By serial catowner on June 15, 2008
Sometimes you can learn a lot about the present by reading about the past. Consider the story of Tom Johnson, as told by Page Smith in his People’s History of the US (McGraw Hill).
In the late 1890s Tom Johnson was the major owner of the Detroit City Railways, when he read Henry George, and became a single-taxer. He sold his street railway interests and moved to Cleveland, to become Mayor of the city, with a vision of Cleveland pre-eminent as a single-tax domain. “The fight for reform centered initially on the public ownership of utilities, particularly the street railways and electricity, and the reduction of trolley fares…Fifty injunctions were obtained by Johnson’s enemies to prevent the city from setting cheaper streetcar fares and building a municipal electric lighting plant.” Readers may recall that some seventy years later Dennis Kucinich defied the banks who attempted to blackmail Cleveland into selling the municipal electric utility. In 1998 the Cleveland City Council honored his courage, which they estimated had saved the city $185 million between 1985 and 1995.
The courts ruled against Johnson, saying the city had no right to run a street railway system, and thus sentencing the city to future decades of corruption, grafts and bribery before municipal ownership became a fact. And this, in truth, was part of the backlash against the trolley companies- the graft, poor service, and defaulted obligations found in every “privatized” or “public-private partnership” street railway franchise in the US.
Johnson himself was a bit ahead of his times. “In the basement of his Euclid Avenue home he had workmen construct an abbreviated railroad line on which cars would be moved by electromagnetic force suspended above the rails. Friction would thus be eliminated and trains could move at tremendous speeds. When the officials of General Electric, Charles Steinmetz among them, were consulted, they agreed the notion was scientifically sound.” Was Johnson, perhaps, the actual inventor of the Maglev?
In many ways, American life today echoes the brutal chaotic corrupt rule by corporations in the early 20th century- but this time, we don’t have sixty or seventy years in which to get it sorted. Sometimes a knowledge of the past will provide some very suggestive guideposts to the future.
Posted in Uncategorized
By Frank on June 12, 2008
Hard to find anything besides the AP wire story, but this is interesting:
Key Provisions of Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
* Increases Capital and Operating Grants to Amtrak. The bill authorizes $4.2 billion (an average of $840 million per year) to Amtrak for capital grants and $3.0 billion (an average of $606 million per year) for operating grants. Past inconsistent Federal support has hampered Amtrak’s ability to replace catenaries, passenger cars, bridges, ties, and other equipment necessary for Amtrak to provide service. These capital grants will help Amtrak bring the Northeast Corridor to a state-of-good-repair, procure new rolling stock, rehabilitate existing bridges, as well as make additional capital improvements and maintenance over its entire network. In addition, the operating grants authorized under the bill will help Amtrak pay salaries, health costs, overtime pay, fuel costs, facilities, and train maintenance and operations. These operating grants will also ensure that Amtrak can meet its obligations under its recently negotiated labor contract.
* Develops State Passenger Corridors. In an effort to encourage the development of new and improved intercity passenger rail services, the bill creates a new State Capital Grant program for intercity passenger rail capital projects, and based on the New Starts transit capital program administered by the Federal Transit Administration. The bill provides $2.5 billion ($500 million per year) for grants to States to pay for the capital costs of facilities and equipment necessary to provide new or improved intercity passenger rail. The Federal share of the grants is up to 80 percent. The Secretary of Transportation would award these grants on a competitive basis for projects based on economic performance, expected ridership, and other factors.
* Provides Funding for High-Speed Rail Corridors. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, established to develop a national transportation vision to address surface transportation needs for the next 50 years, recommends that the United States establish a high-speed rail network that spans the entire country. The bill authorizes $1.75 billion ($350 million per year) for grants to States and/or Amtrak to finance the construction and equipment for 11 authorized high-speed rail corridors. The Federal share of the grants is up to 80 percent. The Secretary of Transportation would award these grants on a competitive basis for projects based on economic performance, expected ridership, and other factors.
This is crucial stuff, especially since Amtrak hasn’t been reauthorized by congress since 2002. It’s been essentially running on fumes for the past 6 years (King St. Station, anyone?).
People complain about Amtrak’s service level, but considering how starved for funds its been, they’ve done a remarkable job. Imagine what they’ll do with actual money.
Posted in tacoma
By Frank on June 11, 2008
This time, with a veto-proof majority in both houses. Awesome:
The bipartisan bill, which passed by a veto-proof margin of 311-104, would authorize funding for the national passenger railroad over the next five years. Some of the money would go to a program of matching grants to help states set up or expand rail service.
Besides the $14.9 billion provided for Amtrak and intercity rail, an amendment to the bill would authorize $1.5 billion for Washington’s Metro transit system over the next 10 years.
Good stuff. I’m especially excited about the matching grants, which we rely on here in the Cascades. This part is a bit troubling:
Unlike the Senate version, the House bill includes a requirement for the Department of Transportation to seek proposals from private companies to create a high-speed service that would take travelers from Washington to New York City in two hours or less. The idea has long been championed by Mica, who says the United States must catch up with European and Asian countries on high-speed rail travel.
Critics say the proposal would undermine Amtrak by peeling off its most valuable asset, the Northeast Corridor.
But I’ll take it. A “requirement to seek proposals” is some pretty weak sauce. It hardly sounds like a dealbreaker, if it even survives the joint House-Senate committee.
Posted in tacoma
By bgtothen on June 10, 2008
My last post got me thinking about the 98/99-B Line again. Most of you are familiar with my previous Metro ridership posts, however I don’t think that I ever explained the reason I started looking at those numbers.
While attending the CITE conference in Victoria I talked to a engineer who worked for Vancouver. We got to talking about TransLink’s Gateway projects and specifically the Broadway Line and he said that basically TransLink can’t add any more buses because they are already running at 2.4 minute headways.
This in-turn got me thinking about routes here, none of which run that often. Anyways coming full circle today I become curious about how Seattle’s transit stacks up against Vancouver’s in terms of riders per mile (which I think is the best measure). Here are the results. Because I had to pull projected riderships and non Metro information this is less accurate, although you get a good idea of where things fall.
The biggest thing is that the B-Line has huge ridership, almost more than Central LINK per mile. It achieves this with a medium BRT treatment which shows that BRT can handle lots of people. With that said I think it also shows that the B-Line corridors should already have Skytrain.
Also these numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt because the GVA has much higher densities than almost anywhere in the Seattle area outside Downtown/Cap Hill/UW. Then again that is an integral part of transit ridership isn’t it.
Skytrain is huge success and it shows. Also you can see that the initial Link segments has comparable ridership to the B-Lines but with any expansion plan now on the table it will grow rapidly and be comparable to Skytrain when it opens. Also notice how the old ST2 or a solo Eastside expansion don’t have amazing ridership compared to the other options. Goes to show how important the North and U LINK are for ridership.
Oh and poor Rapidride. It makes me want to laugh. Although then again Metro is spending ~2.5 million a mile for it which is a fraction of LINK. I had to make an educated guess (120% 54 and 358 ridership) because I couldn’t find any ridership projections. My guesses may be way off but we will have to wait until it opens.
Posted in calculation, carless, commute, exurbs, Rail Tunnel, roads
By Frank on June 10, 2008
Posted in ronsims
By bgtothen on June 10, 2008
Too bad this is true. I guess the one upside is that at least we aren’t alone in this respect…
“SkyTrain vs. Tram
POSTED BY CLARK WILLIAMS-DERRY
06/05/2008 04:50 PM
Debates over transit modes are fascinating–but also troubling.
Here’s an interesting argument, regarding transit service in Vancouver, BC:
The planned SkyTrain subway spur along Broadway and out to the University of British Columbia campus will cost taxpayers 15 times what it would take to build a tram line along the same route.
In fact, for the $2.8 billion cost of the single 12 kilometre SkyTrain tube from Commercial Drive to UBC, Vancouver could build 175 km of tram lines crisscrossing the city and beyond.
That doesn’t make the subway sound very good. But I’m sure the subway proponents have solid arguments in their favor as well.
For whatever reason, I’m always fascinated by comparisons of different transit modes — bus vs. train vs. streetcar vs. you name it. There are such diverging views on costs, on benefits to neighborhoods, on greenhouse gas impacts, on energy independence, and so forth. The issues are truly crucial — and given the mammoth cost of transportation investments, as well as their permanence, it’s vitally important to get them right.
But at the same time, I also find arguments over transit modes strangely dispiriting. They always seem to split apart natural allies. And they can get so personal and vituperative, with advocates of different modes not just arguing passionately about their beliefs, but sometimes even accusing others of arguing in bad faith.
That’s not at all what’s happening in this article — which is defintely worth a read. Still, I hope that the fight over subway vs. tram doesn’t degenerate into a shouting match among transit advocates that diverts attention from the real threats to their common goals — such as a massive proposed expansion in Greater Vancouver’s highway system.”
Links:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/06/05/UpWithTrams/
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2008/06/05/skytrain-vs-tram
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/
Posted in Uncategorized
By serial catowner on June 10, 2008
Paul Weyrich opines on bus rapid transit:
“In any case, the two biggest costs in running a transit operation are labor and fuel.”
And thereby hangs a tale….h/t to MattY
Posted in policy, streets
By serial catowner on June 10, 2008
The Idaho Statesman reports on possible ways to finance a streetcar in Boise:
“Bieter said as much as 50 percent of the estimated $40 million to $50 million price tag could come from a local improvement district – a special taxing district approved and paid for by landowners within a specific boundary.
The city would not go through Valley Regional Transit to implement or operate the streetcar, Bieter said. That means no federal funding, though, because any federal transportation dollars must go through that group or Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho, the federally designated metropolitan transportation planning organization for the Treasure Valley.”
We have something like 137 days left of Bush, but the evil he did will live after him. It may be that the best approach is to build our own transit, and demand that the Federal budget actually be reduced so we don’t need to send all our money to Washington DC.
Either that, or use some of those aircraft carriers we bought as ferries.
Posted in gregnickels, quarters, walkable
By Frank on June 10, 2008
I think the P-I may have buried the lede in this piece on new bus riders. Check out the eye-popping chart on the right:
We’re getting by with almost half the gasoline as we were consuming just a year ago.
As much as it pains me to say, I agree with Charles Krauthammer: at $4/gallon, everybody gets rational.
Posted in Seattle Metro
By serial catowner on June 8, 2008
Interesting article at Mass Transit Magazine about Muni operations, some factors in on-time performance, parking, &tc. I would wonder how well the SPD coordinate with Metro….if my car didn’t disappear with such miraculous rapidity when I park in a time-prohibited space.
Posted in airport, fare, New Urbanism, orca
Sound Transit Latest News
Recent Comments