Why Is America's Transportation System Stuck in the 1950s?

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Transit

Why Is America's Transportation System Stuck in the 1950s?

[54 posts] [17 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 3 months ago by Walker
Latest reply from columbusmike

Tags:

« Previous 1 23

bman
New Albany
Login to Send PM

jbcmh81 said:
The title of the thread is wrong. To say that we're still in the 1950s as far as transportation implies that we're actually spending money on large scale infrastructure projects. We haven't done that in years. I'm not exactly a fan of the vision at the time considering what it did to our cities, but at least they had a vision and had the drive to take on such investment. Today, we have the likes of bman, whose main point of argument seems to revolve around a 5 year old's word for train.

Spin choo choo however you want it, facts are that we CAN NOT afford building the Thomas The Tank line with current and foreseeable budget conditions. As Cheap says above, you guys want to build it, HOPING people ride it. Well, BMAN and my guess is many other taxpayers are going to say NO ... maintain what we have.

Jon ... xplain to me how having a highway system vs a HSR passenger rail system is a competitive disadvantage. We are still going to have to ship the product over the highway system. Spending billions on moving you and Lifeonhistricycle around for your purposes seems to not move the competitive business environment forward.

I think I am going to put a signature line on all of my posts from now on like Andrew does but mine will be ....

All Aboard!

Posted 3 months ago #
bman
New Albany
Login to Send PM

cheap said:

Contrary to how it may sound, I do not want to rid the earth of cars. I just want to use them smarter. Do you really need a 2-ton vehicle to pickup your dry-cleaning? Probably not. Although I do see the appeal in loading a family of 6 into an SUV and traveling to Florida for vacation. That is a totally reasonable use of an automobile. What I really want is clean, walkable, safe, affordable, and family-friendly cities and towns. In a strange way, I kind of want to live in Mayberry.

I know Cheap doesn't want the likes of this suburbanite agreeing with him but ...

+1

this guy has some good points,and shows good examples

but like other urbanites,they feel the only solution is to "force" people to change their ways to suit their "mayberry".

look,it's a mess out there,but constantly beating the "raise taxes on gas" and "build a train" or "you can't have a big car" drum really accomplishes nothing.

i always thought of Columbus as a medium sized city.not an Atlanta,but not a Mansfield,either.

i feel if the mass transportation we have now was tweaked with more express busing and suburbs like Dublin/Hilliard/New Albany stepping up with their own bus service,things could lighten up in this town.

for too long,suburbanites have this illusion that if there is no bussing,then the zombies won't invade their little village.

many suburban counties in this country have found out that's bullshit,and have adopted their own bus service.

Posted 3 months ago #
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM

bman said:
Spin choo choo however you want it, facts are that we CAN NOT afford building the Thomas The Tank line with current and foreseeable budget conditions. As Cheap says above, you guys want to build it, HOPING people ride it. Well, BMAN and my guess is many other taxpayers are going to say NO ... maintain what we have.

Jon ... xplain to me how having a highway system vs a HSR passenger rail system is a competitive disadvantage. We are still going to have to ship the product over the highway system. Spending billions on moving you and Lifeonhistricycle around for your purposes seems to not move the competitive business environment forward.

I think I am going to put a signature line on all of my posts from now on like Andrew does but mine will be ....

All Aboard!

Still can't provide links to research, polls or the like to support your claims? Just more insults and childish words to describe what you don't like?

Posted 3 months ago #
columbusmike

Login to Send PM

We need both roads and rail. If you look at what is going on in Europe, they have a pretty successful transportation model. They have relatively high speed trains linking their cities in conjunction with highways (although, much smaller than our highways). The US has some issues that will complicate bringing a successful national rail network to our country (our cities have decentralized, more people own private cars, etc), but a combination of more rail and less highways will benefit us greatly -- people and goods will be able to move much quicker on rail, roads will be less congested, and fewer and smaller roads will be much easier to maintain and place much less burden on the tax payer. Unfortunately, our leadership lacks vision to find ways to save our country money in the long run....exactly why we find ourselves in a pickle today.

Posted 3 months ago #
JonMyers
HCMC ✈
Login to Send PM

cheap said:
good point
i see where youre coming from,i just always thinking tweaking something that's available now is a good idea

then if it fails,go for the bucks and lay a couple rails and hope people ride it.

cheap, I don't see the transportation argument as cars and/ or vs. rail.

As it has been stated here and other places. I believe it has to be multi-modal. There has to be a transportation strategy that is relevant to the present, future needs, the climate, use case, density and projected density.

There is no one-size fits all approach.

There are ways to craft that vision and there are ways to calibrate and make projections upon that vision.

Presently there is no relevant transportation vision or strategy in the US, let alone at the city and state level.

I remember when Coleman was peddling the street car with no comprehensive, relevant transportation strategy. It was a gimmick. It was crap. That kind of empty visioning is what I'm used to seeing in the states. It won't work or build consensus.

As far as tweaking.

I see transportation as a competitive issue, an issue that determines the global competitiveness of our country. I dont think you tweak something that is a core issue of competitiveness.

We have to get serious and take some risks to reinvent it if we want to continue to dominate for decades to come.

Right now the transportation paradigm is trapped in the usual partisan, special interesest driven, black and white squabbling that typifies the lack of progress in the US.

Meanwhile, there are parts of the world racing by us.

Posted 3 months ago #
JonMyers
HCMC ✈
Login to Send PM

bman said:Jon ... xplain to me how having a highway system vs a HSR passenger rail system is a competitive disadvantage. We are still going to have to ship the product over the highway system. Spending billions on moving you and Lifeonhistricycle around for your purposes seems to not move the competitive business environment forward.

Help me understand where I stated cars vs. rails or where you got that impression?

I'm saying the existing transportation paradigm, the stagnant nature of that paradigm (cars rule) is inadequate, economically unsustainable and an issue of global competitiveness.

Do you honestly believe fossil-fuel cars clogging up public space are the future?

Posted 3 months ago #
columbusmike

Login to Send PM

JonMyers said:
I see transportation as a competitive issue, an issue that determines the global competitiveness of our country. I dont think you tweak something that is a core issue of competitiveness.

I don't think "global competitiveness" (as Obama also often touts) is justification for better transportation planning...or at least I'm not sure I understand that reasoning? I would argue it's for lessening our dependence on automobile use for everything, reducing traffic congestion, reducing our tax burden over the long haul by shrinking the amount of road surfaces, etc.

Posted 3 months ago #
JonMyers
HCMC ✈
Login to Send PM

Mike - You've already made the point for me regarding competitiveness.

Reducing automotive dependency, reducing transportation costs, and reducing congestion are factors that impact the cost of doing business in a city or in this case a country.

If we do it better, we win business, jobs, etc.

Posted 3 months ago #
columbusmike

Login to Send PM

JonMyers said:
Mike - You've already made the point for me regarding competitiveness.

Reducing automotive dependency, reducing transportation costs, and reducing congestion are factors that impact the cost of doing business in a city or in this case a country.

If we do it better, we win business, jobs, etc.

Makes sense...I'm just not sure if that should be the main goal. I'm not sure how many businesses are going to relocate to America based on our rail and highway network. In my opinion, creating an environment that helps businesses and people here in the US succeed is equally as important.

Posted 3 months ago #
jbcmh81

Login to Send PM

bman said:
Spin choo choo however you want it, facts are that we CAN NOT afford building the Thomas The Tank line with current and foreseeable budget conditions. As Cheap says above, you guys want to build it, HOPING people ride it. Well, BMAN and my guess is many other taxpayers are going to say NO ... maintain what we have.

Jon ... xplain to me how having a highway system vs a HSR passenger rail system is a competitive disadvantage. We are still going to have to ship the product over the highway system. Spending billions on moving you and Lifeonhistricycle around for your purposes seems to not move the competitive business environment forward.

I think I am going to put a signature line on all of my posts from now on like Andrew does but mine will be ....

All Aboard!

We cannot also, apparently, afford to build more roads, or even to take care of the ones we have. Unless you toll every single highway (and more), road building is and always has been a huge money loser. That's what I don't get about your arguments. You clearly champion the highway and then mention that HSR or light rail costs money. That's a contradictory position, and at least with mass transit, it can be a money maker in the end if implemented correctly. I think most people who want mass transit understand that the car will still be king, at least for the foreseeable future, but comprehensive transportation systems have proven successful around the world, so why not here? Again, it has to be done right and one step at a time, but it can be done and it can be successful.

Posted 3 months ago #
JonMyers
HCMC ✈
Login to Send PM

columbusmike said:
Makes sense...I'm just not sure if that should be the main goal. I'm not sure how many businesses are going to relocate to America based on our rail and highway network. In my opinion, creating an environment that helps businesses and people here in the US succeed is equally as important.

Mike, that is is one of the main points I'm going after, which is helping people in the US succeed first and foremost.

How does this help?

Well, number one and probably most importantly, the mobility of the workforce and the cost associated with moving that work force should be a national priority. It's not.

I see the point of mobility of the workforce and the costs associated with moving them as a huge competitive issue, and more importantly when done right it can be a source of wealth creation rather than deepening of debt.

Posted 3 months ago #
columbusmike

Login to Send PM

JonMyers said:
I see the point of mobility of the workforce and the costs associated with moving them as a huge competitive issue, and more importantly when done right it can be a source of wealth creation rather than deepening of debt.

Agreed. I think a lot of people are against rail because it chronically is linked to Amtrak. People see Amtrak as a mismanaged government boondoggle (and I agree that it hasn't been effectively managed). However, I like to use the example of an airline system that only flies to 3 or 4 airports. There's not too many airlines that could succeed without a complete network of airports to bring in passengers. Ironically, Amtrak is asked to succeed with a very limited network to pull passengers from. The same could be said of a highway system that only links 3 or 4 cities, etc.

Posted 3 months ago #
pedex

Login to Send PM

The highway system loses massive amounts of $$, and has since the federal gasoline taxes never were increased to keep up with costs. Not much different than Amtrak, it is a subsidized transit system.

If all the external costs were actually forced on motorists to pay the highway system would collapse even faster than it is already. Anyone look at gasoline consumption lately? Miles driven? Fleet mileage? Guess what? The economy and real costs are literally killing the American motoring way of life right before our eyes and I bet few have even noticed it.

Rail is the cheapest most efficient way of moving man and material over land man has ever invented and it was artificially pushed out of the marketplace by US policy, the free market was distorted in favor of autos and roads. We are now being forced to pay for that choice and the ramifications that come with it and we can't afford it.

Given present trends with respect to our economy, energy situation, employment, property values etc etc......doesn't it seem more than just a bit stupid to assume the happy motoring world is gonna survive as we have known it for a whole lot longer?

Posted 3 months ago #
columbusmike

Login to Send PM

Ironically, the topic of transportation funding was on All Sides this morning on NPR...

Posted 3 months ago #