Showing posts with label mass transit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mass transit. Show all posts
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Nomination for Top Bonehead Quote from local candidate during May 2008 Election
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - May 11, 2008
Candidate for District 6, Arlington City Council, Joseph Farah wins our "top bonehead" award for bonehead mentality in a local race.
Somehow Mr. Farah has failed to notice that Arlington already is a diverse city. The poor are already among us. Many clean our houses, serve our fast food, roof our dwellings, work in our hotels, and are (like myself) retirees who have slid down the economic scale. Arlington has the dubious distinction of being one of the largest cities in the USA without mass transit and is within the DFW metropolitian district which fails to meet EPA clean air standards. Arlington residents are tied to automobiles for commutes to work, school, and for daily errands. Mass transit could help relieve the stress on the air standards but Mr. Farah reflects the bonehead mentality which keeps fueling the anti-mass transit factions of the city.
Arlington is also tied to a multi-generational pattern of subsidizing billionaries in business with sale tax dollars and exercise of eminent domain for private profit enterprizes: (i.e., Texas Rangers Stadium, Dallas Cowboys Stadium and Glory Park). Other cities (such as Grapevine) use their sales tax dollars for rail solutions which benefit all sectors of their city while Arlington devotes the bulk of its sale tax dollars to construction of stadiums which provide minimum wage part-time employment.
Yes, Mr. Farah, there is a need for mass transit to the Dallas Cowboy's stadium in Arlington. Those poor people who will work at low hourly wages to operate that complex won't be able to afford the gasoline to drive or to pay tolls on I-30 and SH 161 to get to serve the elites who are being subdized so the rich can get richer and enjoy the status symbol which football and baseball has become!
The election returns for Alrington City Council District 6 were:
Robert Shepherd: 4,411
Dennis Hackler: 608
Joseph Farah: 374
Brian Willett: 511
Vera McKissic: 3,436
McKissic and Shepherd will be in a run-off.
They may mirror Mr. Farah's views on mass transit. Voters should question them and vote accordingly.
BIOS of two remaining in race:
Robert Shepard
Occupation: Lawyer
Age: 49
Academic: Bachelor's degree, University of Texas at Arlington, 1980; law degree, St. Mary's University School of Law, 1983
Career: Associate lawyer, 1983-85, Jones & Greene, P.C.; associate lawyer, 1985-87, Jones, Parks & Huffman, P.C.; lawyer and shareholder, Parks Huffman McVay Shepard & Wells, P.C., 1987 to present; member, College of Business Administration advisory council, University of Texas at Arlington, 1996-98; economic development committee member and executive committee chairman, Arlington Chamber of Commerce, 1997-2000; member, Arlington Library Advisory Board, 1998-2001; member, Citizens Bond Election Committee, 1998-99; board member and president, Downtown Arlington Inc., 1998-2003; member and chairman, Arlington Planning and Zoning Commission, 2001-07; Arlington Volunteer of the Year, 2007; no previous political races
Contact: robert@robertshepard.org, 817-861-1000
Vera McKissic
Occupation: Director of educational ministries, Cornerstone Baptist Church
Age: 50
Academic: Bachelor's degree, Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, Ark., 1978; some graduate classes, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002-05
Career: Teacher, Dumas and Pine Bluff school districts, Arkansas 1979-83; teacher, Arlington Independent School District, 1984-92; ombudsman, Arlington ISD, 1998-2000; director of education and women's ministries, Cornerstone Baptist Church, 1994 to present; no previous political races
Contact: www.vera4council.com, vera4council@gmail.com, 817-288-8104
Candidate for District 6, Arlington City Council, Joseph Farah wins our "top bonehead" award for bonehead mentality in a local race.
Joseph Farah said Arlington badly needs a light-rail system, particularly one that runs from the city's entertainment district to Dallas. However, he opposes bus service circulating inside Arlington.
"We don't want to attract a city full of poor people," Mr. Farah said. He said that would hurt Arlington's finances.
Somehow Mr. Farah has failed to notice that Arlington already is a diverse city. The poor are already among us. Many clean our houses, serve our fast food, roof our dwellings, work in our hotels, and are (like myself) retirees who have slid down the economic scale. Arlington has the dubious distinction of being one of the largest cities in the USA without mass transit and is within the DFW metropolitian district which fails to meet EPA clean air standards. Arlington residents are tied to automobiles for commutes to work, school, and for daily errands. Mass transit could help relieve the stress on the air standards but Mr. Farah reflects the bonehead mentality which keeps fueling the anti-mass transit factions of the city.
Arlington is also tied to a multi-generational pattern of subsidizing billionaries in business with sale tax dollars and exercise of eminent domain for private profit enterprizes: (i.e., Texas Rangers Stadium, Dallas Cowboys Stadium and Glory Park). Other cities (such as Grapevine) use their sales tax dollars for rail solutions which benefit all sectors of their city while Arlington devotes the bulk of its sale tax dollars to construction of stadiums which provide minimum wage part-time employment.
Yes, Mr. Farah, there is a need for mass transit to the Dallas Cowboy's stadium in Arlington. Those poor people who will work at low hourly wages to operate that complex won't be able to afford the gasoline to drive or to pay tolls on I-30 and SH 161 to get to serve the elites who are being subdized so the rich can get richer and enjoy the status symbol which football and baseball has become!
The election returns for Alrington City Council District 6 were:
Robert Shepherd: 4,411
Dennis Hackler: 608
Joseph Farah: 374
Brian Willett: 511
Vera McKissic: 3,436
McKissic and Shepherd will be in a run-off.
They may mirror Mr. Farah's views on mass transit. Voters should question them and vote accordingly.
BIOS of two remaining in race:
Robert Shepard
Occupation: Lawyer
Age: 49
Academic: Bachelor's degree, University of Texas at Arlington, 1980; law degree, St. Mary's University School of Law, 1983
Career: Associate lawyer, 1983-85, Jones & Greene, P.C.; associate lawyer, 1985-87, Jones, Parks & Huffman, P.C.; lawyer and shareholder, Parks Huffman McVay Shepard & Wells, P.C., 1987 to present; member, College of Business Administration advisory council, University of Texas at Arlington, 1996-98; economic development committee member and executive committee chairman, Arlington Chamber of Commerce, 1997-2000; member, Arlington Library Advisory Board, 1998-2001; member, Citizens Bond Election Committee, 1998-99; board member and president, Downtown Arlington Inc., 1998-2003; member and chairman, Arlington Planning and Zoning Commission, 2001-07; Arlington Volunteer of the Year, 2007; no previous political races
Contact: robert@robertshepard.org, 817-861-1000
Vera McKissic
Occupation: Director of educational ministries, Cornerstone Baptist Church
Age: 50
Academic: Bachelor's degree, Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, Ark., 1978; some graduate classes, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002-05
Career: Teacher, Dumas and Pine Bluff school districts, Arkansas 1979-83; teacher, Arlington Independent School District, 1984-92; ombudsman, Arlington ISD, 1998-2000; director of education and women's ministries, Cornerstone Baptist Church, 1994 to present; no previous political races
Contact: www.vera4council.com, vera4council@gmail.com, 817-288-8104
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Mass transit use hits 50-year high on pump prices
By Rebekah Kebede, Matthew Robinson and Matthew Lewis - Reuters - Monday, Mar 10, 2008
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The number of Americans hopping buses and grabbing subway straps has climbed to the highest level in half a century as soaring gasoline costs push more commuters to take mass transit.
U.S. mass transit ridership began to surge when gasoline hit the $3 a gallon level in 2005 and has continued to rise steadily ever since as pump prices top record after record, according to a report released on Monday by the American Public Transit Association.
Mass transit use increased by more than 2 percent in 2007 to the highest level in 50 years, with Americans taking more than 10 billion trips on public transport while the number of vehicle miles traveled was flat in the first 10 months of the year.
Even when gasoline prices dipped last year and some people returned to driving, others appear to have switched to public transport permanently, according to Millar.
The largest area of mass transit growth was in light rail use, which includes street cars and trolleys, with a 6 percent increase during 2007. Commuter rails were second with an increase of 5.5 percent in ridership and subway ridership had an increase of 3.1 percent.
Cities with less than 100,000 people also saw a large increase -- 6.4 percent -- in public transportation use.
With many analysts predicting $4 gasoline this summer, mass transit use is likely to become even more popular.
Read more
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The number of Americans hopping buses and grabbing subway straps has climbed to the highest level in half a century as soaring gasoline costs push more commuters to take mass transit.
U.S. mass transit ridership began to surge when gasoline hit the $3 a gallon level in 2005 and has continued to rise steadily ever since as pump prices top record after record, according to a report released on Monday by the American Public Transit Association.
"As people are struggling with the increase in fuel prices, they have to make adjustments, and one of the ways they are doing that is driving less and taking public transportation more," said William Millar, the president of the APTA.
Mass transit use increased by more than 2 percent in 2007 to the highest level in 50 years, with Americans taking more than 10 billion trips on public transport while the number of vehicle miles traveled was flat in the first 10 months of the year.
Even when gasoline prices dipped last year and some people returned to driving, others appear to have switched to public transport permanently, according to Millar.
"We started seeing gas prices consistently go above $3 a gallon (in 2005) and we noticed that overall transit ridership was going up," Millar said.
"When gas prices moderated, some of those people said, 'Hey, this works pretty good for me, I'll stick with it."'
The largest area of mass transit growth was in light rail use, which includes street cars and trolleys, with a 6 percent increase during 2007. Commuter rails were second with an increase of 5.5 percent in ridership and subway ridership had an increase of 3.1 percent.
Cities with less than 100,000 people also saw a large increase -- 6.4 percent -- in public transportation use.
With many analysts predicting $4 gasoline this summer, mass transit use is likely to become even more popular.
"If past experience is any indication, as the price of fuel goes up and particularly as it hits a psychological milestone, which I expect $4 is, I would expect that we would see a spurt in ridership," Millar said.
Read more
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Stop FTA's Plan to Raid Federal Transit Funding for Roads!
Commentary by The Overhead Wire • September 2007
The following commentary has been adapted from entries originally posted to The Overhead Wire Weblog on 10 September 2007 and the Daily Kos on 11 September 2007.
The US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has issued an extremely ominous and potentially retrogressive Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) for the New and Small Starts programs. These programs provide the basic new-starts funding for major fixed-guideway capital projects such as light rail transit (LRT), rail rapid transit (RRT, or "heavy rail"), and so-called bus rapid transit (BRT).
Rails to roads?
The proposed new rules are alarming on a number of levels. Most notably, they downgrade the importance of land use and economic development despite congressional direction to the contrary, and they propose to redefine the definition of "fixed-guideway" to include transit funding for highway lanes that use tolling schemes – thus diverting rail transit money into roadway (tollway) development.
Why is this important? To some extent, the FTA's proposed new rules would entrench policy positions advocated by notorious motor vehicle zealots and transit critics – folks such as the libertarian Reason Foundation and the Randal O'Toole/Wendell Cox cabal. The proposed rules ignore current transportation law regarding required project justification criteria and add new Federal intervention into the local decision-making process. If finalized, the new rule-making policy will hamper American cities' ability to build new transit lines for the next 5 years!
However, the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill moving through congress is an opportunity to formally weigh in and stop or alter the proposed FTA rule. In a recent development, Senators Christopher Dodd and Richard Shelby have proposed an amendment to kill the FTA's new rules. Transit advocates may wish to communicate their views on this issue to their own Senators on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, which can be accessed at the Senate Transportation appropriations webpage.
UPDATE: Light Rail Now has been informed that the Dodd-Shelby amendment was passed and has been added to the appropriations bill. However, President George W. Bush is threatening to veto this legislation. It's currently unknown whether there are sufficient votes in the US Senate to override such a veto.
More details on the new rule-making
See full text of the FTA's proposed rule.
This would diminish the ability of cities to get funding from an already crowded grant program. HOT lanes qualify for funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ... and we all know there's a lot of funding there. Over 300 New Starts projects – light rail transit (LRT), rail rapid transit, regional passenger rail ("commuter rail"), bus rapid transit – were authorized by the SAFETEA-LU federal transportation bill, and the argument by the FTA as to why they have such an intensive scrutiny of proposals is based mainly on the high demand for limited funding. Adding High Occupancy Toll freeway lanes to the list of eligible projects further strains the FTA's ability to fund new transit projects.
2. FTA would make the dreadful (and misnamed) cost-effectiveness index (CEI) the primary factor in deciding the fate of funding for New Starts projects
This "index" is the same measure that is killing top-quality rail projects, such as the Tyson's Corner Metro extension (Washington, DC area) and has killed, or set back, light rail plans in Columbus, Ohio, Raleigh. NC, and elsewhere. Almost every city that is looking to build new transit projects is worried about qualifying under this seriously flawed measure, and now it's being made even stronger. This measure is the reason why Minneapolis's Central Corridor light rail project might not be able to tunnel under the University of Minnesota, and why locally backed expansion of light rail has been turned into less effective BRT projects in some Houston corridors.
3. FTA's rulemaking pushes cheap, not completely dedicated-guideway, bus projects
The irony of the cost-effectiveness index is that, in reality, it fails to capture the full benefits and cost-effectiveness of a project. The index evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a light rail project versus corridor improvements such as bus rapid transit or improved local bus service. What this does is force cities to choose bus rapid transit projects over citizen-backed light rail projects that may have greater community benefits but also a higher initial price tag. Also, the measurements for the Very Small Starts program are set using the Southtown rapid bus project in Kansas City (which runs on city streets), and not rail or fixed-guideway BRT projects such as Los Angeles's Orange Line busway.
4. FTA reduces or ignores the importance of land use and economic development measures
Congress elevated land use and added economic development as project justification criteria in SAFETEA-LU (the current federal transit authorization). The US Department of Transportation (DOT), however, ignores this and has combined them into one measure with a combined weight of 20% in the overall rating process. The FTA states that it is too costly to implement the economic development measure, but the cost and burden to grantees such as cities and transit agencies is not considered when local jurisdictions are required to adopt the FTA's travel demand models, which have many problems and questionable aspects. The fact that they use those models to determine the "cost-effectiveness" rating – which decides who gets funding – is a problem in itself, as this rating index can't address all the benefits of fixed-guideway transit.
Furthermore, FTA argues that it's too difficult to separate land use from economic development, and that the increase in property values associated with proximity to transit is merely a result of improved time savings alone. We're sure many zoning offices and developers would be surprised to have these effects categorized so simplistically.
5. FTA's new policy could lower ratings for cities who are trying to address future rather than current congestion issues
The FTA would like to measure the New Starts program by the benefits to highway users, but ignores the effect of induced demand, which means that, when you build a new transit project, the space from cars that are taken off the road by transit is filled by new cars. The aim of transit opponents – to push money from the transit program into congestion pricing schemes and not-so-rapid bus projects – would result in less useful transit projects in corridors that might have real future need.
What can be done?
Transit advocates and other proponents of improved public transportation might consider contacting their congressmen or senators, to request them to stop the FTA's proposed rule and give the Department of Transportation a clear directive that the FTA must:
1. Comparably weight all 6 project justification criteria (mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, land use factors, and other factors – e.g., economic development, environmental justice considerations, livable communities initiatives, etc.), while recognizing the particular importance of transit-supportive land use and economic development in fostering successful and sustainable projects rather than considering just the direct costs of the project.
2. Maintain the current definition of "fixed-guideway transit" – i.e., focused on transit services operating on rails, special guideways, or busways.
3. Desist from raiding the federal transit program for road pricing schemes.
Light Rail Now! website
Here are details on what the FTA's new rules would do:
1. FTA would allow High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes to qualify for New Starts funding
The following commentary has been adapted from entries originally posted to The Overhead Wire Weblog on 10 September 2007 and the Daily Kos on 11 September 2007.
The US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has issued an extremely ominous and potentially retrogressive Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) for the New and Small Starts programs. These programs provide the basic new-starts funding for major fixed-guideway capital projects such as light rail transit (LRT), rail rapid transit (RRT, or "heavy rail"), and so-called bus rapid transit (BRT).
Rails to roads?
The proposed new rules are alarming on a number of levels. Most notably, they downgrade the importance of land use and economic development despite congressional direction to the contrary, and they propose to redefine the definition of "fixed-guideway" to include transit funding for highway lanes that use tolling schemes – thus diverting rail transit money into roadway (tollway) development.
Why is this important? To some extent, the FTA's proposed new rules would entrench policy positions advocated by notorious motor vehicle zealots and transit critics – folks such as the libertarian Reason Foundation and the Randal O'Toole/Wendell Cox cabal. The proposed rules ignore current transportation law regarding required project justification criteria and add new Federal intervention into the local decision-making process. If finalized, the new rule-making policy will hamper American cities' ability to build new transit lines for the next 5 years!
However, the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill moving through congress is an opportunity to formally weigh in and stop or alter the proposed FTA rule. In a recent development, Senators Christopher Dodd and Richard Shelby have proposed an amendment to kill the FTA's new rules. Transit advocates may wish to communicate their views on this issue to their own Senators on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, which can be accessed at the Senate Transportation appropriations webpage.
UPDATE: Light Rail Now has been informed that the Dodd-Shelby amendment was passed and has been added to the appropriations bill. However, President George W. Bush is threatening to veto this legislation. It's currently unknown whether there are sufficient votes in the US Senate to override such a veto.
More details on the new rule-making
See full text of the FTA's proposed rule.
This would diminish the ability of cities to get funding from an already crowded grant program. HOT lanes qualify for funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ... and we all know there's a lot of funding there. Over 300 New Starts projects – light rail transit (LRT), rail rapid transit, regional passenger rail ("commuter rail"), bus rapid transit – were authorized by the SAFETEA-LU federal transportation bill, and the argument by the FTA as to why they have such an intensive scrutiny of proposals is based mainly on the high demand for limited funding. Adding High Occupancy Toll freeway lanes to the list of eligible projects further strains the FTA's ability to fund new transit projects.
2. FTA would make the dreadful (and misnamed) cost-effectiveness index (CEI) the primary factor in deciding the fate of funding for New Starts projects
This "index" is the same measure that is killing top-quality rail projects, such as the Tyson's Corner Metro extension (Washington, DC area) and has killed, or set back, light rail plans in Columbus, Ohio, Raleigh. NC, and elsewhere. Almost every city that is looking to build new transit projects is worried about qualifying under this seriously flawed measure, and now it's being made even stronger. This measure is the reason why Minneapolis's Central Corridor light rail project might not be able to tunnel under the University of Minnesota, and why locally backed expansion of light rail has been turned into less effective BRT projects in some Houston corridors.
3. FTA's rulemaking pushes cheap, not completely dedicated-guideway, bus projects
The irony of the cost-effectiveness index is that, in reality, it fails to capture the full benefits and cost-effectiveness of a project. The index evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a light rail project versus corridor improvements such as bus rapid transit or improved local bus service. What this does is force cities to choose bus rapid transit projects over citizen-backed light rail projects that may have greater community benefits but also a higher initial price tag. Also, the measurements for the Very Small Starts program are set using the Southtown rapid bus project in Kansas City (which runs on city streets), and not rail or fixed-guideway BRT projects such as Los Angeles's Orange Line busway.
4. FTA reduces or ignores the importance of land use and economic development measures
Congress elevated land use and added economic development as project justification criteria in SAFETEA-LU (the current federal transit authorization). The US Department of Transportation (DOT), however, ignores this and has combined them into one measure with a combined weight of 20% in the overall rating process. The FTA states that it is too costly to implement the economic development measure, but the cost and burden to grantees such as cities and transit agencies is not considered when local jurisdictions are required to adopt the FTA's travel demand models, which have many problems and questionable aspects. The fact that they use those models to determine the "cost-effectiveness" rating – which decides who gets funding – is a problem in itself, as this rating index can't address all the benefits of fixed-guideway transit.
Furthermore, FTA argues that it's too difficult to separate land use from economic development, and that the increase in property values associated with proximity to transit is merely a result of improved time savings alone. We're sure many zoning offices and developers would be surprised to have these effects categorized so simplistically.
5. FTA's new policy could lower ratings for cities who are trying to address future rather than current congestion issues
The FTA would like to measure the New Starts program by the benefits to highway users, but ignores the effect of induced demand, which means that, when you build a new transit project, the space from cars that are taken off the road by transit is filled by new cars. The aim of transit opponents – to push money from the transit program into congestion pricing schemes and not-so-rapid bus projects – would result in less useful transit projects in corridors that might have real future need.
What can be done?
Transit advocates and other proponents of improved public transportation might consider contacting their congressmen or senators, to request them to stop the FTA's proposed rule and give the Department of Transportation a clear directive that the FTA must:
1. Comparably weight all 6 project justification criteria (mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, land use factors, and other factors – e.g., economic development, environmental justice considerations, livable communities initiatives, etc.), while recognizing the particular importance of transit-supportive land use and economic development in fostering successful and sustainable projects rather than considering just the direct costs of the project.
2. Maintain the current definition of "fixed-guideway transit" – i.e., focused on transit services operating on rails, special guideways, or busways.
3. Desist from raiding the federal transit program for road pricing schemes.
Light Rail Now! website
Here are details on what the FTA's new rules would do:
1. FTA would allow High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes to qualify for New Starts funding
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
