MORE MALARKEY FROM TALLAHASSEE!

[Ocklawaha]

The Space, The Expense, The Pollution... Oh The Humanity!

THE GUEST OP-ED THAT SETS FLORIDA'S TONE FOR ANOTHER YEAR?

http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20100101/OPINION05/1010312/1006/OPINION

From the Tallahassee Democrat:

The real tragedy of the high speed rail boondoggle is that it prohibits private enterprise from maintaining and improving economical mass transportation for Florida's aging population.

In the Dec. 18 Democrat article about lawmakers reaching an agreement on the $2.6 billion in federal funds, nothing was said about taxpayers being saddled with the obligation of operating train service, which privately owned railroads abandoned years ago because of labor union demands.

On the same date as the Democrat article, the Wall Street Journal reported how the New York area must slash transit serve and student passes in order to pay $541 million to unionized workers.

Luxury bus service exists between Boston and New York City and is named the LimoLiner. The LimoLiner has the following amenities: onboard attendant, mini-workstations, cell-free zones, TV access, seat-side power outlets, personal pillows and blankets, sparkling clean rest rooms, leather reclining seats.

Greyhound has introduced new bus service in the New York area to compete with the LimoLiner, and its new service has some of the same amenities.

A study at the University of California in Berkeley found the grams of C02 emitted per passenger mile were less on a fully loaded bus than any other travel mode, including trains. The distance between Miami and Tampa is about the same as the distance between New York City and Boston, but there would be no incentive for the introduction of luxurious bus service because high speed rail would be operating at taxpayer expense.

Both Greyhound and the LimoLiner accommodate wheelchair passengers. Greyhound service allows passengers to travel on personal scooters.

Boarding of wheelchair passengers is cumbersome on Amtrak and travel on their own personal scooter is prohibited. High speed rail would probably have the same restrictions.

Baggage handling is another problem. When railroads had passenger service there was a baggage car on every train. There have been no innovations that eliminate baggage check and claim; therefore some of the time savings attributed to high speed rail aren't true because of baggage handling.

Baggage handling is a huge problem for the aged and handicapped, so they drive their cars and will continue to do so after the billions spent on high speed rail.

Unionization should be a private industry problem, but its usage in government labor relations results in taxpayers footing the bill because vote-hungry politicians yield easily to union demands.

The recent airline terrorist attack and airport delays due to runway capacity limitations should make travel by bus the preferred mode for distances up to 300 miles.

# Robert G. Frye of Tallahassee is a retired professional engineer who previously worked for Eastern Airlines, National Airlines and the Florida Department of Transportation. He can be contacted by e-mail at BobaLu12@comcast.net.

BIKES AND BAGS ON TRAINS AND BUSES TOO!






Response by Ocklawaha
WHO'S OPINION?

Only 1,000 characters to respond to this insanity?
Nothing was said about taxpayers being saddled with the obligation of operating Highways, which cost more per mile then a railroad.
The New York area must slash transit serve and student passes in order to pay $541 million to unionized workers, yes, bus and rail, he wants us to believe buses are not unionized.
Luxury bus service exist. Amtrak is faster and has wider seats, free food and newspaper.
University of California in Berkeley found the grams of C02 emitted per passenger mile. UCB is home of CALSTART, a Bus Transit Think-Tank, hardly an objective view. Florida's CUTR at USF is a biased carbon copy, that has poisoned this state.
Wheelchair passengers is cumbersome on Amtrak, their own personal scooter is prohibited. Disinformation? Bus Aisles are 14" wide, rail cars boast 24" aisles!
There was a baggage car on every train. Still is.
jacksonvilletransit@bloodsport.com
This article is irresponsible.

ALSO FROM BERKELEY:

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-11-19/article/34120?headline=Bus-Rapid-Transit-Feel-Good-Environmentalism-
Bus Rapid Transit: Feel-Good Environmentalism?
By Professor: Matt Kondolf  

Moreover, the proposals for Berkeley and San Francisco are better described as “BRT-lite.” While the Telegraph Avenue line would have its own lane (impacting vehicular traffic), it would not have grade separation at intersections, so travel times will not be that different from those of the existing buses.

Looked at objectively, it’s not at all clear that our Bus Rapid Transit would deliver the promised benefits if implemented as proposed. And the costs will be substantial. The Telegraph Avenue BRT project is projected to $250 million, and generally the costs will result in a public subsidy of around $8 per ride. And it will create worse traffic problems on Telegraph Avenue.

Prior to the November 2008 election, Berkeley residents received a glossy flyer in the mailâ€"the flyer featured a polar bear and intoned “We can’t afford to wait…” The flyer argued that we must implement transit projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we should oppose a citizen initiative to require voter approval of BRT.

But to really reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need to get people out of their single-person cars and into mass transit. It’s not at all clear that the BRT-lite proposed for Berkeley would accomplish this. There would be other benefits for the politicians involved: federal grants, a big construction project, jobs, and the favorable “buzz” that we are progressive because we have BRT. But the costs would be high. Moreover, once you factor in the energy and resources involved in the construction, and the effect of poaching riders from BART, the net greenhouse gas emissions are more likely to increase as a result of BRT as proposed. It may make us feel good, it may benefit politicians, but the BRT proposed for Berkeley is unlikely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

True HIGH SPEED RAIL, a Cincinnati and Lake Erie Bullet

OCKLAWAHA

[CS Foltz]

Ock.............I agree! BRT is nothing but a sop to the masses and deeper pocket for JTA to withdraw from! BRT is not the answer to revitalizing downtown, granted it is one slice of the pie but to put BRT as the one is flat out wrong!

[stjr]

The only point I would agree with in the article is that if, as Ock notes, we stopped subsidizing the auto, yes, private enterprise could operate mass transit profitably and efficiently.  However, I didn't see the article advocate for that and until it does, their suggestions may be off base.

Let's charge a toll on every road or for every mile driven on roads that completely pays for their construction and maintenance and then see demand for mass transit soar and its value fully realized at the fare box.

No subsidies for any transit mode.  People will travel and live far more efficiently and urban sprawl will come to a halt.

[CS Foltz]

stjr .....we already pay a toll, not only from Federal, State and local gas tax but a tag for ones vehicle is not free! I have no problem paying a "Toll" to use a specific road but if push came to shove.....I would use another road! A nice idea but not really realistic right now...........toll roads have their function......Bee Line Parkway comes to mind.......but there are several Federal Interstates that have been converted in Toll Roads......I95 in Virgina............I believe its 70 out of Kansas City to Wichita (I believe that one was built with state funding......there are ways around that road) I have no problem with using a Toll Road but I would use an alternate route whenever possible! That's why they make DeLorme, TomTom and a few others!

[Ocklawaha]

Yes we do pay, however it doesn't come close to covering the costs of roads which find "Other" ways to pick our pockets.

Rail modes are not so lucky, in fact until Amtrak, railroads paid through the nose for the privilege of losing their ass on passenger trains.

I think what you are saying stjr, is a hypothetical TOTAL LEVELING of the playing field. I'm sure we'd agree to a level field, but then the political machine would lose pet projects and fantastic amounts of power to the masses. So fat chance that will ever happen, the other way is allow government 100% responsibility which is Communism... sucks or sucks, take your pick.

OCKLAWAHA

[CS Foltz]

Well add trucks at 80K to any road and anything built would start to break down! If roads were just limited  to passenger vehicles of x weight .....they just might last awhile but you add trucks at a load limit of 80 Thousand pounds anything will break down ............look at the 20 th St Overpass! Its holding up real well right? Trucks need their own lane or else they need to be transpacked via rail to a terminal and then out from there! Toll Road I don't think is the way to go at it.........a road for specific vehicles might be an alternative!

[tufsu1]

stjr .....we already pay a toll, not only from Federal, State and local gas tax but a tag for ones vehicle is not free! I have no problem paying a "Toll" to use a specific road but if push came to shove.....I would use another road! A nice idea but not really realistic right now...........toll roads have their function......Bee Line Parkway comes to mind.......but there are several Federal Interstates that have been converted in Toll Roads......I95 in Virgina............I believe its 70 out of Kansas City to Wichita (I believe that one was built with state funding......there are ways around that road) I have no problem with using a Toll Road but I would use an alternate route whenever possible! That's why they make DeLorme, TomTom and a few others!

see this is the problem...you think that we pay more than enough in taxes/fees to fund everything...and, in the case of transportation (at least), all of the data clearly says otherwise!

[stjr]

I think what you are saying stjr, is a hypothetical TOTAL LEVELING of the playing field.

CS, Ock read me right on this one.  I understand we pay SOME taxes but it doesn't cover the true cost of roads.  My point is if we had to pay for our actual use of EVERY road we used, we would be far more motivated to use mass transit and pay its true costs without subsidies.  It's obvious that "ride sharing" is far more cost effective than all of us going it alone as we do currently, enabled by our road subsidies.  We have perverted an economic truism.

[buckethead]

The only point I would agree with in the article is that if, as Ock notes, we stopped subsidizing the auto, yes, private enterprise could operate mass transit profitably and efficiently.  However, I didn't see the article advocate for that and until it does, their suggestions may be off base.

Let's charge a toll on every road or for every mile driven on roads that completely pays for their construction and maintenance and then see demand for mass transit soar and its value fully realized at the fare box.

No subsidies for any transit mode.  People will travel and live far more efficiently and urban sprawl will come to a halt.

You make quite excellent points. If the true cost of Transportation were to be paid directly by the traveller whatever the mode, the more economically viable mode would rise in demand. You point on sprawl is spot on as well. All done with the truest of free market principles.

[Ocklawaha]

Well add trucks at 80K to any road and anything built would start to break down! If roads were just limited  to passenger vehicles of x weight .....they just might last awhile but you add trucks at a load limit of 80 Thousand pounds anything will break down ............look at the 20 th St Overpass! Its holding up real well right? Trucks need their own lane or else they need to be transpacked via rail to a terminal and then out from there! Toll Road I don't think is the way to go at it.........a road for specific vehicles might be an alternative!

Depending on which study you believe: Pavement Damage:

Heavier Single-Trailer trucks would result in a significant amount of pavement damage. Pavement damage increases exponentially with the weight of a truck. For example, one 80,000-pound five-axle truck does the same road damage as 9,600 automobiles and five-axle trucks operate well above 80,000 pounds in a number of states. A 100,000-pound five-axle truck does as much damage as more than 27,000 automobiles. 

Damage to Bridges;

Heavier single-trailer trucks would cause more bridge damage. Bridges are designed with a safety margin of error to ensure against bridge failure. Bigger trucks erode that margin of error, increasing the number of bridges that must be replaced, strengthened, or posted. Adding axles does not fix this problem. In its NAFTA Scenario, the USDOT calculated additional bridge costs of $329 billion ($65 billion in capital and $264 billion in user delay costs). Six-axle, 97,000-pound singles would cause a significant portion of that damage.

But CUTR and others circling FDOT know better, more roads, bigger roads, more bridges, more cars and more trucks and buses... and why not? It is after all, a FREE-way.

*data from OKDOT
*breakdown from The Coalition Against Bigger Trucks

OCKLAWAHA

[CS Foltz]

Ock.............legal DOT Limits say 80K max unless permitted! My CDL says so (Georgia issued by the way) I understand the direction this is going and I do have to agree. There truly is no animal called "Free Way" and rail is the answer by my standards..........trying to explore outside of the box looking for some alternatives! The idea of a "Truck" only lane appeals to me...........I mean we are fixing to go to BRT are we not? So why not TRT? That would at least confine damage to one lane, fine the hell out of them if they are out of it but let them have their own lane and be done with it.........the auto's and the other traffic have the remaining lanes! Of course this could only take place on multiple laned roads......at least damage is one lane limited and let the truck taxes pay for the up keep and maintenance!

[Charles Hunter]

Which lane would you restrict big rigs to?  The far left lane?  How would they get there if they can't use the other lanes?  The far right lane?  The lane we use to get on/off the expressway?  Good luck merging with, or through, a constant stream of 80K pound trucks in you 3K pound car.

[BridgeTroll]

Many states... including Georgia... restrict big rigs to the right lane... or the right and middle if three lanes.

[Charles Hunter]

The only time I've seen truck lane restrictions is when there are at least 3 lanes in the same direction - that gives trucks and cars a chance to maneuver around each other.  Not to say there aren't restrictions with only 2 lanes going the same way, just I've not seen them.

And Florida has similar restrictions, mostly in rural areas - I-95 has one starting somewhere in St. Johns County, that I think continues until the 3-lane portion stops around Palm Coast.

[BridgeTroll]

Many staes in the upper midwest have them... along with California.  Now texas...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022109dnmetnotrucks.3f4b457.html