Transportation for America has released its blueprint for reform in the next transportation authorization bill. The blueprint is titled “The Route to Reform: Blueprint for a 21st Century Federal Transportation Program” and includes four major planks:
- Articulate a National Vision, Objectives, and Performance Targets for the national transportation program and hold state and local transportation agencies accountable for demonstrable progress toward goals including safety, efficiency, environment, health and equity.
- Restructure and consolidate federal programs for greater modal integration, with a focus on completing the second half of the national transportation system, providing more transportation options for all Americans and creating seamless transportation systems that meet the unique needs and connect metropolitan regions, small towns, and rural areas.
- Empower states, regions, and cities with direct transportation funding and greater flexibility to select projects, using carrots and sticks to incentivize wise transportation investments and in return require demonstrated performance on meeting national objectives.
- Reform how we pay for the transportation system and create a Unified Transportation Trust Fund that would achieve balanced allocations of federal funds in a portfolio of rail, freight, highway, public transportation, and non-motorized transportation investments.
11 responses to “The Route to Reform”
Even though I have made some statements in favor of interstate high speed rail on this blog, I am not so sure that there is a big hurry. I would kind of like to see what technology can brings. Throughout my own life I have had to do things on a shoestring budget and feel I have done fairly well. So I am interested in at least seeing if it is possible to do the same in public projects.
Locally I have questioned whether the rapidly escalating costs of MAX are really justified when we have less expensive options available. And now there are more headed our way. Five years ago, if I had said we will have buses with motors in the wheels you would have laughed in my face. Now Michelin is planning to introduce a car with that technology. This path of technology has benefits beyond just the fuel cost savings. A lot of things in a vehicle can become much simpler and also more efficient. The possibility of a true low floor vehicle is just one of them. With the Portland streetcar system I am using my varied background to analyze if the construction of the rail bed could be made more efficient. There have been interesting developments in construction technology recently. Do you know what a “laser guided screed” is? Probably not. But I can think of innovations that could make the installation of a streetcar rail simpler. I think that just mass producing and pre-assembling the components would help a lot. But I don’t expect anyone in the chain of command to really care.
Perhaps a rail vehicle should be designed that could safely travel on existing railbeds at higher speeds. Do we really have to have a “train” to move people on rails? How about smaller vehicles that could travel both more frequently as well as faster. Or maybe we should look at starting public owned express buses between our major cities. I have been on Greyhound buses that actually made excellent time. They could do Portland – Seattle in 2.5 hours.
If we go to high speed rail–what is it precisely that is driving the cost up? Analyses I have seen of private freight rail costs don’t seem so outrageously high. Perhaps material science will advance through nanotechnology and contribute to a reduction of capital costs.
Plank 4 reform (how we pay for the transportation system) must include directly taxing the users of transport modes that are currently not taxed – including bicyclists and transit riders. A balanced allocation of funds requires balanced taxation policies whereby one mode of transport, specifically motorists, are no longer treated as the political pawn cash cows to be milked and thereby subsidize other alternative modes.
They could do Portland – Seattle in 2.5 hours.
Compared to an airplane, that’s still not that fast. HSR should be considered more along the lines of air travel than comparing it to a bus or car.
I’m sure the airlines won’t be happy about taxpayers helping out rails, I think we’ve spent enough on airports to justify upgrading the nation’s passenger rail network as well.
If it could be a consistent/reliable 2.5 hours, it would be competitive, because it would be city-center to city-center (more or less) transport, with minimal time needed prior to departure. For airline flights these days, arriving 30-minutes before departure is risky, you need to allow at least an hour in case of problems with the security line, etc. Transportation to the city center at the destination takes time as well, so does bag claim.
Now, if you’re not actually visiting city centers, or are definitely renting a car, or are being picked up, etc., the air journey still makes sense. But a significant percentage of trips could be better served by even medium-speed rail, so long as the risk of delay could be reduced.
How long does it take to “fly to Seattle?” 1.You have to get to the airport 2. You have to either park or pay the cabbie, or at least pay the MAX.
3. You have to get in line to check your bag 4. You have to walk to the terminal and go through screening. 5. Finding your seat and listening to the preflight instructions takes time 6. The plane taxis 7. The flight is very short, maybe 20 minutes, unless you are in the turbo prop, then 40. 8. You have to land and go find your luggage. 9. You have to find a taxi 10. You have to ride to your destination, which in Seattle could be a BIG challenge.
True, some of these steps can be saved.
Horizon Air’s creative advertising notwitstanding I doubt that this is any less than an express bus ride would be, unless there is a big traffic jam. But delays can happen in air travel too.
Ron Swaren wrote: How long does it take to “fly to Seattle?” 1.You have to get to the airport 2. You have to either park or pay the cabbie, or at least pay the MAX.
3. You have to get in line to check your bag 4. You have to walk to the terminal and go through screening. 5. Finding your seat and listening to the preflight instructions takes time 6. The plane taxis 7. The flight is very short, maybe 20 minutes, unless you are in the turbo prop, then 40. 8. You have to land and go find your luggage. 9. You have to find a taxi 10. You have to ride to your destination, which in Seattle could be a BIG challenge.
SeaPort Airlines offers Part 135 (read: on-demand/charter) flights that uses the Flightcraft terminal (not the main PDX terminal) and Boeing Field (not Sea-Tac), with a sector time of 50 minutes.
However you have NO SECURITY checkpoints, no bag check line, no “walk through the terminal”, a very short pre-flight, and no search for baggage.
Sea-Tac is most certainly a shorter distance from downtown and easily achievable by a number of short bus rides, and pretty soon the new light rail line.
In Portland one must get to PDX (which for most folks will be “reverse-commute” but certainly this airline would have little to no problem establishing service from Hillsboro, Aurora, Troutdale or Pearson — or even McMinnville or Salem or Corvallis — should demand warrant such an expansion.
That said…the majority of people are not in that big of a rush to get to Seattle, and driving or using Amtrak or Greyhound is a viable option despite the significantly increased travel time.
Dave H:“I’m sure the airlines won’t be happy about taxpayers helping out rails, I think we’ve spent enough on airports to justify upgrading the nation’s passenger rail network as well.”
ws:A lot of airport construction years ago was based off of taking funds generated from railroads.
Though, I think it is time we do make a break from this. Taking from one mode and giving to another just creates the same thing happening in the future.
Subsidization from general funds may be necessary to get modes in certain competitive nature – and from then on they should be required to be more sustainable economically.
including bicyclists and transit riders
But only until we make motorists pay for what they use/cause (e.g. oil defense, some road projects, pollution, most parking). And even then, its justified for bicyclists to get a 100% credit since they are helping curb the obesity epidemic. And also transit wouldn’t need to be so subsidized if more people rode it, taking up the empty seats. Not to mention the fact that many transit subsidies today go towards providing a social service–discounted fares and/or door-to-door service for seniors/the disabled, trips that aren’t economically viable, etc.
problems with the security line
Last time I checked, the airlines cheat by allowing Seattle passengers to use the first-class security line, bypassing any long line.
Jason McHuff:“discounted fares and/or door-to-door service for seniors/the disabled, trips that aren’t economically viable, etc.”
Very good point, and people don’t realize this about paratransit which is a heavy cost burden on public transit agencies. It is not economical in the slightest, but is performing a social good.
Taking from one mode and giving to another just creates the same thing happening in the future.
We can be nice and still get some benefits.
paratransit which is a heavy cost burden
Which is definitely true. But even if you only look at the subsidies which are going to regular bus service, a good portion of them may be going to reduced senior/disabled fares. Those people might have passes and use them more often if, unlike others, they can’t drive, walk very far or bike and are more dependent on using transit for their transportation.