Mapping Obama's Now-Failed Transport Policy 25 comments
- Gregor Macdonald's articles on Seeking Alpha
- Visit: Gregor.us
- Gregor's Premium Newsletter
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Over the past few months David Pryce of Debategraph in the UK has been visually mapping out the progress of policy issues from the Obama Administration. In January, leading up to the inauguration, David contacted me through Twitter and asked if he could use a post of mine on Public Transport as a way to flesh out his graphic further. I was delighted to oblige. (Click here for interactive image.)
At that time, there was the promise that Rail and Public Transport would secure a special place in a spending bill, whose goal ostensibly was to build infrastructure. Well, that’s simply no longer the case. This $800 billion plan will at best contain $10 billion for rail. That barely covers planned projects at Amtrak, let alone new Light Rail or Commuter Rail needed in many US cities.
The US is now incorrectly positioned for the next decade because it’s still overweight auto-infrastructure. Let me repeat: one of the most defining and important structures of the United States, automobile infrastructure, remains in gross excess and is both a present and future liability. It makes us less competitive, less productive, and less wealthy. Does that make it clear enough? Excess automobile infrastructure is a tax on the economy.
The embedded value therefore that could be captured by the economy (time and capital), were it to re-weight towards electrified transport, is gargantuan. Remember, what’s at issue here is not getting rid of automobiles. For many States in the US, especially farm states, that will never happen. And never needs to happen. What’s at issue is making the shift.
Let’s also be clear that no such shift, or plan for such a shift, now exists in the President’s $800 billion stimulus bill. As I wrote back in early January, it would be silly and absurd for the President to go ahead, say, with new carbon and climate change policy if he was going to do nothing to address the number of cars plugging up American cities. Well, given that the stimulus bill has over $30 billion for roads and bridges and a pittance for rail, I’d say that moment has come.
Someone has already done a decent job of mapping out the stimulus bill in its current form. In the following Map, take a look at the size of infrastructure compared to the whole, and in addition see if you can even find the Transport category. I wonder if David Pryce of Debategraph will map out the bill once completed?
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
1. Can freight be moved cheaper and faster using semi-trailers as rail car freight containers for long haul (say 500-1000 miles and more) and over the highway eighteen wheelers for local and short haul transport?
2. Is our current interstate highway system adequate (if properly maintained) for commerce and personal transportation if the long haul rail option were used?
3. Is light rail personal transport a non-viable option for small metropolitan, semi-rural and rural areas with less than 2-3 million people?
4. Is local bus service a better option than light rail for the locales listed in item 3?
5. Are there areas where local roads need to be improved? Does political infighting make a porkfest likely in this area?
I am not prepared to do an analysis of these issues, but I am predisposed to answer "yes" to all the questions. Can anyone cite research or add some detailed analysis to clarify the issues?
Let me say: one of the most important structures of the United States, automobile infrastructure, is also one of its great strengths; it remains solvent, unlike Amtrak, and is a present and future asset of the people. It makes us more free, able to move around on our own schedule, and more safe, not having to worry about who is in the rail car with us, and what they may try to do; in recent years, fuel efficiency has begun to make the leaps that will secure its place as one of the pillars of not only the national economy, but one of the great enablers of freedom: the ability to be individually mobile -- to go where one wants, when one wants, independent of decree on whether the public modes run that day or not...or whether the rail, ferry or air traffic workers decide to strike -- we can GO when we want to go. Sufficient automobile infrastructure is foundational to the U.S. economy.
The whole concept of taxing CO2 emissions is absurd - it is a regressive tax based on a highly contested theory. It is an even worse idea to tax CO2 without providing a feasible alternative - an incredibly bad public policy.
The stimulus plan sucks because it represents a fails to support a transportation policy initiative that will take at least a decade to plan and implement.
Make up your mind.
Sure we all want to hit the road and take road trips and experience some of that American freedom that comes from the Goodyears meeting the pavement, but at what cost? Just trying to offer a different perspective on the topic.
Those of us who commute by car in a city are aware of the high costs, both in money, and in time, but most have no alternative.
Rail transportation infrastructure would have long-term economic, environmental, and quality of life benefits. Unfortunately, it is neglected in favor of quick fixes, such as rapidly scattering money to attempt to re-ignite unsustainable hyper-consumption.
How did you get to work? Yeah...I know.
Get out of my face.
If we are able to make repairs to our roads & bridges, while simultaneously upgrading our rail system, America could have a win-win in most regards. This approach could free up money that states and municipalities could spend on other things.
Also, I'd like to see some money go towards high-speed rail. America is way behind the curve in this area.
Unless tectonic shifts occur in this country, I'm not seeing rail make more than very small scale gains. Land costs alone in areas where it makes most sense would be prohibitive. I'd say chipping away at the edges on all sides would be more workable: conservation in all forms, enhanced fleet mpg, rational development (e.g. village model, disincentives to sprawl, etc etc), and best, bicycles. (Yes, even you can enjoy the commuting weight loss plan! Shed pounds as you cycle to and from work and errands! Well maybe not in Minneapolis in January).
The thing about rail and public transit is that they are necessarily governmental at the construction level (because of the eminent domain issues), but they are not necessarily governmental at the operational level.
People for years have pushed to have private carriers operate trains on federally owned tracks, to no avail.
There really is an opportunity for a transportation infrastructure plan which would put a lot of stimulus into the economy, and would produce infrastructure worth having. . . the author is sadly correct that this plan doesn't have much of this.
Since this stimulus bill seems to do nothing to fix the economy besides make the US in a fiscally weaker position like Bush's pork bills (stimulus, annual budgets, and TARP) I guess it passes as eco-friendly without mass injections for mass transit. A really eco-friendly bill would be one that makes us go bankrupt and then into a depression.
And driving 90 minutes to work and back every day does not make you more free. It does obviously make you a xenophobe though. Have you ever been on a train in your life? Yes, there may be brown people on it, but they generally will not try to rape or kill you. Statistically you are more likely to burn to death in your car under a Mexican semi.
Your ideas are narrow and not your own. Think about things a bit first. Take a nice walk. Read a novel.
On Feb 10 12:03 PM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:
> Let me say: one of the most important structures of the United States,
> automobile infrastructure, is also one of its great strengths; it
> remains solvent, unlike Amtrak, and is a present and future asset
> of the people. It makes us more free, able to move around on our
> own schedule, and more safe, not having to worry about who is in
> the rail car with us, and what they may try to do; in recent years,
> fuel efficiency has begun to make the leaps that will secure its
> place as one of the pillars of not only the national economy, but
> one of the great enablers of freedom: the ability to be individually
> mobile -- to go where one wants, when one wants, independent of decree
> on whether the public modes run that day or not...or whether the
> rail, ferry or air traffic workers decide to strike -- we can GO
> when we want to go. Sufficient automobile infrastructure is foundational
> to the U.S. economy.
Friday , February 06, 2009
By Ben Lieberman
ADVERTISEMENTOne of them wanted to see Americans paying $8 a gallon for gasoline. Another tried to block access to domestic oil reserves that could one day exceed those in Saudi Arabia. Another thinks global warming is a dire crisis justifying a massive crackdown on energy -- decades after saying the same thing about global cooling. Yet another had a position in the one of the world’s top socialist organizations.
Meet the Obama administration’s energy team.
Forget everything you’ve heard about the president’s moderate picks on the economy, national security and other issues. When it comes to energy policy and related environmental concerns, this group is off-the-charts extreme. Too bad the issue will be a critical one over the next few years.
Consider Obama’s choice for energy secretary, Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Chu. “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” The Wall Street Journal quoted him as saying last September. In most Western European nations, gas taxes alone come to around $4 a gallon and are designed to make the pump price so high that people are forced to drive a lot less. At the time of Chu’s comment, the “levels in Europe” were near $8 a gallon.
Chu has also said that electricity prices are “anomalously low,” though he neglected to indicate how much higher he wants them to go. Instead of a secretary of energy, it sounds like America is getting its first secretary against energy. Chu backed off such rhetoric after being nominated, but his true feelings seem obvious.
Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) is Obama’s choice to head the Department of the Interior, the agency that handles energy leasing on federal lands and most offshore areas. As a senator, Salazar has opposed much of this leasing, based on overblown environmental fears. It looks like “drill, baby, drill” isn’t going to survive to adulthood.
In addition to opposing domestic drilling for conventional oil, Salazar was also responsible for legislation blocking the development of oil shale. America has vast amounts of this oil-containing rock, mostly beneath federal lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The process of efficiently extracting this oil is still being improved; oil shale is a long-term project with uncertain prospects at this time. But if successful, it could provide literally hundreds of billions of barrels, exceeding the reserves in Saudi Arabia and providing enough oil to supply the United States for many decades.
As secretary of the interior, Salazar will have even more chances to stop cold any progress on oil shale, and with it our best hope for a dramatic increase in domestic oil production.
As with Chu, Obama’s choice for science adviser, John Holdren, has impressive academic credentials but some very strange energy and environmental policy views. Even Al Gore can’t match Holdren’s global warming gloom-and-doom rhetoric, including the claim that it could kill as many as 1 billion people by 2020. Holdren’s a veteran at making such alarming predictions, but back in the 1970s he worried more about whether man would survive the “threat of making the planet too cold.”
But whether it’s warming or cooling, Holdren has consistently advocated the same heavy-handed crackdowns on the economy and energy use, including the need for a “massive campaign ... to de-develop the United States.” Good thing he’s not in charge of the stimulus package.
Rob Bradley, chairman of the Institute for Energy Research, has compiled an amazing list of Holdren’s favorite policy prescriptions, including the “limitation of material consumption,” “redistribution of the wealth,” and even “movement toward some kind of world government.”
Apparently, Holdren isn’t alone on the world government stuff.
In the position of the president’s top
Obama�s 'Extreme Team' On Energy
Friday , February 06, 2009
By Ben Lieberman
ADVERTISEMENTOne of them wanted to see Americans paying $8 a gallon for gasoline. Another tried to block access to domestic oil reserves that could one day exceed those in Saudi Arabia. Another thinks global warming is a dire crisis justifying a massive crackdown on energy -- decades after saying the same thing about global cooling. Yet another had a position in the one of the world’s top socialist organizations.
Meet the Obama administration’s energy team.
Forget everything you’ve heard about the president’s moderate picks on the economy, national security and other issues. When it comes to energy policy and related environmental concerns, this group is off-the-charts extreme. Too bad the issue will be a critical one over the next few years.
Consider Obama’s choice for energy secretary, Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Chu. “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” The Wall Street Journal quoted him as saying last September. In most Western European nations, gas taxes alone come to around $4 a gallon and are designed to make the pump price so high that people are forced to drive a lot less. At the time of Chu’s comment, the “levels in Europe” were near $8 a gallon.
Chu has also said that electricity prices are “anomalously low,” though he neglected to indicate how much higher he wants them to go. Instead of a secretary of energy, it sounds like America is getting its first secretary against energy. Chu backed off such rhetoric after being nominated, but his true feelings seem obvious.
Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) is Obama’s choice to head the Department of the Interior, the agency that handles energy leasing on federal lands and most offshore areas. As a senator, Salazar has opposed much of this leasing, based on overblown environmental fears. It looks like “drill, baby, drill” isn’t going to survive to adulthood.
In addition to opposing domestic drilling for conventional oil, Salazar was also responsible for legislation blocking the development of oil shale. America has vast amounts of this oil-containing rock, mostly beneath federal lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The process of efficiently extracting this oil is still being improved; oil shale is a long-term project with uncertain prospects at this time. But if successful, it could provide literally hundreds of billions of barrels, exceeding the reserves in Saudi Arabia and providing enough oil to supply the United States for many decades.
As secretary of the interior, Salazar will have even more chances to stop cold any progress on oil shale, and with it our best hope for a dramatic increase in domestic oil production.
As with Chu, Obama’s choice for science adviser, John Holdren, has impressive academic credentials but some very strange energy and environmental policy views. Even Al Gore can’t match Holdren’s global warming gloom-and-doom rhetoric, including the claim that it could kill as many as 1 billion people by 2020. Holdren’s a veteran at making such alarming predictions, but back in the 1970s he worried more about whether man would survive the “threat of making the planet too cold.”
But whether it’s warming or cooling, Holdren has consistently advocated the same heavy-handed crackdowns on the economy and energy use, including the need for a “massive campaign ... to de-develop the Unit awas e wlee
On Feb 10 07:00 PM socphd71 wrote:
> Rail requires higher population density than do cars. Our suburbs,
> as well as many rural areas, are built to such a low population density
> that there is little alternative to cars -- not even urban transit
> with small buses. Large cities largely built after the automobile
> (e.g., Phoenix) also lack the population density to support rail
> as a substitute for most car driving. These factors will create even
> more problems when the baby boomers reach their later 70s and older.
> Many will no longer be physically and/or mentally able to drive,
> yet they will still need to get around.
A few years ago I spent week in Kentucky and the conclusion I came to was it was economically VERY vulnerable to high oil prices, in a way the UK is not. It was difficult to see how they could adapt quickly, they could be like the dinosaurs just before the meteor hit.