Update on HSR in the State Senate
The fine folks at Capitol Weekly have a good overview of the HSR funding proposal, including some insights as to how State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg plans to handle the timeline to release the voter-approved bond funds:
“Our governor supports high speed rail and the Pro Tem supports high-speed rail,” said Alicia Trost, a spokesperson for Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg. “And the voters approved the bonds to pay for it, so we think it’s something we should move forward with.” There is similar support among the Assembly’s Democratic leadership.
“It is not likely we will act to appropriate the funds in the budget within our budget deadline of June 15, but we hope to act soon. We are in consultation with Secretary LaHood on that timetable,” Trost said. “We’re working with him and we don’t want to lose precious federal dollars.”
It’s not clear what “in consultation with Secretary LaHood on that timetable” means exactly, though I would assume it means Steinberg’s office is trying to get a few weeks’ extension from the Obama Administration on the deadline to release the funds.
That’s not the only thing Steinberg is asking of the feds, according to the San Mateo Daily Journal:
The leader of the California Senate called Wednesday on the Obama administration to say now whether it will commit more federal money to the state’s high-speed rail project if the president wins a second term….
Still, Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he hopes “the Obama administration itself would signal now that they intend to make a priority of the allocation of more federal dollars for California.”
The additional money would go toward extending high-speed rail from Bakersfield to Palmdale, the next stage of the project, he said.
Justin Nisly, press secretary for the federal Department of Transportation, did not directly address whether more money would be allocated. But he noted the administration has consistently backed high-speed rail and included passenger rail funding in every budget and transportation bill it has proposed.
I can see where Steinberg is coming from here, as it couldn’t hurt to show some of the wavering Dems that the president plans to commit more funds. On the other hand, there’s a mountain of evidence to suggest that DC Democrats remain strongly committed to HSR funding, including the president. Besides, they’ve already delivered the $3.5 billion. It’s not up to the White House to promise more; right now it’s up to the California Legislature to accept that money and follow through on what the voters approved in 2008 by releasing the bonds to begin construction.
The White House can’t promise anything in terms of money; appropriations come from Congress. It all depends on who wins control of the House of Representatives (and to a lesser extent the god-damned Senate). DOT has said all it really can.
VBobier Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 12:16 am
That means it’s up to the voters in November to kick as many Repugs out of Office as possible and to not lose any seats while doing that.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 9:22 am
All they can promise is that if re-elected the Administration will propose the funding, but both campaigns will be making those promises for the next six months or so as if what the President proposes automatically becomes law.
I’m certainly no political scientist, but it sounds like an effort to give political cover to some Democrats in the State Senate to walk back some earlier opposition-sounding remarks. If the State Senators in question are from likely strong Obama majority districts, their electorate are also more likely to take “the President promised that if re-elected he will send a budget with strong HSR funding to Congress” as positive sounding noise.
Nathanael Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Well, then, the Administration has already promised that if re-elected the Administration will propose more high speed rail funding. Promised it a couple of years back.
So, that’s done. Is Steinberg happy now?
Alon Levy Reply:
May 23rd, 2012 at 4:14 am
Obama promised many things.
Nathanael Reply:
May 26th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Indeed. I’m pointing out that what Steinberg is asking for is *silly*.
Obama should not give a firm commitment to HSR before the election, just like he should have waited until after the election to clarify his position on gay marriage. There are plenty of independents who think that we can’t afford HSR right now and buy into the boondoggle argument. I know most voters don’t give a crap about HSR, but this is one that Republicans can pretty easily use as a symbol, since nothing has come of those funds yet. The fact that Republicans don’t think long-term is another story.
lex luther Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 8:01 am
@donk. The gay marriage support wont hurt O since everyone assumes Democrats all support gay marriage, which isnt true but most dems do. He wont lose with values voters because values voters werent voting for O anyways, so his stance on that issue doesnt matter in the election.
HSR will be used as a symbol, but more in CA than anywhere else, and as we get closer to november you will see support for HSR dwindle further after a constant barrage of negative press for HSR. This election year is going to be an indicator where the country truly lies politically. we were far right with dubya, then went far left with O, if it goes to romney, well he is moderate right so we will see where that takes us.
yesterdays gallup poll has O tied with Romney, but todays ABC/WP poll has O +3 , and rasmussen by 2.
with just over 5 months to go, its all up for grabs
trentbridge Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 8:17 am
Romney leads Obama by 35%! Oh, wait – that’s just Oklahoma. That’s your problem Lex – all the hatred of Obama is in states that were red to begin with – Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alaska. Alabama, and Wyoming. No road to the White House winning those states by ridiculous margins.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 9:24 am
Yes, at the moment the race is close, but the Obama campaign is ahead in the Electoral College fight and has more paths to victory.
VBobier Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:29 am
And the Electoral College is what is needed for Victory, nothing less will do, as We all know what happened when Gore won the Popular Vote and not enough votes in the Electoral College, He lost.
lex luther Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 11:11 am
an article in the post talks about that and how this race will be very similar to Gore v Bush
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-the-2012-election-will-be-the-closest-since-bush-vs-gore/2012/05/22/gIQAJaCHiU_blog.html
VBobier Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 11:46 am
That might be, but I think the shoe will be on the other foot this time…
BruceMcF Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Poor Mitt Romney. Kasich picked 2011 to try to ram through a voter suppression law ~ which makes sense in a cravenly partisan interested way for Republicans without a scrap of concern for the public interest to pursue, since they are least likely to win when the most voters show up at the polls ~ but it faced a citizens veto, and so goes to referendum at the next General Election … which is this one.
Under the citizen’s veto rules, the law does not go into effect until and unless the issue passes at the general election.
So instead of suppressing the vote, the end result is likely to be increased turn-out ~ just the thing that Mitt wants to avoid if he hopes to win Ohio. And no Republican has ever been elected President without carrying Ohio.
lex luther Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 11:45 am
So your saying you think O has the electoral college but romney has the popular vote?
Remember this. it all comes down to Ohio.
O lost north carolina, infact the whole south, plus missouri and new hampshire….with 252 of the electoral college most likely going to romney, all he needs to win is ohio with its 18 to reach the 270
it is unlikely that romney will carry michigan despite his links to the state.
with that, O will have 268, but with no other states to win except ohio, he needs to take the 18 from the buckeye state to win making ohio the deciding state….
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Romney does not have a populist bone in his body and that is a real problem for him and why the Demos are correct in pushing the Bain connection. Romney is a Bloombergian at heart, cosmopolitan, urban, metrosexual tycoon. And Main Street knows it.
Obama will probably win but his lame duck term will not be a happy one. Like so many others.
Nathanael Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:21 pm
And Romney’s a bully who enjoyed steering his blind teacher into a door, and tied a dog to the top of his car. That is popular among the most extreme Republicans, but it’s not popular among most people.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 23rd, 2012 at 4:13 am
In NC, Romney is up by 2.7 points in the polls. That’s not particularly high. In contrast, in NH Obama is up 6.4, in Virginia he’s up by 3.2, and in Ohio he’s up by 4.6.
That said, the state polls are being conducted by different outfits from the national polls. A lot of the state polls are done by PPP, which has a strong Democratic house effect at least in this cycle, but not the national polls. Obama’s standing in the national polls right now is a little worse than what you’d think from his standing in Ohio and Virginia, though not worse than what you’d think based on his standing in Florida.
lex luther Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 11:07 am
haha i never mentioned any of those states. take your meds
BruceMcF Reply:
May 23rd, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Lex1:
Lex2:
Point being that the electorate of those states are included in the poll you referred to, even though the difference between Romney carrying Oklahoma by 20 and carrying Oklahoma by 40 is exactly 0 extra electoral votes.
Most interesting portion of the article was Earp’s statement that the bond repayments do not come from the general find.
Either a bold faced lie from someone who knows better (he certainly ought to, he’s on the CTC) or a demonstration that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 9:27 am
There are dedicated transport revenues available from trucking fees which may be sufficient, so they need not come from the general fund. Earp may be shortcutting a “need not” into a “won’t”.
Paul Druce Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:18 am
Except for the whole “Proposition 1A explicitly states and provides that repayment of bond principal and interest comes from the General Fund” thing.
Mike Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:26 am
There’s now an Editor’s Note reading “Corrects earlier version by deleting reference in 22nd graf to general fund expenditure,” and the statement you quote is gone. Was it attributed to Earp, or was it the reporter’s mistake? Given how the article reads now (with the deletion) it sounds like BruceMcF is correct, that Earp is referring to plans by the Governor and legislative leaders to service bond repayment from a source other than the General Fund.
VBobier Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:31 am
I’d say getting the Bonds repaid from other than the General Fund would be the preferred method of payment.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:35 am
Essentially what has been done is to take a lot of revenue that used to be earmarked and effectively stuff it in the general fund. The legislature and the governor then comes up with the accounting schemes to make this kosher (Loans to the general funds, transfers to the general fund, transfers to the general fund based on future Prop 1B cost (the $20 billion trans bond from 2006) etc. Money is quite fungible and the question you have to ask is: if you don’t issue the bonds, will you end up with more money to spend in the general fund? The answer in this case is yes.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Depends on what happens to transport spending, doesn’t it?
There’s an opportunity cost to not building the HSR, but whether California pays that opportunity cost out of the general fund on other transport works, or elects to pay for that in allowing the quality of the roads to decay more rapidly, that is, of course, up to California.
Joe Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 6:14 pm
So lawsuits against HSR with public funds as well as the CAHSR defense take money from education, health and police.
Tom McNamara Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 6:32 pm
The answer is “no”.
Proposition 98 requirements effectively set a floor on General Fund expenditures, which increases with the total amount of General Fund expenditures. Increasing the total amount of General Fund expenditures via bonds increases the amount of non-Prop 98 funding as well. This is because the amount of additional expenditure that must be diverted to education funding is less than the balance of the loan minus the debt payment.
The truth is that if California never even though of having high speed rail that state revenues would be gobbled up just as fast for mandated spending such as education and Medicaid. You can’t have fiscal stability when your entire budget is premised on subsidizing property owners at the expense of everyone else….
Nathanael Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:22 pm
… and a 1/3 + 1 minority in one house of the legislature can prevent any taxes from being raised, while a bare majority can lower any taxes. That’s a one-way ratchet.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 23rd, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Interesting question is whether the new primary rules and new district lines will result in the normnal run of radical reactionary Republicans will get squeezed out at the primary stage so that the balance of power at the 1/3+1 line shifts toward the center.
Nathanael Reply:
May 26th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
California is very very close to eliminating the extreme-right-wing Norquist/ALEC/Koch Brothers influence over the legislature. I wish California good luck.
Paul Druce Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 11:19 am
I didn’t quote anything from an article I’m afraid. Quotes to establish what was the thing, which was a summary of Prop 1A requirements.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:33 pm
How you square the circle of a revenue source that is dedicated to transport spending and a bonds that are to be financed and funded out of the General Fund, would seem to be to dedicate the dedicated revenue to the General Fund equal to the amount required by the bonds on the proviso that the money is used to fund the bonds.
As to how you put that into legislative language, that’s why the lawyers make the big bucks.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:27 am
Earp’s statement is technically true but false on a practical basis. Over the last two years, the legislature has gone through machinations with transportation funding (vehicle weight fees, fuel tax swap). At the end of the day, however, a dollar spent on debt financing is one less dollar spent on something in the general fund – call it k-12 education, UC system, CSU, safety net programs, public safety, “welfare for moms”, whatever you like.
Mike Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:41 am
I think many of us would substitute “20 years” for your “two years,” but maybe you’re new to this.
Anyhoo, I think the best way to service debt of Prop 1A bonds is with the cap & trade dollars, given that they can’t otherwise be spent on education, health & welfare, etc. Not sure if the bond covenants would allow this, though; they may require a direct appropriation from Account 0001
lex luther Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 11:50 am
brown will not be allowed to use cap and trade for the train. the law restricts it
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Brown and Pelosi will simply change the law or have the servile judiciary interpret it accordingly. That’s why it is called a machine.
J. Wong Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Yes, we don’t live in a democracy. That’s why Pelosi is really the President of the U.S.
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Yeah, she effectively mind-melded with Barack.
Nathanael Reply:
May 26th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
I wish. Pelosi would have been a much more hard-nosed President than “let’s extend the Bush tax cuts for the superrich in exchange for a mess of pottage” Obama.
Nathanael Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:24 pm
The law does not prevent the use of cap and trade revenues for rail transportation. Why do you think that it does?
There may be better things to spend cap and trade money on, but it is certainly *legal* to spend them on rail.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:38 pm
The cap and trade funding is on the most solid ground if a benchmark is set for a reasonable cost per unit emissions reduction, the emissions reduction for the HSR corridor is done by some independent third party that knows how to convert units, and doesn’t accept a mistaken conversion of forty-some kWh into 170 kWh, and that sets the amount of funding permitted per segment.
In that position, it is best if used as matching funds to Federal intercity transport grant funding at a reasonable state:federal match, after the incredibly reckless match rate promised by Kopp and the Governator have succeeded in finishing the Prop1a bond funding.
StevieB Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 1:02 pm
The statement is true according to congressional testimony given by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), which you attended, stating these bonds would be repaid from dedicated transportation funds from Truck Weight Fees.
Caltrain Electrification Plan Doesn’t Satisfy Palo Alto Rail Committee
Despite promise of saving Caltrain, new plan fails to lock in preferred 2-track design, say Rail Committee members.
California Taxpayer Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 3:47 pm
I wish I could say I was surprised by the astounding ignorance in the comments section but I’m not. Its no wonder the 1 percent doesn’t believe the masses are worthwhile.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Every time I look at comments on this sort of thing, I keep getting surprised that the level of ignorance seems to keep going up. You would think between more news stories, more debate, and places available to the readers like this weblog, that the level should go down, but it doesn’t.
Years ago, I got tired of the garbage that passes for a lot of entertainment on television. I figured, I can write at least halfway decently, and so I put together the idea of a television series based on the adventures of railroad men (set in the steam era, of course). One of the things I knew I’d have to deal with is that most people know absolutely nothing about railroad operation, about how steam engines run, and other things. How do you show what might be considered some fairly technical stuff on things like the rights of trains (in reference to train orders), and have the audience understand what is happening?
My solution was to make the main character a young fellow who wants to become a railroader His first appearance, which opens the series, is actually when he’s maybe 10 years old, and in a baseball game. He misses a play because he’s watching a train, much to the consternation of his team members. We then jump ahead 8 or 10 years, when he gets a job on the railroad as a brakeman, and as he learns things, the audience does, too. Spent over two years just learning to write this stuff, even longer looking for story material, and even if I say so myself, it could have been pretty good, at least as good as anything ever done over the years. The credit for that assessment comes form my source material, the railroaders who told me of things they saw on the job, and the accounts written by others.
I would like to think it would have been entertaining, and would even have lowered the ignorance level a tad.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t sell the thing to save my soul.
Two years of almost full time work, in addition to the regular job–for nothing.
So much for the “land of opportunity.”
Nathanael Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:27 pm
(1) Poverty leads to ignorance, because poor people have to spend so much time working just to make ends meet that they don’t have time to educate themselves.
(2) There has been a concerted agenda on the part of certain factions within the Republican Party (the religious nuts and the privatize-and-loot types) to trash public education for over 40 years now. It’s been fairly successful.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:32 pm
It’s completely false that poverty leads to ignorance. What’s true is that poverty leads to ignorance about matters the middle class finds important.
For example, at a class about poverty and welfare, a professor set a quiz with two questions: what’s the level of welfare benefits, and at what temperature do you boil chicken. The students didn’t know. The point was to demonstrate to them how welfare recipients feel about practically every aspect of society around them.
Joe Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:48 pm
There are differing measures of ignorance too.
Nathanael Reply:
May 26th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Oh yeah. I’m basically talking about the correlation between *free time* and the ability to educate onesself about things which are *not immediately connected to your daily life*.
By the way, the temperature to BOIL chicken at is the BOILING point of water, because otherwise you’re not BOILING the chicken, you’re just cooking it — did you ask the question wrong? Anyway, the temperature to cook a chicken at is a matter of “immediately connected to your daily life”. Doesn’t count for this purpose.
People who don’t have free time are less likely to know things about areas not immediately connected to their daily lives — therefore they are generally less politically educated. This is not really disputed.
Nathanael Reply:
May 26th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
The exception is of course people who actually like learning and do it habitually and by preference over other activities, who appear in all walks of life and at all wealth levels, but are uncommon in general.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
The middle class can be ignorant about things important to the middle class too. My eldest cousin has been carefully stashing money in her IRA for decades. And was really really pissed off when her accountant told her that she has to take money out of it since she is 71. And even more pissed off to find out that she has to pay taxes on her withdrawal. And didn’t realize that whining about how much she was required to take out would reveal how much she has in her IRA….
California Taxpayer Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:43 pm
I like the series idea. But hollwood seems to have given up on good stories in flavor of realty trash. ( which reminds me tonight is the american idol finally woo hoo jessica has my vote!)
Nathaniel is correct. My dad has always said exactly the same thing. In fact, a couple of things… one that working class and working poor (which today is the same thing) folks are just to damn tired at the end of the day to spend a lot of time on blogs and other things. And also, that would be democratic voters, and there are fare more people who if they thought it through, would be aligned with the dem party than there are republican types…. but would be dems, in their spare time are more likely to be out trying to have a good time, camping, partying, litle league, ball games, whatever, to spend a lot time worrying about politics. Whereas the wealthy have the luxury of time and money to spend on being involved.
Of course alon is correct too… ignorance is relevant as shown by his example.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 9:07 pm
I bet you would have liked the series itself! Oh, some of the lines I got from my sources, better than anything I could have thought up!
Example: Railroad equipment, even lightweight stuff, is large and heavy compared with automobiles and jet fighters, and thus pretty sluggish compared to anything else short of an ocean liner. For that reason, engineers will pick a landmark–a building, a tree, a bridge, something–that might be a mile from where they will have to stop as the location where they will start a brake application.
An engineer on the Chesapeake & Ohio, running a mine shifter out of Thurmond, W.Va., was used to using a large rock in the New River as his landmark to start a brake application as he approached a mine at the end of a branch. One day, the river came up and covered up the rock. The engineer missed his landmark, and ran the locomotive off the end of the spur before he could get stopped.
It wasn’t a particularly bad incident, no injuries, no serious damage, no roll-over, just the nuisance of digging a 200-ton steam locomotive out of the mud. What was interesting was the engineer’s comments at the inquest following this incident. He strongly protested he could not be held responsible; it was not his fault his rock had sunk!
I’ll let you imagine what must have been going through the mind of the superintendent running the inquest!
All kinds of stuff like that, some tragic, much humorous, all potentially entertaining in the hands of the right writers, directors, and actors. . .
J. Wong Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 3:53 pm
They basically want a guarantee, which I don’t think they’re going to get it, nor should they.
Actually, it would be pretty interesting if they did since eventually when HSR is successful beyond anyone’s dreams the pressure to expand to full separation will be inexorable and the NIMBY’s would have the whole state against them probably resulting in six-tracks and lot’s of takings.
Mike Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:04 pm
It’s not just a guarantee that Palo Alto demands; it has to be the exact form and words that Palo Alto has demanded. Not an equivalent guarantee, but *exactly* what Palo Alto demands. Because, y’know, it’s Palo Alto, dammit. The world must bend to Palo Alto’s supremacy. All others must compromise as necessary to ensure that Palo Alto gets *exactly* what it wants and needs not compromise (or even step back, take a deep breath, and reconsider its demands) one bit.
Joe Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 6:22 pm
So Palo Alto is unreasonable.
We can now proceed without the pretense that if CAHSRA and Rail Advocates are to blame for a misunderstanding and hurt their feelings by rushing the project.
Gov Brown can give PAMPA cities the OC treatment. You don’t want rail, no support for Caltrain. Plus adjust the accelerated metering lights on 101 and let street traffic backup on PAMPA roads. No reason to clog the highway to accomidate the NIMBYs.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:47 pm
and they could just leave it at two tracks and someday have to close down the station in Palo Alto because stopping trains on the mainline clogs it up too much. Pity Palo Alto would lose it’s station bue stuff happens….
Peter Baldo Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:07 pm
CaHSR could plan a second “blended system” up the East Bay along the Capitol Corridor route. The money that would originally have been spent adding capacity to the Caltrain route could be spent on the Capitol Corridor route instead. That would end Palo Alto’s worries about a HSR trunk line passing through town.
Mike Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Much harder to “blend” on the UP-owned freight tracks that the Capitol Corridor uses. Anyways, it’s time to ignore Palo Alto and get on with the project.
Joe Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Right. If there is no middle ground, there is no compromise. No need to bother trying to appease PA and no way this stance helps them negotiate when the projectnis green lit.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Exactly. Build the Basin to Bay, and then let PAMPA fight with San Francisco on how quickly the route to the TBT gets to be finished.
Tony d. Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 8:47 pm
I like this!
Nathanael Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Or, while we’re imagining, they could revive the Second Transbay Tube plan and completely shaft the Peninsula forever….
California Taxpayer Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 7:46 pm
not a bad idea if say sometime in the future, ccjpa decides to electrify the sac-okj-sjc line, then hsr trains could conceivably use the route asand secondary higher speed -110
line to sac via eastbay.
Wdobner Reply:
May 23rd, 2012 at 10:58 pm
That, or else there’s always Dumbarton and Altamont. Altamont does a good job avoiding the Palo Alto issue, can be easily buried on the aqueduct ROW through Fremont, and splits the number of trains on the trunk between SF and SJ, thereby reducing the demands on TBT. Alternate the pairs of cities linked by each train over the pass such that SJ-LA trains meet SF-Sacto train (or vice versa) at a Fremont or Livermore station to greatly increase the effective number of trips which can be completed in a day.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:42 pm
That’s a relief: if they accepted the plan, it would be worrying evidence that the blended operation plan had gone overboard in the other direction.
In other news, gridlock–traffic congestion–is down in a number of cities, due to people driving less, efficiency improvements, and unfortunately, a still-sluggish economy:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-22/traffic-congestion-down/55120930/1?csp=34news
Oh, those comments, though! And as bad as they are, they pale compared to this site:
http://www.allamericanblogger.com/21491/the-plan-traffic-congestion-drops-30-gas-prices-and-economy-main-cause/
This one’s no slouch in that department, either:
http://www.paradisegone.com/2012/05/17/take-it-back-freedom-of-movement/
What a bunch of ignorant crybabies and hateful people. They greatly reduce any pride I should have for this country.
Disappointing he may be to some of us, but I feel sorry for the president. I think he won a booby prize.
And again, I have to ask, why, why, WHY isn’t there more in the way of honest talk on the oil situation, on the vulnerability of our driving situation, brought home? WHY is there so little talk about how oil is a global market, that we compete in bidding with the world for our own oil, and that “drill, baby, drill” won’t give us lower prices, but will burn through our oil supply that much faster? WHY is there so little talk on the real cost of the highway system? WHY is there so little talk about how ELECTRIC RAIL, in all forms from local streetcar to HSR, can help by providing an alternative to driving, and be a better, safer, more comfortable, more relaxing way to travel besides?
This message, or series of messages, doesn’t have to be wonky or nerdy, it or they can borrow from the great railroad advertising of the past if need be. This shouldn’t be really hard to write, and it would be true. So WHY do we hear so little of these points?
Do I have to go to Washington, break down the door to Secretary LaHood’s office, and give him a piece of my mind to get something on this?
nslander Reply:
May 23rd, 2012 at 10:51 am
I believe the absence of any awareness, much less discourse, of the cost of roads, highways and oil is one of the the most baffling aspects of American public life. Its like science fiction. This can’t continue indefinitely, can it?
Alon Levy Reply:
May 23rd, 2012 at 11:15 am
#{people who are concerned with costs because of concern with government efficiency} << #{people who are concerned with costs of things they dislike so that they can cudgel them better}
nslander Reply:
May 23rd, 2012 at 12:08 pm
The equation looks correct. What I can’t understand is how many in the second second group can be genuinely (not only willingly) blind to the reality so much of their own $$$$ gets sharted out as asphalt. Perhaps this is the dialogue we need to occupy exclusively.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 23rd, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the rationalizing animal. People naturally make up folkview stories that rationalize their regular habits of behavior. If they are motorists, they are more likely to believe the myth that the miniscule gasoline taxes in the US, many of them just diversions from sales taxes by virtue of gasoline being exempted from sales tax, are user fees that cover the cost of their driving.
Nathanael Reply:
May 26th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
“I think he won a booby prize.”
Mr. Lubic, did you see the Onion on this topic? I remember it well, and thinking that it was pretty much true…
http://www.theonion.com/articles/black-man-given-nations-worst-job,6439/