|
Dear Matt, Your plan would certainly bring about a change in transportation. And in a perfect world might set things right after which the distribution might then turn to what is fair. That is to distribute revenues according to where they are collected and from whom. But you are also assuming that by setting things right under your arbitrary redistribution, that efficiency of mobility would be maximized. I admit that efficiency of mobility does not flow from merely applying the moneys to the social and geographical entities from where collected, but an arbitrary distribution is not a solution. Pressure groups have affected political parties whomever. Your remarks about the flow to low density housing I would agree results from the large real estate and banking interests. But that is not a slam on "free enterprise" but one on "government" which can so easily be swayed. I would expect we might agree that the politics of most large cities is Democrat? And the problem with Milwaukee is that area transportation solutions depend upon the suburbs over the city limits in all directions but the lake. If the suburbs then control the funds, by and large, they will build what they need and thumb their noses at the city. So, why wouldn't the Democratic controlled inner city build electric articulated buses or light rails for their area? Why should these methods have to extend to the suburbs where their citizens have decided to drive? Why should "tosa" or the "Falls" have to contribute? And certainly why should such a local issue be mandated from a Federal level of "one size fits all." I have no idea about the payment distributions in Seattle and their surroundings, but as far as I could see, all their buses were either trolley or some electric hybrid and articulated. Wouldn't those be as acceptable and more versatile than light rail into evolving inner city neighborhoods? But here is a fact about Chicago. Of course this happened at a time of 100 percent Democrat control. The street cars were on nearly all the boulevards until after the war. Chicago is a perfect grid with diagonals for crosstown travel. Now that is called "smart growth" for cities. If a NW or major EW street didn't have a car line, it was a trolley bus. After the war a whole fleet of advanced designed streetcars were purchased. But not long after 1950 they disappeared. The process used by the City government was to tax the car lines with either all or at least the track areas with full maintenance. That put the street cars at such a disadvantage the new advanced cars were both sold off to other cities such as Pittsburgh and others were actually converted to "L" trains. Some new documentaries blame General Motors for payoffs--and that would fit with what we know about Chicago Democrat politicians? And from our Grandparents' time--the car lines were not really built for the factory workers in the inner Chicago, but for those who might buy new land and houses at the end of the "high speed rails." (streetcars) Each subdivision was built on a carline with a central set of shopping buildings. Eric Matt Logan wrote: After reading quite a bit about this subject, my opinion is that The Republican controlled state assembly, and the federal government under republican control has done just as much "command and control" over local transportation projects as you suggest an Obama administration would. Whether the massive and easy highway funding and slower-n-mollasses running up a tree in winter transit process is merely a result of pork-barrel politics or a more deliberate goal, the fact remains that Republicans have an impressive record of promoting low-density land-use/transportation environments.Ideally I'd love to see our government undertake a process of reforming the State and Federal transportation funding model to give metropolitan areas (READ: local governments) more direct control over transportation funding. In fact, let me outline my plan right now: The state shall control no more than 25% of all federal/state transportation monies collected/distributed in the state. That 25% shall be dedicated exclusively to maintaining transportation infrastructure outside of metropolitan areas. Any money left over from the 25% must be distributed to local units of government. Under no circumstances shall the state earmark monies outside of that 25% for any one particular mode of transportation, location, or project. Monies not utilized by the state are to be distributed to metropolitan areas based on population with no strings attached. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Westhagen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 2:50 PM To: Matt Logan; BikiesSubmissions Subject: Re: [Bikies] Where They Stand: Obama and McCain on Transportation Dear Matt, I read your link to JS online. That article is my only knowledge and experience with your question. My answer would begin with the premise that only Government can construct projects not tied to economic decisions. The pyramids in Egypt were a good example and FDR's WPA, was probably for similar reasons. In a voting toss up State like Wisconsin, for Tommy Thompson to remain in office that long, he both had his ear to the ground and was basically "bi-partisan." The JS article did not make your contention that somehow the Governor was against light rail within the City of Milwaukee and "greater Milwaukee and Norquist" were madly in favor. It seems they sank much money into studying the question. Since the light rail would not affect the rest of the State, had the areas lumped as the seven counties backed the proposal, I would expect the governor would also have done so. Certainly the State outside Milwaukee should not have been liable for moneys or should have their overall transportation moneys be diverted for a Milwaukee meto system. So, why didn't Norquist go ahead, anyway? Why couldn't they have linked the system with the major highways like Chicago's NW if getting to --say Miller Park, Summerfest, or other outer areas was a big thing? Doesn't it boil down to the problem that when something doesn't make "economic sense" and is just a convenience or amenity, paid for by "other peoples money", an awful lot of politics gets involved? Yet it is only the Government that can bull through such uneconomic projects as the Boston grand tunnel. Personally I don't wish to fly and always take the railroad. But I remember back in the 1970s, my Mother would call her old friends to meet for lunch in the Loop in Chicago, asking they took the "L" and subway from the NW Side. But they all refused to take "light rail" even from Irving Park as safety had so deteriorated. And in the JS article, that topic was also mentioned. Nevertheless, Government does have the power to put through nearly anything. We certainly have seen that this past week. Maybe many of the old rail beds turned to bike lanes should be relayed with tracks, now there is once again an economic need? And last, it seems the 6 billion to which you referred, is for all the highway, bridge, and related infrastructure rebuilding and repair for "seven counties." Matt Logan wrote:Eric, I was wondering how you felt about the State of Wisconsin's (under republican control at the time) intrusion into Milwaukee's light rail project about 15 years ago? http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=794156 Basically, the state used command and control policies to torpedolight |
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
