The Congress for the New Urbanism has published a summary of the presidential candidates’ stances on issues regarding new urbanism and sustainability. They looked at the candidates’ websites, voting records, news sites, and position papers to come up with as much information as they could gather. So far, Obama is the only candidate that has really addressed those issues at all, other than the issue of climate change, on which McCain has weighed in.
The biggest difference between the two candidates in this area, based on available information, is regarding Amtrak funding. McCain wants to cut all funding for Amtrak. Obama, in contrast, was a cosponsor of the Passenger Rail Investment and Innovation Act of 2007 which continues support for Amtrak. He also supports the development of high-speed freight and passenger rail.
Hmmm … so Obama is more rail friendly than McCain. Think David P. Jordan will vote for him???
😉
KID,
The worst part about this year’s crop of candidates is that one of them will be president 🙂
My primary interest in railroads is in rail freight, not passenger. Unfortunately, both of these clowns’ policies would likely harm the nation’s economy – Obama more so with his tax-and-spend policies – and thus, the nation’s railroads.
After George W. Bush and the Republican Congress of 1994-2006, how can anyone still cling to the ludicrous idea that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility? The “tax and spend” mantra is dead, David. It worked in the 80’s and 90’s, but it doesn’t work anymore. The fact that most die-hard Republicans haven’t figured that out is a big part of the reason that the GOP is circling the political toilet.
YES. YES. YES.
I’ve been hoping to hear of some new rail development, especially for freight. And here’s the GOP accusing the Dems of having no proposals for *snicker* gas relief.
Think of it. We could eliminate a big chunk of demand by limiting truck freight to local areas. Anything outside of a metropolitan area would go by rail, to be picked up by truck and the depot.
Likewise, we could have an interstate rail system, and on top of that we could have local rail systems. To support the local systems we’d have the existing bus services and taxis to fill in the gaps.
But no, the GOP has no plans to reduce consumption. That would hurt the profits of their financiers. Instead, they want to drill more so they can sell more. Pathetic.
KiD: dazzling analysis. Apparently the pot has been accusing the kettle with its eyes closed all this time.
Postsimian,
Not sure what you smoking but get sober so you can read carefully because here’s the facts:
(1) Economics, not government mandates, should determine whether one uses rail or truck. The current drive to reroute haz-mat shipments around cities is an example why government power needs to be restrained.
(2) Railroads and motor carriers use completely different forms of technology and so they have their own disadvantages and advantages:
Railroads have the advantage of being able to haul more tonnage for less cost; The disadvantage is that for most freight cars, much handling is necessary in transit, requiring days and sometimes weeks to get a car from origin to destination.
Trucks have the advantage of being able to haul freight, albeit one load at a time, between shipper and consignee. That is why most time-sensitive freight moves by truck, unless import/exports which use rail intermodal services or there is enough freight for dedicated unit trains.
The disadvantage of motor carriers is that in a nation of 305 million people, we have lots of raw materials and finished goods to haul in volume, and so the railroads are superior when concentration, quantity, weight of cargo and distance are factored in. That is why the railroads’ tonnage has doubled in the last 20 years. Of course, there’s plenty of business for both, and truck volume has probably at least doubled in that same time frame as well.
(3) Decentralization of population makes it impossible for rail transit to solve the current fuel price shock. Forced centralization would not be feasible. Expanded rail transit can help ease congestion in the big cities and help incentivize better land use, but it can’t solve the fuel price problem. Too few people would benefit for this to be possible.
(4) The GOP has been acting like sissies of late, but the Dems are no better. We’re addicted to oil like we’re addicted to oxygen. Our cars run on oil-based fuels, not pixie dust, because it is the most economical (ethanol is useful but we can’t make enough of it to replace oil). Unless you want to be forced to make expensive modifications to your vehicle(s) or be forced to buy a new one for $30 grand, you better hope you can still fill it with gasoline during the next decade.
(5) Oil companies may have drilling rights in certain places offshore, but lack of refinery capacity (Congress has been screwing around with attempts to restore many offshore platforms to production Post-Katrina) is a disincentive to look for oil in many places where it’s unclear whether there is any. We need to lift any and all restrictions on offshore drilling, or drilling in public lands. That will increase the chances of finding new, large oil reserves. No, it won’t solve the problem tomorrow, but then if those stupid, spineless, grandstanding pols had not prevented it in the first place, the current spike in oil prices would not have been as severe (the rise of China and India and also tensions in the Persian Gulf region would have caused a rise in oil prices regardless, but not to $4-5 a gallon).
We also need to build a number of new refineries. The last one was completed in 1976. Fortunately, some are being expanded, but that’s not enough – rising population and prosperity in developing countries increases the need for oil, and the ability to efficiently convert it to fuel.
1) Who ought to decide is a matter of opinion, not set-in-stone fact. I can’t remember the last time “the market” did anything to benefit mankind for the sake of advancing our species unless it appeared to be profitable. Undertaking certain things are justification in and of themselves. Let’s go down the list of things our government has done to advance us:
a) The Interstate Highway System
b) Social Security (granted, they’ve ruined it since)
c) Through DARPA, laid the foundation for what became modern computer networking
d) Launched us into space and landed on the friggin moon
The list goes on and on. This is the type of thing that will advance us, whereas the “all-knowing” market is content with squeezing every last penny out of what we already have. So much for the mantra that a “free market brings innovation.” Feh.
As for hazardous materials–why would anyone be opposed to shipping them outside of densely populated areas? Anything to save a buck, right?
2) Using current technology? Maybe. When is the last time that was updated? If we rebuild the infrastructure to support newer, faster technology, these disadvantages shouldn’t be a concern. Moreover, while some shipments are time-sensitive and require expedited delivery, most do not. Many companies receive regular shipments once or twice a week while many others receive far fewer. Again, the long-term benefits are worth the upfront costs.
3) It won’t solve the current price shock. Frankly, I fail to see any immediate solution that will have a serious impact on the price of fuel. This is the time to think of long-term solutions, even if they don’t bring us out of our current crunch immediately.
As for “too few people,” I disagree. Too few people benefit from, say, Peoria’s current mass transit system because the coverage isn’t comprehensive for the metropolitan area and relies on an archaic method of transit. The current bus routes could reasonably be replaced by a well designed rail system. The buses would then be free to make more frequent trips to support transit from the rail system. Bigger cities have been doing this for decades.
While something like this won’t lower fuel prices (much, if at all), it will provide a alternative to people who don’t want to pay/can’t afford $4+ per gallon but still need a viable method of transport for getting to work on time or shopping and just getting around town. It works in big cities, and their systems are far more complex than something befitting of the Peoria area.
4) Ethanol is hardly what’d I’d call efficient. First off, the amount of oil it takes to produce it makes it hardly worth the effort. It drives up food costs, and not just corn (think of the thousands of products corn is used in). The real benefactors are the farmers who produce it, not society at large.
I think it’s time we stopped relying on the conventional combustion engine and started coming up with and using new technology. I’ve been reading up on a car that runs on an engine which uses compressed air. On one charge and 8 gallons of gas it can travel for up to 850 miles at a maximum speed of 96 mph before needing a recharge. The vehicle has all the standard features, including air bags, power locks and windows, full stereo system, heat and a/c, etc. Also, it seats up to six people. Starting price: $18,600. Release: 2010. Sounds like the future to me. Details on the vehicle can be found here: http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=43
You’re right, we need to drastically decrease our dependence on fossil fuels–especially before we hit peak oil. A modern, efficient interstate rail system coupled with technology like the “air car” will do just that.
5) I recently read that refinery capacity in the United States is hovering around 80 percent–they’re not exactly bursting at the seams. Suffice it to say I don’t buy that argument. Update the existing ones? Sure. Build new ones? Not so much.
Perhaps it would be wise to open new areas to drilling simply to guarantee our supply is sustained–but not without serious reforms and new regulations to the industry and a fool-proof guarantee against environmental damage. Currently, the oil market is lightly regulated by any standard. I know what you’re thinking: regulation will drive up prices.
Hardly. Regulation is a necessity to prevent situations like the one we’re currently in. The blame can’t be placed on a single source (such as oil companies, speculators, supply, growth overseas, OPEC, domestic demand, government incompetence) but each plays a part regardless.
Look at the housing market crash; once again, very little regulation. It’s plain to see that the market and the private sector which supports it simply doesn’t self regulate the way they ought to, which is why regulatory bodies in the government exist in the first place: companies have shown time after time that they can’t be trusted to do it on their own.
—
Now put down your pipe and listen to these facts: it’s too late to “solve” the current crisis in a reasonable amount of time. Decades of excess and entitlement have lead us to this PREVENTABLE situation and, frankly, we missed the boat, chief. The best we can hope for is this turning out to be nothing more than an economic bubble, but that won’t solve our problems forever. Peak oil is coming, and we’re going to be up the proverbial creek if we’re not proactive in dealing with the reality of it.
Hands down, there needs to be a categorical reform of epic proportions in the energy market at large and we need to build sustainable, innovative new projects to ensure our own prosperity. I find it laughable that we call ourselves the greatest nation on earth, but can’t even keep up with the Joneses (China, India, friggin DUBAI) in terms of progress or aspiration to greatness.
Instead, we’re too busy telling everyone else what they ought to be doing instead of taking care of domestic matters. We can only rest on our laurels for so long. Hell, the most “grand” project we’ve undertaken in recent memory is building a fence on the border with Mexico. Whooptie-doo.
The market and private enterprise is not going to lead the way–they’ve assured us they’re perfectly fine with maintaining the status quo.
Addendum–sorry for the ridiculously long reply. There was much to say. 😛
Postsimian wrote:
a) The Interstate Highway System
b) Social Security (granted, they’ve ruined it since)
c) Through DARPA, laid the foundation for what became modern computer networking
d) Launched us into space and landed on the friggin moon
Government funded those things…private enterprise designed and built them. Big difference.
As for hazardous materials–why would anyone be opposed to shipping them outside of densely populated areas? Anything to save a buck, right?
Hazardous materials are all over Peoria. Gasoline is delivered to service stations in the city by truck. Caterpillar plants in East Peoria, Morton, Mapleton and Mossville get tank trucks loaded with diesel fuel, lube oil and coolant. These trucks are destined here. You can’t reroute them. Grain alcohol is made by ADM in Peoria and by two other firms in Pekin. You can’t reroute that – truck or railcar. Railroads interchange with each other in cities, and sometimes they have only one common in…you guessed it – in a major city (think Chicago). Classification yards are in cities. Haz-mat loads must pass through major cities because their mainlines pass through cities. Railroads were designed to serve cities, not go around them, because that’s where the business is.
What are you talking about?
Government proposed those things, built and funded them. Private companies certainly did not design the space shuttle, nor its predecessors, nor did they build them. That was NASA, a government agency. During the design of social security, bankers and economists may have been consulted, but the government drafted and implemented the plan. The DARPA projects were designed and built by the the government in association with universities around the country.
The only one which may have been contracted to private enterprise for purposes of building is the Interstate Highway System. Car companies lobbied for it in the fifties, but it had been in planning by the government for over 30 years by that point. It was designed by the federal government, both in route and engineering.
The point is this: would private enterprise have built these things of their own volition? Not a chance. Wasn’t profitable. But they’ve all reaped the benefits since then. When it comes to progress, only the exceptional few businesses are free from such narrow vision, not the majority.
—
Sorry, I thought we were talking things like uranium or chemical waste. A blanket hazmat rerouting makes no sense at all in the context you mentioned.
Postsimian,
What are you talking about?
NASA engineers may have designed the space shuttle but the vehicle would not have existed without contractors to build the components such as Martin Marietta (external fuel tank), Morton Thiokol (solid rocket boosters), North American Aviation (vehicle itself) and Rocketdyne (vehicle engines). Same for any manned or unmanned launch vehicle. It’s America’s private industry that builds these things.
America’s space program came out of captured German V-2 rockets (themselves the result of early R&D by American scientist Robert Goddard). We were slow to make progress until the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in October 1957. The following January, we launched our first satellite. Subsequently, commercial applications to space were realized and although NASA is America’s sole space agency, private industry builds the launchers and commercial users fund the satellites (the exception being those with military applications).
So what you’re doing is assigning credit to the farmer for the complex recipes that create elegant meals. You’re saying that Microsoft isn’t responsible for Windows Vista, it was the guys who invented the transistor and the engineers who decided to settle on the concept of binary computing. Yeah, maybe Magellan is the one who traveled the world, but the guy weaving the cloth which made his sails deserves the real credit.
What I’m left wondering is how it is possible to exclude from recognition the entity that brought it all together. The cooks who tirelessly combined ingredients to achieve that rich flavor, the patience and leadership required to make the code work in harmony, or the man with the idealism and ambition to lead the expedition despite the risks.
The example you provided with commercial applications to the space program really put the punctuation on what I’ve said: government led the way for the sake of progress and relevancy, the market rode on its coattails.
That’s not to say that business doesn’t play a part. You’ve given plenty of examples where private enterprise has contributed–but not where they’ve lead. There are examples where they have, of course, but not for the sake of progress; it had to do with whether or not they could profit from it. As we’ve seen, whether something is marketable or not is subjective. And yes, progress made with those intentions is progress nonetheless.
However, consider this: for the initial costs of launching a man into space and the continued costs of repeating it, what business on earth would find it worthwhile? From the outside, it seems like a money pit. But once the trail had been blazed, their eyes were opened to greater possibilities and pragmatic utilizations of the technology.
The point: saying that free enterprise is better than the government by default does not make it so. That being said, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the main propagator of this myth is, you guessed it, big business. The truth they conveniently ignore is that neither side can do it all.