there is a return to the fund on the investment. With transit systems, bicycle infrastructure and slanted media programs, there is not. That is why there is a critical need to implement both a national tax and local taxes on transit fares, and both a local and national bicycle tax. This is not socialism, but is a balanced user model approach whereby the users of all vehicle modes of transport contribute to the fund to replenish the dollars for the specific infrastructure they are using. The current system of milking motor vehicle operators as cash cows to pay for other modes of transport while those users of those modes pay no taxes for the infrastructure they use is the part that is socialistic, and a big part of why the fund is running out of money.
The same type of thing is happening locally too. Right here in Portland there is a backlog of street maintenance due to a lack of funds. A big part of the reason is that a considerable amount of the motorist paid tax dollars designed to pay for street maintenance has over the years been siphoned of on misaligned priorities to pay for streetcars, curb extensions for transit stops, bicycle infrastructure, etc. The users of this infrastructure do not pay any direct taxes back into the maintenance fund to recover the dollars so again the same problem exists. Moreover, with streetcars, there is an additional drain on street maintenance funding because parking meter revenues that ought to be going to street maintenance are being siphoned off to subsidize streetcar operations. Again, all this demonstrates the critical need for implementing both transit farebox taxes and directly taxing the bicycling mode of transport thereby broadening the base of taxpayers and balancing the load.
Terry, I thought you said that curb extensions and bike lanes and all that slowed cars down, increased emissions, and forced them to use more gas? Doesn’t that pretty much mean that those things should increase gas tax revenues, where as widening roads, (which, according to you and Rex, speeds cars up, decreases emissions, and uses less gas,) should result in decreasing gas tax revenue.
Something smells fishy here. I propose a test: Put Portland on a road diet for 20 years, and see if the problem gets better or worse.
None of this is gonna matter,
Mcain is gonna win and we can all start the countdown to:
END OF DAYS.
http://contenderministries.org/prophecy/endtimes.php
[ya think I’m kidding don’t ya? it’s no joke if that guys wins, which he will!]
Terry, I see you have once again mentioned the “bicycle infrastructure”. Maybe I continue to miss your explanations, but I do not understand what you refer to here. The implication in your comment is that this expenditure is draining funds that should be spent on road repairs. What is this infrastructure and how much has it cost?
All I have seen myself are some green-painted bike boxes, some striping for bike lanes and a few scattered areas for bicycle parking. It’s hard to imagine that that’s a particularly large capital investment, but perhaps I’m missing something.
As far as I can determined, bicycles travel on city streets (and do no damage to the surface). What percentage of funding is being diverted to bikes? According to state law, this is a minimum of 1% for municipalities receiving highway funds; do you have some reason to know that it is considerably more than 1%?
Jeff F. wrote: bicycles travel on city streets (and do no damage to the surface)
Just because the vehicle itself causes no damage doesn’t mean that the mode of transport is without operating costs.
I recently rode my bike on the bicycle only Springwater Trail corridor between McLoughlin Boulevard and Gresham, and there are some parts of that trail that are in dire need of repaving, as the asphalt is becoming cracked or is being uplifted by tree roots.
Is it fair that motorists, who are legally banned from this transportation corridor, be held responsible for damage to this street that they could not have possibly caused?
Is it fair that motorists have to pay for street damage caused by MAX and Streetcar trains in the downtown core area?
Is it fair that as a bus rider, I should have to pay for the rebuilding of a railroad line which is primarily used by freight trains; and the associated rebuilding of numerous street grade crossings (in the case of Hall Bouelvard and Scholls Ferry Road, paying to fix them TWICE because the first time they were built resulted in a crossing surface below the street grade?) While my bus service is, by Fred Hansen’s own admission, being forced to rely on older busses?
Jeff, what you fail to seem to consider is that within those white lines that mark a bike lane and under the green the green paint of bike boxes is a swathe of pavement. Since it doesn’t just magically appear and since bicyclists are not taxed to pay for it, then somebody else pays for it, usually motorists. (Asphalt is currently $80.00 a ton).
Additionally, there is specialized infrastructure that is specifically designed for bicycles that bicyclists also do not pay for. At one time I had a list with the cost figures that totaled into the millions of dollars with portions of the price tag paid for with dollars from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The projects include but are not limited to:
The Springwater Corridor and the three bridges across McLoughlin Boulevard.
The Eastbank Esplanade which had to be open 24 hours as a transportation corridor to receive Federal funds.
Specialize Bicycle Infrastructure adjoining the lower deck of the Steel Bridge.
The sidewalks on the Hawthorne Bridge specifically widened to accommodate bicyclists.
Modifications for Bicyclists on the Broadway Bridge.
The costs to add bike lanes on Naito Parkway when the street was rebuilt.
The Bike path that parallels I-205 and Bicycle Infrastructure on the Glenn Jackson Bridge.
And then there is the Bicycle Infrastructure still on the drawing board. That includes but is not limited to:
Bicycle infrastructure on the I-5 Columbia Crossing.
Bicycle Infrastructure on the proposed Caruthers Bridge for Max.
Bicycle lanes on the Morrison Bridge.
Bicycle boulevards.
So Jeff, since the bicyclists are not paying for this specialized bicycle infrastructure, and unless the project is within an urban renewal district where property taxes on increased values is diverted from city services, county services and schools, property taxed do not pay for this specialized bicycle infrastructure thereby leaving the taxes motorists pay subsidizing the freeloading bicyclists – and that is the drain.
“So Jeff, since the bicyclists are not paying for this specialized bicycle infrastructure, and unless the project is within an urban renewal district”
I think this question should be posed to JOHN MCCAIN!
Terry Parker Says:
Jeff, what you fail to seem to consider is that within those white lines that mark a bike lane and under the green the green paint of bike boxes is a swathe of pavement. Since it doesn’t just magically appear and since bicyclists are not taxed to pay for it, then somebody else pays for it, usually motorists. (Asphalt is currently $80.00 a ton).
In none of these cases has the road been widened to accommodate bicycles and, as far as I can tell, the asphalt doesn’t get replaced until the entire street is resurfaced — which is the result of automobile and truck traffic (not to mention those stupid studded tires on cars). It doesn’t get replaced, at any price, because of wear and tear from bikes.
How do you feel about sidewalks? Should we tax pedestrians for using them?
Additionally, there is specialized infrastructure that is specifically designed for bicycles that bicyclists also do not pay for. At one time I had a list with the cost figures that totaled into the millions of dollars with portions of the price tag paid for with dollars from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The projects include but are not limited to:
I certainly would like to see the costs, especially that portion that is the result of bikes. How much more does a wide sidewalk or pathway cost than one a few feet narrower?
None of the other examples you give is bicycle-only but also gets a significant amount of use by runners and walkers. That would certainly include the Esplanade and the path under the Steel Bridge. And, again, how much money are we really talking about?
State law requires 1% investment in bike and pedestrian access for municipalities getting state road funding. What percentage constitutes a “drain”?
Erik Halstead Says:
I recently rode my bike on the bicycle only Springwater Trail corridor between McLoughlin Boulevard and Gresham, and there are some parts of that trail that are in dire need of repaving, as the asphalt is becoming cracked or is being uplifted by tree roots.
Is it fair that motorists, who are legally banned from this transportation corridor, be held responsible for damage to this street that they could not have possibly caused?
As far as I can tell, any new paving would be paid for from Transportation Enhancement funds, which are Federal. Some portions are administered by Portland Parks; do you know that these funds come from fuel/auto assessment?
Is it fair that motorists have to pay for street damage caused by MAX and Streetcar trains in the downtown core area?
Again, what proportion of street work are we talking about? What is the percentage of overall City funding spent on street repair for rail?
Is it fair that as a bus rider, I should have to pay for the rebuilding of a railroad line which is primarily used by freight trains; and the associated rebuilding of numerous street grade crossings (in the case of Hall Bouelvard and Scholls Ferry Road, paying to fix them TWICE because the first time they were built resulted in a crossing surface below the street grade?) While my bus service is, by Fred Hansen’s own admission, being forced to rely on older busses?
Your link doesn’t appear to work, at least for me. But the capital funding for Commuter Rail is almost entirely from federal, state and county funds. Only 13% came from TriMet and GARVEE bonds.
And, of course, we were talking about bicycle infrastructure not rail. I’m perplexed by your attitude here, which seems to be that any funding for buses is never enough but always legitimate, while funding (however small) for bike paths and lanes is not.
“But the capital funding for Commuter Rail is almost entirely from federal, state and county funds”
When John Mcain gets elected there won’t be any funds for anything but the 100 year Iraq war.
Mcain plans to drill in every possible place on earth so that we won’t need commuter rail because we will be able to drive FOREVER!
Jeff F: The “millions of dollars” number that Terry is complaining being spent on bicycles works out to about 1.6% of PDOT’s budget. Yes, more than the state mandated 1%, but still nowhere near to the 30% hole in the highway trust fund…
Jeff F. wrote: As far as I can tell, any new paving would be paid for from Transportation Enhancement funds, which are Federal. Some portions are administered by Portland Parks; do you know that these funds come from fuel/auto assessment?
You just admitted that some of the sources of dollars are from federal fuel tax dollars, so why do you even bother questioning the parks funds? Would you have no objection if Portland Parks & Rec dollars were used for traffic signal maintenance, even if road use taxes paid for 50% of the cost?
Again, what proportion of street work are we talking about? What is the percentage of overall City funding spent on street repair for rail?
So it’s OK that, oh, 5% (I’m making this up) of road use funds be diverted?
Let’s take 5% out of, oh, let’s use the parks example. Let’s take 5% out of parks and reallocate it to roadway maintenance. Again, would you hold no objection to that?
But the capital funding for Commuter Rail is almost entirely from federal, state and county funds. Only 13% came from TriMet and GARVEE bonds.
And the sources of those federal, state and county funds is? That 13% of TriMet funds – that’s money that would have been used for NECESSARY bus maintenance that is being deferred. Who is paying the interest on those GARVEE bonds? Where does that money come from? Why, TriMet’s operating budget.
A $1 to GARVEE bonds is not $1 for providing transit, it’s $1 to pay off a bank.
And, of course, we were talking about bicycle infrastructure not rail. I’m perplexed by your attitude here, which seems to be that any funding for buses is never enough but always legitimate, while funding (however small) for bike paths and lanes is not.
So I’m perplexed by your attitude that it’s perfectly OK to shaft bus riders in making bus riders ride in old busses that frequently arrive late, lack modern appliances, and wait at unimproved bus stops so that a few people can have something nice.
Why is that OK?
I think that after nearly 40 years the people have spoken loud and clear that they want good bus service; wasn’t TriMet formed in 1969 to run a bus system? Have the voters explicitly voted to stop operating the bus system?
On the other hand, voters HAVE spoken against light rail service and yet TriMet keeps building it (I don’t care if Multnomah County voted for a system in one regional vote – the region voted “NO!” and that is the legal vote tally.) I don’t recall voters explicitly telling TriMet that it’s OK to not maintain the bus system.
I wouldn’t have a problem if ALL forms of transport were funded and maintained equally, and the fairest way is to charge all users of all forms of transport for their use. For a bicyclist to claim that they should get a free ride is insane. I wouldn’t have a problem if it were ensured that one form of transport wasn’t discriminated against. We’ve given bikes more than their due (which I am not inherently against, I myself ride a bike) but I have a problem bending over backwards for bikes, developers, light rail and streetcar riders, and then telling bus riders that they have to give up their quality of transport to make way for the others.
What’s wrong with that? Certainly you have no problem with stopping all future development of light rail/streetcar/bike paths, right? Or maybe scaling back maintenance, or reducing service to 20 minute headways or greater. Or maybe ensuring that 80% of all Streetcar and MAX stops be nothing more than gravel on the side of the right-of-way, with nothing more than a single “MAX Stop” sign with no schedule information and certainly no benches, lighting, garbage cans, ADA access or shelters. And half of Streetcars and LRVs lacked air conditioning.
Meanwhile, I see that you never addressed my specific bike related comments, so you seem more bent on attacking the messenger. If we are, as you say, talking about bicycle infrastructure, then why don’t you specifically discuss the points I brought up about bicycle infrastructure. Or do you have nothing to discuss about my points?
The OP had nothing to say about bicycle infrastructure so I feel that bringing up other forms of transport which receive funds from the HTF or from the same originating sources (the MTF) are relevant, as if the HTF is bleeding dry from a lack of revenue, other accounts which receive revenue from the same place will also be affected – which is going to directly affect transit investments. But, again, you seem to conveniently overlook all of that.
To be fair, it is worth pointing out that Tri-Met (as of October 2007) has over 90 bus lines with almost 8000 stops.
MAX only has 64 stations. (Portland Streetcar doesn’t count in this because Tri-Met didn’t pay for or build the streetcar line and it’s stops.)
Each of the MAX stations is permanent. Bus lines connect to 33 of the MAX stations, and thus benefit from their amenities.
There are 11 Transit Centers on MAX lines which are also accessible by bus. There are 7 transit centers which are bus only.
Additionally, Tri-Met owns 22 park&ride lots, and have community partners for 33 more (for a total of more than 10,000 parking spaces). Most of these are served only by bus, only 17 of the park&rides are on the MAX lines.
So the bus system utilizes many of the MAX facilities, has many of it’s own, and has many many many improved stops that I have not even mentioned.
But the bus system has almost 8000 stops. We can’t build something fancy at each one. Nor would we want to…
However, there is always room for improvement. Always. And I do believe that we need some serious investment in our bus system…
Erik Halstead wrote: You just admitted that some of the sources of dollars are from federal fuel tax dollars, so why do you even bother questioning the parks funds? Would you have no objection if Portland Parks & Rec dollars were used for traffic signal maintenance, even if road use taxes paid for 50% of the cost?
So it’s OK that, oh, 5% (I’m making this up) of road use funds be diverted?
Matthew noted that the number is 1.6%. And yes, I’m fine with that, and the impact on road repair of this number is negligible anyway. And the Transportation Enhancement Fund is federal, yes, but I have no proof that it comes from, or solely from, fuel taxes.
And the sources of those federal, state and county funds is? That 13% of TriMet funds – that’s money that would have been used for NECESSARY bus maintenance that is being deferred.
This is one of those places where I get confused. What “maintenance” is being deferred? I thought you objected to the fact that old buses were being maintained at all. Are you contending that TriMet is failing to maintain the fleet that it has? Based on . . . ?
So I’m perplexed by your attitude that it’s perfectly OK to shaft bus riders in making bus riders ride in old busses that frequently arrive late, lack modern appliances, and wait at unimproved bus stops so that a few people can have something nice.
I think that after nearly 40 years the people have spoken loud and clear that they want good bus service; wasn’t TriMet formed in 1969 to run a bus system? Have the voters explicitly voted to stop operating the bus system?
Obviously, in 1969, TriMet was established to run buses, because no one was building light rail systems. And neither voters nor TriMet has chosen to “stop” operating buses.
On the other hand, voters HAVE spoken against light rail service and yet TriMet keeps building it (I don’t care if Multnomah County voted for a system in one regional vote – the region voted “NO!” and that is the legal vote tally.) I don’t recall voters explicitly telling TriMet that it’s OK to not maintain the bus system.
The only vote I can recall has specifically to do with extending light rail to Clark County, and the voters on this side of the river actually supported it. And, again, I disagree with your contention that TriMet doesn’t maintain the bus system.
What’s wrong with that? Certainly you have no problem with stopping all future development of light rail/streetcar/bike paths, right? Or maybe scaling back maintenance, or reducing service to 20 minute headways or greater. Or maybe ensuring that 80% of all Streetcar and MAX stops be nothing more than gravel on the side of the right-of-way, with nothing more than a single “MAX Stop” sign with no schedule information and certainly no benches, lighting, garbage cans, ADA access or shelters. And half of Streetcars and LRVs lacked air conditioning.
Excuse me, Erik, but are you suggesting that 80% of TriMet’s bus stops are nothing but gravel and a sign? Or that half the fleet lacks air conditioning? Seriously? Or that even a fraction of the stops could be described that way?
Meanwhile, I see that you never addressed my specific bike related comments, so you seem more bent on attacking the messenger. If we are, as you say, talking about bicycle infrastructure, then why don’t you specifically discuss the points I brought up about bicycle infrastructure. Or do you have nothing to discuss about my points?
The only points I read from you involved an anecdote about riding on the Springwater Trail, which I did address. If you’d like to point out where I “attacked” you, please do so.
The OP had nothing to say about bicycle infrastructure so I feel that bringing up other forms of transport which receive funds from the HTF or from the same originating sources (the MTF) are relevant, as if the HTF is bleeding dry from a lack of revenue, other accounts which receive revenue from the same place will also be affected – which is going to directly affect transit investments. But, again, you seem to conveniently overlook all of that.
Jeff F. wrote: Matthew noted that the number is 1.6%. And yes, I’m fine with that, and the impact on road repair of this number is negligible anyway. And the Transportation Enhancement Fund is federal, yes, but I have no proof that it comes from, or solely from, fuel taxes.
So, just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, you have no objection towards taking, by your admission, 1.6% of the parks budget to pay for non-parks related road improvements?
This is one of those places where I get confused. What “maintenance” is being deferred? I thought you objected to the fact that old buses were being maintained at all. Are you contending that TriMet is failing to maintain the fleet that it has? Based on . . . ?
It’s been publicly reported that TriMet has cut back its bus maintenance budget. It’s been publicly reported that TriMet is not upgrading its bus fleet as quickly as any other transit system of comparable size.
And neither voters nor TriMet has chosen to “stop” operating buses.
But TriMet has chosen to cut back on improving and expanding the bus system. Read the last three years Transit Investment Plans. There were supposed to be TWO bus lines going to Frequent Service on 09/01/08 (neither occurred) and new bus routes in Tigard and Tualatin as WES feeders (neither will happen).
The only vote I can recall has specifically to do with extending light rail to Clark County, and the voters on this side of the river actually supported it. And, again, I disagree with your contention that TriMet doesn’t maintain the bus system.
South|North failed. No, “voters on this side of the river actually supported it”, it only had a winning margin in Multnomah County. And it required all three counties in Oregon, and Washington and Clackamas Counties both voted against it.
It doesn’t matter if Multnomah County voted in favor of it, it required all three counties PLUS Clark County and the four counties voted against it. Legally, it failed. Spin it all you want, IT FAILED. Note that TriMet didn’t put any other light rail expansions on the ballot – neither the Red Line nor the Yellow Line nor the Green Line were put to voters.
How was it paid for?
Excuse me, Erik, but are you suggesting that 80% of TriMet’s bus stops are nothing but gravel and a sign? Or that half the fleet lacks air conditioning? Seriously? Or that even a fraction of the stops could be described that way?
According to TriMet’s Fact Sheet, TriMet has 7,600 bus stops and 1,050 bus shelters. 13.8%.
In comparison, London, England’s bus system has nearly 50% of their bus stops equipped with shelters.
TriMet’s bus fleet is 606 busses, 321 of which are low floor busses. 52.9% of the bus fleet is equipped with air conditioning, and 47.1% is not (because none of the high floors have air conditioning).
So, yes, I am saying that.
If you want, I can go through route-by-route and point out the conditions on various bus stops. I can tell you that a large percentage of bus stops on the 1, 12, 43, 44, 45, and 56 lines are not located on sidewalks. Many of the line 12 stops which are on sidewalks are on substandard sidewalks that would not meet ADA requirements, or are too narrow, or are paved with unpaved asphalt, or are on disconnected sidewalks (my outbound stop is a good example, the sidewalk is barely sixty feet long and is connected to nothing).
The only points I read from you involved an anecdote about riding on the Springwater Trail, which I did address. If you’d like to point out where I “attacked” you, please do so.
Your comments that are continually questioning statements without any basis to question them. For example:
And the Transportation Enhancement Fund is federal, yes, but I have no proof that it comes from, or solely from, fuel taxes.
It’s a known fact, there are numerous sources for it. Do you have a legitimate claim to question it; if so, what is your evidence?
Are you contending that TriMet is failing to maintain the fleet that it has? Based on . . . ?
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/08/trimet_juggles_buses_trains_as.html
“In July, TriMet’s bus and MAX train system had its fourth consecutive record month, with 9.2 million rides. The ridership surge has led TriMet to keep buses on the road that were scheduled for retirement, and keep more of its buses on the street instead of in maintenance yards.“
Erik Halstead Says:
So, just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, you have no objection towards taking, by your admission, 1.6% of the parks budget to pay for non-parks related road improvements?
Well, that was your analogy, not mine. What I actually said was that I had no problem using 1.6% of the money allotted for roads and spending it on improvements targeting bicycles. Your analogy is flawed because you assume that bicycles are somehow the equivalent of “non-parks related”.
me: Excuse me, Erik, but are you suggesting that 80% of TriMet’s bus stops are nothing but gravel and a sign? Or that half the fleet lacks air conditioning? Seriously? Or that even a fraction of the stops could be described that way?
According to TriMet’s Fact Sheet, TriMet has 7,600 bus stops and 1,050 bus shelters. 13.8%.
How do you get from “no bus shelter” to “gravel and a sign”? And London? London is not Portland, and is far more urban. And the London bus system is privatized. And, in any case, the lack of a shelter does not translate into “gravel and a sign”.
TriMet’s bus fleet is 606 busses, 321 of which are low floor busses. 52.9% of the bus fleet is equipped with air conditioning, and 47.1% is not (because none of the high floors have air conditioning).
I’ve ridden a great many high floor buses with a/c.
If you want, I can go through route-by-route and point out the conditions on various bus stops. I can tell you that a large percentage of bus stops on the 1, 12, 43, 44, 45, and 56 lines are not located on sidewalks. Many of the line 12 stops which are on sidewalks are on substandard sidewalks that would not meet ADA requirements, or are too narrow, or are paved with unpaved asphalt, or are on disconnected sidewalks (my outbound stop is a good example, the sidewalk is barely sixty feet long and is connected to nothing).
The sidewalks (and the lack thereof) are the responsibility of the local municipality, not TriMet. The existing stops are in the best available location; would you prefer not to have a stop there at all because your local jurisdiction hasn’t kept up on sidewalk maintenance?
me: And the Transportation Enhancement Fund is federal, yes, but I have no proof that it comes from, or solely from, fuel taxes.
It’s a known fact, there are numerous sources for it. Do you have a legitimate claim to question it; if so, what is your evidence?
Well, I’m curious, because what I see is that the TEF is part of the Surface Transportation Program of the FHWA. I see the record of the FHWA’s request for their annual budget from Congress, but no indication that this is entirely paid for from federal fuel taxes. And I honestly fail to see how my asking about this constitutes an “attack” on you, personally.
“In July, TriMet’s bus and MAX train system had its fourth consecutive record month, with 9.2 million rides. The ridership surge has led TriMet to keep buses on the road that were scheduled for retirement, and keep more of its buses on the street instead of in maintenance yards.”
How does this bolster the argument that TriMet has failed to maintain their fleet? If they are keeping buses on the road that should have been retired, doesn’t that make the argument that they’re doing a particularly good job of maintaining them?
Jeff F. wrote: Well, that was your analogy, not mine.
This is what I originally wrote: Would you have no objection if Portland Parks & Rec dollars were used for traffic signal maintenance, even if road use taxes paid for 50% of the cost? to which your direct response was Matthew noted that the number is 1.6%. And yes, I’m fine with that, and the impact on road repair of this number is negligible anyway.
How do you get from “no bus shelter” to “gravel and a sign”? And London? London is not Portland, and is far more urban. And the London bus system is privatized. And, in any case, the lack of a shelter does not translate into “gravel and a sign”.
Easy, if the bus stop lacks a bus shelter, what else could it have? In essence it’s nothing more than a bus stop sign.
If your argument is that London is “more urban” than Portland than why do all of Portland’s growth goals call for more urbanization? More dense development? Which do you want – to be more like a city (thus London) or like the countryside?
So what if London’s bus system is “privatized”? The bus shelters are still owned by Transport for London.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/4067.aspx
They are not controlled by the franchise bus operators.
I’ve ridden a great many high floor buses with a/c.
In Portland? Please identify the bus that you rode. I’ve ridden high floor busses with A/C, just not in Portland. Seattle? Yes. Vancouver? Yes. Los Angeles? Yes. Portland? No.
The sidewalks (and the lack thereof) are the responsibility of the local municipality, not TriMet.
Then why does TriMet spend so much money with constructing and maintaining sidewalks in and around MAX stations? I thought they were the responsibility of the local municipality?
TriMet sure did a lot of sidewalk maintenance at Scholls Ferry Road at the WES line. I thought that was Washington County’s responsibility.
I see the record of the FHWA’s request for their annual budget from Congress, but no indication that this is entirely paid for from federal fuel taxes.
Tell me how much money is raised from the various road taxes (which is easily locatable on the IRS website) and how much money is required by the FHWA.
How does this bolster the argument that TriMet has failed to maintain their fleet? If they are keeping buses on the road that should have been retired, doesn’t that make the argument that they’re doing a particularly good job of maintaining them?
No, it doesn’t. How many road calls do these busses incur? Just yesterday on my commute home I saw two busses broken down with a road call (one of which was a 1700).
TriMet, as of just a couple years ago, had over 650 busses in the fleet, now it’s barely 600. A certain number of busses are going to be in the garage undergoing repair, so that reduces the number of spares to cover for road calls, crush load relief, MAX shuttles, etc.
So if you know you need X number of vehicles on the road, you have Y number of spares, and Z number of vehicles that won’t be available and you are adding busses that is greater than X+Y, where do the busses come from?
You cut back on Z. How do you cut back on Z? You cut back on scheduled maintenance. Make a bus go another 2,000 miles. Cut back on oil changes. Oops, fuel filter gets clogged and the bus dies = road call and missed schedule; passengers inconvenienced.
Unless you know some top secret way of pulling busses out of thin air, or cutting back on some “elective maintenance”. I know TriMet doesn’t wash busses very often; and even if they did it takes but a couple minutes.
Jeff F. wrote: Well, that was your analogy, not mine.
This is what I originally wrote: Would you have no objection if Portland Parks & Rec dollars were used for traffic signal maintenance, even if road use taxes paid for 50% of the cost? to which your direct response was Matthew noted that the number is 1.6%. And yes, I’m fine with that, and the impact on road repair of this number is negligible anyway.
How do you get from “no bus shelter” to “gravel and a sign”? And London? London is not Portland, and is far more urban. And the London bus system is privatized. And, in any case, the lack of a shelter does not translate into “gravel and a sign”.
Easy, if the bus stop lacks a bus shelter, what else could it have? In essence it’s nothing more than a bus stop sign.
If your argument is that London is “more urban” than Portland than why do all of Portland’s growth goals call for more urbanization? More dense development? Which do you want – to be more like a city (thus London) or like the countryside?
So what if London’s bus system is “privatized”? The bus shelters are still owned by Transport for London.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/4067.aspx
They are not controlled by the franchise bus operators.
I’ve ridden a great many high floor buses with a/c.
In Portland? Please identify the bus that you rode. I’ve ridden high floor busses with A/C, just not in Portland. Seattle? Yes. Vancouver? Yes. Los Angeles? Yes. Portland? No.
The sidewalks (and the lack thereof) are the responsibility of the local municipality, not TriMet.
Then why does TriMet spend so much money with constructing and maintaining sidewalks in and around MAX stations? I thought they were the responsibility of the local municipality?
TriMet sure did a lot of sidewalk maintenance at Scholls Ferry Road at the WES line. I thought that was Washington County’s responsibility.
I see the record of the FHWA’s request for their annual budget from Congress, but no indication that this is entirely paid for from federal fuel taxes.
Tell me how much money is raised from the various road taxes (which is easily locatable on the IRS website) and how much money is required by the FHWA.
How does this bolster the argument that TriMet has failed to maintain their fleet? If they are keeping buses on the road that should have been retired, doesn’t that make the argument that they’re doing a particularly good job of maintaining them?
No, it doesn’t. How many road calls do these busses incur? Just yesterday on my commute home I saw two busses broken down with a road call (one of which was a 1700).
TriMet, as of just a couple years ago, had over 650 busses in the fleet, now it’s barely 600. A certain number of busses are going to be in the garage undergoing repair, so that reduces the number of spares to cover for road calls, crush load relief, MAX shuttles, etc.
So if you know you need X number of vehicles on the road, you have Y number of spares, and Z number of vehicles that won’t be available and you are adding busses that is greater than X+Y, where do the busses come from?
You cut back on Z. How do you cut back on Z? You cut back on scheduled maintenance. Make a bus go another 2,000 miles. Cut back on oil changes. Oops, fuel filter gets clogged and the bus dies = road call and missed schedule; passengers inconvenienced.
Unless you know some top secret way of pulling busses out of thin air, or cutting back on some “elective maintenance”. I know TriMet doesn’t wash busses very often; and even if they did it takes but a couple minutes.
Erik Halstead:
me: How do you get from “no bus shelter” to “gravel and a sign”? And London? London is not Portland, and is far more urban. And the London bus system is privatized. And, in any case, the lack of a shelter does not translate into “gravel and a sign”.
Easy, if the bus stop lacks a bus shelter, what else could it have? In essence it’s nothing more than a bus stop sign.
A. it could have a sidewalk. B. it could have a new blue pole with route and Stop ID information C. It could have a bench. D. It could have a pole-mounted seat.
It is in no way “gravel and a sign”, particularly when you made an issue of “gravel” indicated a completely undeveloped roadside.
TriMet sure did a lot of sidewalk maintenance at Scholls Ferry Road at the WES line. I thought that was Washington County’s responsibility.
Indeed it is. And Washington County is a major partner in the project, providing a piece of the capital budget, which is what is being used for rail and access improvement. You can label it “TriMet” but that doesn’t make the label true.
me: I’ve ridden a great many high floor buses with a/c.
In Portland? Please identify the bus that you rode. I’ve ridden high floor busses with A/C, just not in Portland. Seattle? Yes. Vancouver? Yes. Los Angeles? Yes. Portland? No.
Well, you’re wrong, Erik. The bus I rode in today was a 2100 series high-floor bus. Try it sometime. And check out the little notice on each window: “The air conditioning works best with the windows closed.”
Just because you haven’t ridden one does not mean they don’t exist.
me: How does this bolster the argument that TriMet has failed to maintain their fleet? If they are keeping buses on the road that should have been retired, doesn’t that make the argument that they’re doing a particularly good job of maintaining them?
No, it doesn’t. How many road calls do these busses incur? Just yesterday on my commute home I saw two busses broken down with a road call (one of which was a 1700).
Buses break down, just like any other vehicle. 1700 buses, as you have noted, have been in service for a very long time. The fact that they’re running at all is testament to the hard work done by TriMet maintenance personnel.
A certain number of busses are going to be in the garage undergoing repair, so that reduces the number of spares to cover for road calls, crush load relief, MAX shuttles, etc.
By your own quotation, the number of vehicles in the maintenance yard has been reduced. And, for your information, buses used in MAX shuttles are pulled from regular service, not parked somewhere waiting to be used.
You cut back on Z. How do you cut back on Z? You cut back on scheduled maintenance. Make a bus go another 2,000 miles. Cut back on oil changes. Oops, fuel filter gets clogged and the bus dies = road call and missed schedule; passengers inconvenienced.
Unless you have some evidence that TriMet has cut back on scheduled maintenance, I think I’ll stick with what I’ve observed on the road and the fact, as you noted previously, that the maintenance crew has kept buses running that would have been long ago retired under normal circumstances. I don’t care what scenario you make up, Erik, but vehicles, especially municipal fleet buses, do not keep running because maintenance has been cut back. It makes no sense at all to suggest that reduced maintenance results in vehicles with an extended life.
RE: “gravel and a sign”.”
“Easy, if the bus stop lacks a bus shelter, what else could it have? In essence it’s nothing more than a bus stop sign.”
Go to the Galleria MAX station and note the lack of shelter, and then tell me how much gravel you see, (and not in the hole a block away, but at the stop itself,) and what else is there, besides a sign? Going from memory, I know there is a sidewalk, a trash can (probably several,) a map, a schedule, a ticket vending machine, several street trees, lights, and a convenience store.
Jeff F. wrote: A. it could have a sidewalk. B. it could have a new blue pole with route and Stop ID information C. It could have a bench. D. It could have a pole-mounted seat.
And I have noted that TriMet removed the stop ID information from most of the 12B stops – and has not replaced the information despite a schedule change. The blue bus stop signs are NOT an improvement to the old blue-and-white signs; they carry no more information than the old signs. Not many bus stops have a bench without a shelter (yes, some do, but not many). I have seen VERY FEW of the “pole mounted seats” – in fact, along the entire 12B line, there is exactly ONE (at 99W and Dartmouth Street outbound).
Indeed it is. And Washington County is a major partner in the project, providing a piece of the capital budget, which is what is being used for rail and access improvement. You can label it “TriMet” but that doesn’t make the label true.
So you can properly identify that Washington County paid for the sidewalk improvements, handled the contracting of the crews, and that not one penny of TriMet funds was used for that sidewalk project that, as many cite, is a local government concern and not a TriMet concern?
Please, show me the contract and the documentation of the funds.
Well, you’re wrong, Erik. The bus I rode in today was a 2100 series high-floor bus. Try it sometime. And check out the little notice on each window: “The air conditioning works best with the windows closed.”
OK, of all of the things you have argued with me on, you have me there.
So take the 65 busses that are in the 2100 series and they have A/C in them.
That means that 386 busses have A/C out of 606, leaving 36% without A/C.
Is 36% an “acceptable” amount of busses to lack air conditioning? Do 36% of MAX/Streetcar vehicles lack A/C?
By your own quotation, the number of vehicles in the maintenance yard has been reduced. And, for your information, buses used in MAX shuttles are pulled from regular service, not parked somewhere waiting to be used.
No, by a statement made in a Portland area media outlet, the number of vehicles in the maintenance yard have been reduced. I know that busses used in MAX shuttles are pulled from regular service.
So when a bus breaks down, where is the replacement vehicle – since TriMet has reduced the number of vehicles in the fleet, AND reduced the number of vehicles that can be in the yard for maintenance? How is 606 greater than 660, especially given the recent need for MAX shuttle busses for much of August and for at least one of the last recent weekends?
I think I’ll stick with what I’ve observed on the road and the fact, as you noted previously, that the maintenance crew has kept buses running that would have been long ago retired under normal circumstances. I don’t care what scenario you make up, Erik
And I’ll stick with what I’ve observed on the road as a daily TriMet bus rider. But I guess that standard isn’t good enough for you.
Matthew wrote: Go to the Galleria MAX station and note the lack of shelter
What’s your point? You are questioning my comment of: Easy, if the bus stop lacks a bus shelter
The Galleria MAX station isn’t a bus stop. Even if TriMet wanted to have busses stop there, the busses would have to be going down the one-way street in the wrong direction, because the MAX platform is on the left side of the street and TriMet busses only have doors that open out on the right side of the street.
Besides, of all of the things you mentioned, how many of those can I find at the average TriMet bus stop? (And I thought that TriMet didn’t maintain the sidewalk, streetlights, trees, and certainly not the convenience store – I thought that the particular store was the subject of a debate between the owner of that store and the owner of that building, the City of Portland – not TriMet?)
Erik Halstead:
And I have noted that TriMet removed the stop ID information from most of the 12B stops – and has not replaced the information despite a schedule change.
This is true, and it’s a problem that needs to be resolved. It doesn’t obviate the fact, however, that, system-wide, it’s wildly inaccurate to describe 80% (or even 8%) of the stops as “gravel and a sign”.
The blue bus stop signs are NOT an improvement to the old blue-and-white signs; they carry no more information than the old signs. Not many bus stops have a bench without a shelter (yes, some do, but not many). I have seen VERY FEW of the “pole mounted seats” – in fact, along the entire 12B line, there is exactly ONE (at 99W and Dartmouth Street outbound).
I think you’re in a minority in your assessment of the new signs, but it’s just opinion after all. The signs are far more visible, for one thing, and from either direction, which makes them much easier to find in unfamiliar territory.
me: Indeed it is. And Washington County is a major partner in the project, providing a piece of the capital budget, which is what is being used for rail and access improvement. You can label it “TriMet” but that doesn’t make the label true.
Erik: So you can properly identify that Washington County paid for the sidewalk improvements, handled the contracting of the crews, and that not one penny of TriMet funds was used for that sidewalk project that, as many cite, is a local government concern and not a TriMet concern?
Please, show me the contract and the documentation of the funds.
Let’s not be completely absurd, Erik. It’s a large capital project with millions of dollars being spent on a variety of improvements; any sidewalk improvements are a tiny slice of the pie. Sidewalks are not the responsibility of TriMet, nor are they budgeted for — they are entirely the responsibility of local municipalities. Perhaps you could instead document your claim that TriMet is responsible for sidewalk improvements and document the number of undeveloped stops in the system.
I’ll save you a little time and point you here to start: http://tinyurl.com/5ee26o
I don’t know if you live within Portland city limits; if so, you could use this information to address the issues around the stop you mentioned in a previous comment. If ADA requirements are not being met, that would be the place to start.
Is 36% an “acceptable” amount of busses to lack air conditioning? Do 36% of MAX/Streetcar vehicles lack A/C?
For 350 days of the year, I’d say yes. For the rest of those days, no, and that’s probably why all the new vehicles being purchased have a/c.
And I’ll stick with what I’ve observed on the road as a daily TriMet bus rider. But I guess that standard isn’t good enough for you.
Being a daily TriMet bus rider myself, I have my own observations. I’ve also spent a good deal of time throughout the system, rather than on a single daily commute, so perhaps my perspective is a little different than yours.
The blue bus stop signs are NOT an improvement to the old blue-and-white signs;
Actually they are easier to spot, provided they are not hidden behind a bush or some other obstruction.
And personally I’m sick and tired of the worn out overused AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT!
Average Joe can’t get health insurance but they spend billions on making things accessible. (and spend trillions killing people in foreign lands)
The NW Examiner is a GREAT little paper, but the way they have it on line is awful!
Jeff F. wrote: This is true, and it’s a problem that needs to be resolved. It doesn’t obviate the fact, however, that, system-wide, it’s wildly inaccurate to describe 80% (or even 8%) of the stops as “gravel and a sign”.
Then you’re saying that 80% of the bus stops are “improved”?
You’re saying that 80% of the bus stops are conducive towards growing and improving ridership?
I think you’re in a minority in your assessment of the new signs, but it’s just opinion after all. The signs are far more visible, for one thing, and from either direction, which makes them much easier to find in unfamiliar territory.
OK, since those signs have been installed (beginning, in, what, 2003/2004 time frame), how has the TriMet ridership been at bus stops?
Well, in 2005, 2006 and 2007, TriMet reported an annual DECREASE in bus boarding AND originating rides from 2004. (Source: http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/ridership/busmaxstat.pdf)
They might be easier for bus Operators to see (well, don’t tell that to my 12B Operator who missed my stop on Friday afternoon by about 150 feet, after myself and another passenger had to yell at her) but are they helping ridership?
Let’s not be completely absurd, Erik. It’s a large capital project with millions of dollars being spent on a variety of improvements; any sidewalk improvements are a tiny slice of the pie. Sidewalks are not the responsibility of TriMet, nor are they budgeted for — they are entirely the responsibility of local municipalities. Perhaps you could instead document your claim that TriMet is responsible for sidewalk improvements and document the number of undeveloped stops in the system.
So, what you’re saying is that when TriMet initiates a large rail-based capital project, that TriMet is responsible for ancillary projects like sidewalk improvement. BUT, when TriMet is responsible for providing non-rail based (in other words, bus) transit, that TriMet is not responsible?
Please, tell me, which part of the ORS and OAR covers that?
If TriMet doesn’t budget for bus related access improvements, then why is TriMet budgeting for rail based access improvements? Shouldn’t TriMet be responsible for TRANSIT access – with the mode of transit not even being a factor? TriMet is not the “Tri-County Metropolitan Railroad District of Oregon”, it is the “Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon”.
I’ll save you a little time and point you here to start: http://tinyurl.com/5ee26o
Thanks for pointing me to:
HTTP 404: File not Found
The URL you specified could not be found. PortlandOnline Home
I don’t know if you live within Portland city limits
I’ve made it quite clear that I am a City of Portland resident.
For 350 days of the year, I’d say yes. For the rest of those days, no, and that’s probably why all the new vehicles being purchased have a/c.
In 2008, there were 45 days so far where the temperature at PDX was 75 degrees or warmer. That’s far more than your 15 days of the year where A/C was needed.
And PDX is typically a little cooler than the rest of the metro region, so there are likely a few more days for the rest of the region where the temps were warm enough to need A/C in the busses.
Being a daily TriMet bus rider myself, I have my own observations. I’ve also spent a good deal of time throughout the system, rather than on a single daily commute, so perhaps my perspective is a little different than yours.
Well I suggest that you ride the 12 line more often and see what I see on a daily basis. It’s nice to ride the bus for the heck of it, but when you use it for a serious mode of transportation (i.e. to work and back), schedules are kind of important. I have a job that expects me there at a certain time of the day, not whenever and however I feel like it. Like most Portlanders do.
Erik-
I sure wish you would make some videos of that 12 ride of yours, so we can all see what it is you’re talking about!
Al
Well I suggest that you ride the 12 line more often and see what I see on a daily basis. It’s nice to ride the bus for the heck of it, but when you use it for a serious mode of transportation (i.e. to work and back), schedules are kind of important. I have a job that expects me there at a certain time of the day, not whenever and however I feel like it. Like most Portlanders do.
This thread has long since wandered off-topic, but I can’t help but wonder why you assume that other people “ride the bus for the heck of it” and that you’re the only one here (or on this thread) that commutes by bus. Or how suddenly we’re on the subject of schedule adherence.
Sorry about the bum link, but if you check the City of Portland website, you’ll find an entire page on the subject of sidewalks, and the City’s responsibility to meet ADA requirements.
As for me, I’ve got a bus to catch.
Well I have to say it, but I’m leaving TriMet and going to start driving due to TriMet’s lack of service on the westside, and problems all the way to my job on the eastside.
To be quite frank about it my first bus always runs 10-15 minutes late (I have never caught it earlier then 10 minutes late) the MAX I take leaves without me or is late and the 12 I take to 181st & Sandy (Which is a 12 to Gresham TC) is late constantly and has one of the most inaccessible routes of any route on Trimet past Parkrose.
I never owned a car, I don’t have my license, and relied primarily on C-Tran for 5-6 Years and never had a problem (and my ride to work was two hours long) I’ve depended on Trimet for 3-4 months and have had the worst service of my life and it has caused me to be late multiple times even though I leave at 6:30PM to get to work by 10PM which should be at most a 1 1/2 ride. As in I should have got there by 8 but it has taken more then 2 extra hours and caused me to be late.
I’m now obtaining financing for a Honda through USBank (my employer) and has received my Oregon Permit and plan to take my drive test within two weeks and will never rely on Trimet again until (and just possibly) I move to the Eastside sometime in 2009.
Trimet: Turns avid transit supporters who never even thought of driving into livid mad men purchasing cars.
My above post was meant to be directed at Jeff F.
This thread has long since wandered off-topic…
What makes this thread different from any of the others? They all wind up at the same place, that being where TriMet screws bus riders for the sake of building rail. Right? ;)
Transit only works when you only have to take one vehicle to get where your going and can actually get a seat!
Start making transfers and your better off in your own vehicle.
Here I have a free transit pass but can’t use it due to the inconvenience of using mass transit.
And I HATE the automobile! The destroyer of the world!
Bored with this thread?
See if you can solve this jigsaw puzzle by moving the pieces around:
http://www.brl.ntt.co.jp/people/hara/fly.swf
Al, after 1 transfer you have to hope absolutely nothing goes wrong. Like, having your bus drive by you when you’re trying to get to the airport. And the next bus connecting to the MAX isn’t for 33 minutes. That’s when I call Radio Cab, and get ready to spend $50. It’s still cheaper than airport parking for more than 3 days.
Oh, and that was a cool puzzle.
Oh, and the highway trust fund…
Double the tax for all I care. I spend about $2.00 per 400+ mile tank ($35-$40 lately) for roads. Three weeks of commuting, at 37-43 mpg and 26 miles of driving a day. For $2.00 of federal road fees. Most of that driving is on I-5. Compared to the NY State Thruway (I-90) it’s a damn bargain.
So, $3 (a 150% increase) on 11 more gallons of gas, and I get real road improvements, right? Like, a toll-free CRC, a buried inner SE I-5, improved ramps throughout I-5, I-205 and I-84 where possible?
I don’t think we even need to widen any roads to make them work a lot better, just fix the merge problems. I-5 southbound at the Fremont Bridge could be fixed for $50 million or so. In tax dollars at those kinds of rates, it’s not really that much.
Maybe it’s because when I bought my car (with $1.90 or less the average gas price) I aimed a little higher, and got a 40 mpg (average) car. It’s not that tough: I don’t hit my brakes unless I have a good reason, I try to find the speed that keeps me moving in urban areas without either blocking traffic or stopping for red lights, I don’t go over 60-65 (unless there’s a damn good reason, like avoiding an accident), I don’t run my AC unless it’s 95 or so, and the car is usually free of heavy stuff I don’t need. Oh, and it’s a relatively low priced used Honda Civic, not a hybrid.
Oh, and I live about 12 miles from my office. Big plus for gas usage right there.
Gas prices, gas taxes and some road damage could really be a non-issue if people would buy something that’s not an over-sized, overweight, overpowered, under-efficient mode of travel.
If more people were just a little less gas-dependent we could probably get the gas taxes raised $.30/gal, and use it just for infrastructure. The sad part is, we still probably wouldn’t catch up with the current backlog.
Robert Says:
My above post was meant to be directed at Jeff F.
Honestly, I have no control over your life, your plans, your choices about where to live, or your transportation issues.
You need to take all that up with someone else.