Conservatives should embrace transit (and bicycling), but don't!

[Deuce]

Based on the comments from the conservatives on this board, it sounds like we can all agree on a need for more mass transportation and energy alternatives. What we can't agree on is how to get there.

For those who support more drilling, I ask that you take a hard look at the numbers. This is the closest that you can get to an objective analysis. Take any proposed drilling project and look at the following: the most liberal estimates on how much oil can be cumulatively produced, what the maximum yearly production will be, how many years that oil will be withdrawn over, how many years it will take to reach maximum production, how many years before the project comes online, the past and projected growth in annual consumption for the US, and the past and projected growth in annual consumption for the world.

I hope you arrive at the same conclusion that I have, which is it won't make any difference in the cost of oil to us and it doesn't necessarily reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If you want to truly make a difference, do what I did, live near where you work and then walk, bike, or bus to get there. I now drive about 4000 miles/yr less than I used to. When Springfield has more commercial options, I'll drive even less. I personally feel good that I have given less of my money to corrupt greedy oil companies and less of my money has ended up in the hands of possible terrorists.

[Ocklawaha]

Please don't use the Skyway as an example of mass transit. It is a joke. 

And some people do not want to subsidize others' "freebies".  More people would ride if there was an efficient, quick system.  Ock, I think you are the expert here and have given some good examples.  I just think that the system should cover it's costs and initial investment.  Government spending is wasteful because there is no skin in the game. Private investment would be better planned, and better spent $$.  You would never see a private enterprise invest into a useless Skyway.

If you've read these boards, you know I was the one that fought hard to kill the Skyway before it ever got off the ground. Sadly nobody in City Hall wanted to hear it, free federal money! The ridership has never gotten even close to the projections but then neither has the system. Quiting the project as they did, is like wearing one shoe in a Olympic track event.

While the Skyway should never have been built, we now have $200 Million invested in it. Any transportation savvy person can tell you running from a bus transfer lot, to a parking garage is hardly optimum. It simply MUST reach where people are going or coming from. A few short extensions  would achieve this and it will NOT cost $100 Million a mile. In fact the cost would be closer to Light Rail.

The government allows you to drive every day on an ever expanding highway network, one that eats nearly as much of the budget as our military. Somehow people need to realize THIS is a subsidy, but one that Suburbia approves of. Now imagine a fare free transit system taking 30 Million persons a year off the local roads. Roughly 15 Million automobiles. Would we still need to build the Big-I, rebuild I-95 in the Southbank, or widen JTB?

In the area of covering expense, private transit had to have City franchises to operate on City Streets. Then the Cities would not allow any fare increases, it was a national crisis. One could hear the doors locking at the transit companies all over the nation.

Looking at the economics to recover costs? A new hybrid bus costs in the neighborhood of nearly one million dollars a copy. JTA carries 10 Million passengers a year with 60+ bus routes. So using the same "pay the way" logic, we would need to carry the same passenger load with only 10 buses. In transit 25% of the income is from the farebox, and 75% of the cost is labor. This is where the Skyway "could" shine - IF it went anywhere besides back and forth above dead streets.

Factor in the Billions of dollars of new development that follows streetcars and light rail, and the subsidy fades away, more then compensated by new towers on the tax rolls.

See transit as an INVESTMENT, see it as a highway fund reliever, see it as a development tool...

OCKLAWAHA

[gmpalmer]

Stephen -- No, you shouldn't

if you don't use them.

But don't you walk on sidewalks that are part of the road system?

[NotNow]

I'm a conservative who agrees with privately owned mass transit.

Why privately owned? Don't you think ticket prices would be higher so as to incorporate profit?

Privately owned would also be more efficient, and possible less expensive over the long run.  At the least it would save the usual taxpayer subsidy.  But of course the main reason that I specify private, or local government is because the federal government has no constitutional authority to be in the transportation business.

[NotNow]

Stephen, 
The idea that you postulate has its backers.  User fees only for government subsidies and government projects.  The pure version would do away with school taxes and most other "fees" such as the St. Johns River fees and such.  But of course, "art" and "downtown development" would fall under the same restrictions.  People who live at the beach would certainly question why they are subsidizing the downtown area.

[FayeforCure]

Can We Drill Our Way to Energy Security?

Stop right there.  No need to read any further.  Drill here, drill now has nothing to do with the above statement.  Exploiting our own oil and gass resources is about reducing our dependence on foriegn oil.  Wind, solar, and bio do the same.  Additionally... I invite you to visit the oil fields in the mideast or venezuela, or nigeria... I have.  Drilling in the states is a clean and regulated process... it is not in the areas I listed.

"Drill here drill now" is a very narrow approach and basically just "more of the same."
It a huge distraction from where we need to go, and I will add Ock's quote that reveals the real problem with domestic oil production:

it's too deep, too mucked up and too damn expensive to get at it.

Rather than investing in very unproductive endeavors like the uneconomical "drill here, drill now" folks want,......let's broaden our horizons and invite future reality:

What’s more, our overdependence on fossil fuels and our underinvestment in a secure, reliable and clean-energy infrastructure costs our economy dearly. Each year we send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to import foreign oil. The unreliability of our electricity grid costs the economy approximately $100 billion per year in damages and lost business, and transmission congestion burdens consumers with $22 billion annually in higher energy prices. Our lack of energy diversity not only links our economic growth unnecessarily to ever rising carbon emissions, but it also leaves businesses and consumers more susceptible to dramatic price swings in the price of oil, coal, and natural gas as global demand rises. The status quo is simply too expensive to maintain.

There is a better way forward: Building a green economy that transforms how we produce and use energy. Investments in new technology will access abundant domestic sources of renewable energy, cut costs for consumers and businesses, and build new industries. This clean-energy transformation also will increase economic productivity, boost the skills and incomes of American workers, and leave a legacy of productive public infrastructure that enables long-term innovation and growth. Smart policies to speed this transition will “crowd in” new private capital, create good jobs, and speed economic recovery.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/green_jobs_questions.html

"Drill here, drill now" are NOT smart policies. It's trying to blame the supply side, when really we need to address the demand side, and looking towards alternative energy supplies. Even Oilman T. Boone Pickens says we CANNOT drill ourselves out of our energy crisis, and rather than investing in unproductive domestic drilling, he's investing in wind.

[BridgeTroll]

Faye... This is not what I said. 

"Drill here drill now" is a very narrow approach and basically just "more of the same."

What it means... at least to me... is that we... the US... still ranks very high in the production of oil.  And could produce more... thereby lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

I did not say it solves all our problems, it is not more of the same and it broadens our energy supply rather than narrowing it.  By drilling more domestically and developing alternatives and conserving we can dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Why drill now?  Because the alternatives cannot begin to replace our energy years for many years to come leaving us vulnerable to boycotts and disruptions of oil.

[Doctor_K]

^ Not to mention that if Clinton had allowed ANWR to be opened up, we'd be getting the benefit of that much more crude being drilled and pumped domestically, during the meantime when all this wind and solar is supposed to kick in and save us.

BTW, let's build more nuclear while we're at it.  Alternatives and choices are more than oil and wind.

[Tripoli1711]

You are right BridgeTroll.  We should be drilling now to broaden our capacity for domestic energy consumption to bridge the gap between now and future energy sources.  The 'drill here, drill now' issue, I fear, is one of instant disassociation due to political preference.  It was something McCain supporters said.  Faye is clearly an Obama supporter if I remember past posts of hers.  Hence she replies with the Obama counter-argument to McCain "more of the same"  and then quotes to a liberal publication for a counterpoint.

Mass transit should be embraced by conservatives.  I fully embrace it.  It's not the only answer.  There still will need to be cars and roads for as long as I can see into the future.  One thing I don't get is why there is an inherent problem with the "demand side".  People want and need gasoline.  Mass transit and more fuel efficient cars can help to curtail some of that demand, and that's fine, but millions of people will still prefer to drive cars.  That's just the facts.  It is much better to address the "supply side" while we take some steps to encourage (but not mandate through mindless carbon taxes) a popular rethinking of the 'demand side'.

[Deuce]

I'm all for more solar and wind, but I know the realities of the technology enough to know we can't easily switch over. I'm not necessarily against more nuke. Pebble bed reactors are an exciting new technology in nuclear reactors that don't carry the same problems as current reactors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor.

I'm surprised no one has touched on an area that could be targeted to reduce dependence on oil: plastics. While the gains to be made here are not as great as significantly improving fuel efficiency, the same line of reasoning that's applied to drilling, "every bit counts", works well.

[FayeforCure]

Why drill now?  Because the alternatives cannot begin to replace our energy years for many years to come leaving us vulnerable to boycotts and disruptions of oil.

Building an oil rig takes time, as does building a windfarm. We all agree on the latter,.......why waste money on old technology when we stand ready to use the new? That's how T Boone Pickens sees it ( he's a conservative) and that's how I see it, being an economist.

The call for expanded offshore drilling is a fake solution that only Big Oil wants, because keeping Americans dependent on oil is the best thing they could do for their bottom line.

Oil companies currently sit on 68 million acres of our nation’s oil-producing land. This is land that they could have started drilling years ago, but they left it untouched while gas prices soared. In fact, the number of new offshore drilling permits tripled since 2001, and yet we’re paying triple what we were in 2001.

Perhaps opening more of our coasts to drilling isn’t the panacea oil companies claim it to be.

Yet today, these companies and their Washington allies are pleading for more. Though they already have access to 80 percent of our offshore areas, they want to open it all despite the significant costs to coastal businesses and the environment. Before opening the remaining 20 percent of our coasts, which would wreak havoc on fishing operations, tourism and recreation, oil companies should be drilling what they have instead of asking for more.

Members of Congress, when they return to Washington in September, should focus on solutions that will help Americans deal with rising energy costs, create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As even this administration ( Bush)pointed out, if we start drilling today, we won’t see a drop of oil for ten years. So instead of discussing plans that won’t deliver for at least a decade, we need to start investing in renewable technology and real solutions that will produce results without harming our coasts.

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/oil-companies-sit-on-68-million-us-acres-that-they-have-not-drilled

[BridgeTroll]

I defer to the economist then...

[urbanlibertarian]

Doesn't T. Boone Pickens stand to lose a big pile of money if the Feds don't come through with the windmill subsidies he's pushing for?  Or am I just being cynical?

[BridgeTroll]

No room for cynics here... you non bicycling, oil using, greenhouse gas producing, non progressive.

Just kidding urban...

[urbanlibertarian]

I resemble that remark!