The Clowns
The Violinist and The Photographer
Charlie Chaplin
The Georgians
The Custodian
Bridge decorations by Tsereteli
El Huevo de Colon in Sevilla, Spain
Sunday, November 29, 2009
November 29, 2009 Georgian Artist: Zurab Tsereteli
Zurab Tsereteli a superb artists, sculpture and architect. More information can be found at his web site or at Wikipedia. Some of the pictures are from www.photoforum.ru.
The Clowns
The Violinist and The Photographer
Charlie Chaplin
The Georgians
The Custodian
Bridge decorations by Tsereteli
El Huevo de Colon in Sevilla, Spain
The ClownsThe Violinist and The PhotographerCharlie ChaplinThe GeorgiansThe CustodianBridge decorations by TsereteliEl Huevo de Colon in Sevilla, Spain
Monday, November 23, 2009
November 23, 2009 Houston: I-10 & I-45 Interchange
Following picture is from Wikipedia. At the top is the METRO HOV lane and narrow bridge going right-left is the UP railroad tracks.
November 23, 2009 Urban Planning: Identity Theft for Cities
Article published by Good.is/Blogs.
Identity Theft for Cities
Posted by: Carol Coletta on November 18, 2009
How poor regional planning can suck the life out of cities.
Regionalism is all the rage. The Obama Administration is betting big on regional planning as a way to make smarter decisions on transportation, climate, the economy—all those things that don’t respect political boundaries. The Administration plans to reward communities that work together across jurisdictions toward common goals and, by implication, punish those that do not.
Who can argue with that? I certainly can’t.
But as I sit here in a brand name suburban motel room situated on a highway that could be anywhere, all my doubts about the wisdom of regionalism resurface. I can walk to the Shell station for some Fig Newtons, and I see a Checkers across the street, but there’s too much pavement between here and there to make the trip.
I happen to be in this motel in City A because I landed today in City B for a meeting tomorrow morning in City C. Got that?
All three cities, plus two others, happen to share a single region. On their own, all of these cities have distinct charm. But string them together with the highway sprawl so familiar all over the country, and it sucks all the charm out of the idea of regionalism—fast. In this case, the sum is decidedly less than its parts.
This is by no means the only region to suffer this fate. In fact, it is more the norm than the exception.
Another recent trip produced an almost identical experience. My hotel was in the middle of a suburban parking lot. All that asphalt seriously discouraged a walk to the restaurant across the parking lot. Instead of experiencing the joy of being in a recognizable place that either of the cities that make up the metro area would have most assuredly delivered, I was staying somewhere between both near an expressway exit because it was “neutral territory” for a regional meeting. No one in attendance would feel slighted that the meeting wasn’t being held in his city.
Did regional planning cause this outcome? It’s doubtful, since we’ve barely had any regional planning to date. On the other hand, metropolitan planning organizations have had a hand in regional transportation planning and funding decisions for almost 50 years.
Regionalism makes complete sense conceptually. Our economies, our natural systems, and our transportation systems are, indeed, regional and require a regional approach.
Regionalism can be relatively easy to impose in regions with big, dominant core cities, such as New York and Chicago. In those regions, everyone knows what’s powering the economic engine, and no one can risk killing it off. The dominant city is favored, as it should be, in regional decisions because it’s in everyone’s clear interest to do so.
(Of course, I’ve made it sound easier than it is. Inevitably, there are petty conflicts and a protection of narrow interests in most such negotiations.)
But in those regions with cities of equal size or with a weak central city, the conflicts are writ large. The conflicts are even sharper in regions with a history of racial and economic segregation. That’s challenge enough. The real problem comes when, in the name of regionalism, decision makers become place agnostic. In other words, they can’t favor any one place in the region for fear of offending every other place in the region. That translates into development anywhere in the region being labeled as good development. If a road is built in one part of the region, it must be equalized with a road in another part of the region. If a cultural facility is awarded to one place, the next sports facility should surely be built elsewhere.
The working premise too often becomes, give one of everything to every part of the region. After all, we’re all in this regionalism deal together, and that means everyone shares the spoils equally. It’s only fair, right?
Well, it may be fair, but it’s hardly smart. The result too often is places with no strong center and blurred identity, places of no distinction and no vibrancy, places that force us to drive too much and generate too much carbon, places that are linked together not only by an economy and a transportation system but also by mind-numbingly repetitive development strung in between.
Which brings me back to my unfortunate evening spent stranded in this motel.
If we’re going to promote regionalism—and we should—we need to go in with eyes wide open, knowing that we undermine regional strength when we fail to invest in making vibrant places. When in the name of regionalism the only politically correct meeting place is at an expressway off-ramp, we are consigning ourselves to ever more sprawl. For fear of putting a stake in the ground that any one place in the region matters more than others, we doom our regions to having no places of distinction.
If in the name of regionalism we undermine the region, it simply makes no sense.
Carol Coletta is the President and CEO of CEOs for Cities, and the host of the nationally-syndicated public radio show, Smart City.
Illustration by Will Etling.
Identity Theft for Cities
Posted by: Carol Coletta on November 18, 2009
How poor regional planning can suck the life out of cities.Regionalism is all the rage. The Obama Administration is betting big on regional planning as a way to make smarter decisions on transportation, climate, the economy—all those things that don’t respect political boundaries. The Administration plans to reward communities that work together across jurisdictions toward common goals and, by implication, punish those that do not.
Who can argue with that? I certainly can’t.
But as I sit here in a brand name suburban motel room situated on a highway that could be anywhere, all my doubts about the wisdom of regionalism resurface. I can walk to the Shell station for some Fig Newtons, and I see a Checkers across the street, but there’s too much pavement between here and there to make the trip.
I happen to be in this motel in City A because I landed today in City B for a meeting tomorrow morning in City C. Got that?
All three cities, plus two others, happen to share a single region. On their own, all of these cities have distinct charm. But string them together with the highway sprawl so familiar all over the country, and it sucks all the charm out of the idea of regionalism—fast. In this case, the sum is decidedly less than its parts.
This is by no means the only region to suffer this fate. In fact, it is more the norm than the exception.
Another recent trip produced an almost identical experience. My hotel was in the middle of a suburban parking lot. All that asphalt seriously discouraged a walk to the restaurant across the parking lot. Instead of experiencing the joy of being in a recognizable place that either of the cities that make up the metro area would have most assuredly delivered, I was staying somewhere between both near an expressway exit because it was “neutral territory” for a regional meeting. No one in attendance would feel slighted that the meeting wasn’t being held in his city.
Did regional planning cause this outcome? It’s doubtful, since we’ve barely had any regional planning to date. On the other hand, metropolitan planning organizations have had a hand in regional transportation planning and funding decisions for almost 50 years.
Regionalism makes complete sense conceptually. Our economies, our natural systems, and our transportation systems are, indeed, regional and require a regional approach.
Regionalism can be relatively easy to impose in regions with big, dominant core cities, such as New York and Chicago. In those regions, everyone knows what’s powering the economic engine, and no one can risk killing it off. The dominant city is favored, as it should be, in regional decisions because it’s in everyone’s clear interest to do so.
(Of course, I’ve made it sound easier than it is. Inevitably, there are petty conflicts and a protection of narrow interests in most such negotiations.)
But in those regions with cities of equal size or with a weak central city, the conflicts are writ large. The conflicts are even sharper in regions with a history of racial and economic segregation. That’s challenge enough. The real problem comes when, in the name of regionalism, decision makers become place agnostic. In other words, they can’t favor any one place in the region for fear of offending every other place in the region. That translates into development anywhere in the region being labeled as good development. If a road is built in one part of the region, it must be equalized with a road in another part of the region. If a cultural facility is awarded to one place, the next sports facility should surely be built elsewhere.
The working premise too often becomes, give one of everything to every part of the region. After all, we’re all in this regionalism deal together, and that means everyone shares the spoils equally. It’s only fair, right?
Well, it may be fair, but it’s hardly smart. The result too often is places with no strong center and blurred identity, places of no distinction and no vibrancy, places that force us to drive too much and generate too much carbon, places that are linked together not only by an economy and a transportation system but also by mind-numbingly repetitive development strung in between.
Which brings me back to my unfortunate evening spent stranded in this motel.
If we’re going to promote regionalism—and we should—we need to go in with eyes wide open, knowing that we undermine regional strength when we fail to invest in making vibrant places. When in the name of regionalism the only politically correct meeting place is at an expressway off-ramp, we are consigning ourselves to ever more sprawl. For fear of putting a stake in the ground that any one place in the region matters more than others, we doom our regions to having no places of distinction.
If in the name of regionalism we undermine the region, it simply makes no sense.
Carol Coletta is the President and CEO of CEOs for Cities, and the host of the nationally-syndicated public radio show, Smart City.
Illustration by Will Etling.
November 23, 2009 Entrepreneurs: Start. This. Company. Now.
Article published by The Washington Post.
Entrepreneurs: Start. This. Company. Now.
Sarah Lacy
TechCrunch.com
Thursday, November 19, 2009; 1:29 AM
BANGALORE, INDIA ¿ It?s almost as if Russian cell phone carrier MTS has bought the naming rights to Bangalore. I half expected my immigration stamp to read ?BANGALORE! ? BROUGHT TO YOU BY MTS.? The carrier recently launched service in the uber-competitive Indian telecom market and has erected billboards every twenty feet or so. I have never seen so much advertising by one company in one space. They all sport an agro looking dude with his face twisted in some rebel-yell while he does inscrutable things with robots and mechanical arms holding different tech gadgets.
Why have these ads made such an impression on me? Because I've spent a week sitting in stopped Bangalore traffic looking at them. Ironically one keeps boasting: CONGESTION-FREE MOBILE NETWORK. Sitting still and listening to the honking of cars, mopeds, bikes and rickshaws all around me, it's an easy guess that, if true, MTS could be the only thing congestion-free in India.
I used to think I knew bad traffic. After all, I moved to Silicon Valley during the famed Internet bubble when Highway 101 slowed to a crawl during peak commute hours. And I've spent time in legendarily congested US cities like Los Angeles and New York.
Now that India has one of the world's best mobile infrastructures, it needs a decent road infrastructure. And a smart entrepreneur needs to come up with a modern fix. But before we talk solutions, let's dwell more on the problem.
Simply put: All of you Americans? or Londoners for that matter? who Tweet about sitting in traffic have nothing to complain about compared to the emerging world. And in my experience, so far, India's traffic is the absolute worst. A drive between cities that should take an hour takes four. A commute across a city can routinely take two hours-plus. We're not talking about rush hour. I've quickly learned to allot at least three hours for each meeting? one hour for the meeting and one each for getting there and back.
Even so, despite my best efforts, I've been late for nearly every meeting. In Mumbai one meeting scheduled for late morning took six hours out of my day. (Fortunately, the meeting was well worth it.) And in Bangalore my cab driver tried to take a back-alley short cut, when suddenly, our path was blocked by a cow just munching on some roadside grass. He honked and honked and she just looked up and batted her pretty brown eyes at me as if to say, ?Oh, you're not making that meeting on time, hon.
Indians complain about the poor foresight and urban planning of their government, but it's not all the government's fault. The Chinese government is the master of over-building capacity to anticipate growth, and city traffic in China is becoming unbearable as well. It'll only get worse as an anticipated 30% more cars per year come on the road.
The problem is the hyper-charged urbanization these countries have experienced. In the West cities grew over centuries allowing city planners to adjust and modernize as industrialization drove higher occupancy. And in the past few decades there's been a flight out of downtowns to suburbs. Of course that presents its own growing pains especially in US cities that have experienced massive suburban sprawl like Phoenix and Atlanta. But in the grand scheme of things, the moves have been predictable and manageable, whether individual cities have handled it well or not.
Not so with the rapid urbanization of cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Delhi, Bangalore and Mumbai. The step up in pay from hundreds to thousands of US dollars a year has been swift and far reaching. In China, agricultural classes have moved en masse to staff huge several-thousand-person factories, and for the Olympics, they moved en masse into hospitality jobs in Beijing?s raft of new hotels, malls and restaurants. This is to say nothing of the increase in government jobs and startups. There is simply no way to make remotely the same wage or have the same access to infrastructure and services outside a city. In some parts of India it's been more pronounced as hundreds of thousands of sophisticated R&D jobs typically pay more than China?s factory jobs.
Here's my point: All the existing Western solutions, endless government funds, underground subways and top urban planners will not solve this problem. Because simply put: The world has never seen urbanization so extreme by millions? maybe even billions? of people seeking a better life. We need some innovation here. And I know at least one guy who is thinking about it.
At a conference earlier this year, Elon Musk ? the guy who co-founded PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX and laughs like a James Bond villain ? talked about two new businesses he was mulling. One was electric, supersonic planes, which I've salivated over since. The other was pre-fabricated freeway overpasses to alleviate traffic by making it go vertical without the costly billion-dollar customized expansion fees.
I have to admit, at the time, I was more excited about the planes. But his freeway idea may be a better business. It would dramatically affect the lives of billions (literally) and create at least millions of revenues in the developing world where quick, cheap options are needed and there is hot-and-heavy government money to pay for it.
Now, clearly Mr. Musk is busy with existing ventures Tesla and SpaceX. So now's your chance to steal the market out from under him! India and China are waiting.
Entrepreneurs: Start. This. Company. Now.
Sarah Lacy
TechCrunch.com
Thursday, November 19, 2009; 1:29 AM
BANGALORE, INDIA ¿ It?s almost as if Russian cell phone carrier MTS has bought the naming rights to Bangalore. I half expected my immigration stamp to read ?BANGALORE! ? BROUGHT TO YOU BY MTS.? The carrier recently launched service in the uber-competitive Indian telecom market and has erected billboards every twenty feet or so. I have never seen so much advertising by one company in one space. They all sport an agro looking dude with his face twisted in some rebel-yell while he does inscrutable things with robots and mechanical arms holding different tech gadgets.
Why have these ads made such an impression on me? Because I've spent a week sitting in stopped Bangalore traffic looking at them. Ironically one keeps boasting: CONGESTION-FREE MOBILE NETWORK. Sitting still and listening to the honking of cars, mopeds, bikes and rickshaws all around me, it's an easy guess that, if true, MTS could be the only thing congestion-free in India.
I used to think I knew bad traffic. After all, I moved to Silicon Valley during the famed Internet bubble when Highway 101 slowed to a crawl during peak commute hours. And I've spent time in legendarily congested US cities like Los Angeles and New York.
Now that India has one of the world's best mobile infrastructures, it needs a decent road infrastructure. And a smart entrepreneur needs to come up with a modern fix. But before we talk solutions, let's dwell more on the problem.
Simply put: All of you Americans? or Londoners for that matter? who Tweet about sitting in traffic have nothing to complain about compared to the emerging world. And in my experience, so far, India's traffic is the absolute worst. A drive between cities that should take an hour takes four. A commute across a city can routinely take two hours-plus. We're not talking about rush hour. I've quickly learned to allot at least three hours for each meeting? one hour for the meeting and one each for getting there and back.
Even so, despite my best efforts, I've been late for nearly every meeting. In Mumbai one meeting scheduled for late morning took six hours out of my day. (Fortunately, the meeting was well worth it.) And in Bangalore my cab driver tried to take a back-alley short cut, when suddenly, our path was blocked by a cow just munching on some roadside grass. He honked and honked and she just looked up and batted her pretty brown eyes at me as if to say, ?Oh, you're not making that meeting on time, hon.
Indians complain about the poor foresight and urban planning of their government, but it's not all the government's fault. The Chinese government is the master of over-building capacity to anticipate growth, and city traffic in China is becoming unbearable as well. It'll only get worse as an anticipated 30% more cars per year come on the road.
The problem is the hyper-charged urbanization these countries have experienced. In the West cities grew over centuries allowing city planners to adjust and modernize as industrialization drove higher occupancy. And in the past few decades there's been a flight out of downtowns to suburbs. Of course that presents its own growing pains especially in US cities that have experienced massive suburban sprawl like Phoenix and Atlanta. But in the grand scheme of things, the moves have been predictable and manageable, whether individual cities have handled it well or not.
Not so with the rapid urbanization of cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Delhi, Bangalore and Mumbai. The step up in pay from hundreds to thousands of US dollars a year has been swift and far reaching. In China, agricultural classes have moved en masse to staff huge several-thousand-person factories, and for the Olympics, they moved en masse into hospitality jobs in Beijing?s raft of new hotels, malls and restaurants. This is to say nothing of the increase in government jobs and startups. There is simply no way to make remotely the same wage or have the same access to infrastructure and services outside a city. In some parts of India it's been more pronounced as hundreds of thousands of sophisticated R&D jobs typically pay more than China?s factory jobs.
Here's my point: All the existing Western solutions, endless government funds, underground subways and top urban planners will not solve this problem. Because simply put: The world has never seen urbanization so extreme by millions? maybe even billions? of people seeking a better life. We need some innovation here. And I know at least one guy who is thinking about it.
At a conference earlier this year, Elon Musk ? the guy who co-founded PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX and laughs like a James Bond villain ? talked about two new businesses he was mulling. One was electric, supersonic planes, which I've salivated over since. The other was pre-fabricated freeway overpasses to alleviate traffic by making it go vertical without the costly billion-dollar customized expansion fees.
I have to admit, at the time, I was more excited about the planes. But his freeway idea may be a better business. It would dramatically affect the lives of billions (literally) and create at least millions of revenues in the developing world where quick, cheap options are needed and there is hot-and-heavy government money to pay for it.
Now, clearly Mr. Musk is busy with existing ventures Tesla and SpaceX. So now's your chance to steal the market out from under him! India and China are waiting.
November 23, 2009 New Study Quantifies High Personal Costs of Building CA Cities for Cars
Article published by Streetsblog San Francisco.
New Study Quantifies High Personal Costs of Building CA Cities for Cars
by Matthew Roth on November 19, 2009
Annual household transportation costs in the Bay Area.
California residents living in sprawling suburban developments could save billions of dollars every year if they lived in denser, urban zones and along transit corridors, according to a study released today by smart growth and transit advocates TransForm. Analyzing four metropolitan areas--Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and Sacramento--Windfall for All found that shifting populations in those regions to denser development along transit corridors would save save $31 billion per year, or $3,850 on average per household [Report Summary PDF].
In the Bay Area, where annual car ownership costs on average over $8,000 per person, individuals spend roughly $34 billion every year on personal transportation costs, compared to only $4.6 billion spent by public agencies on transit and roads combined. Households with poor access to public transit not only spend double the amount per year on transportation when compared to those with good access to transit, they produce more than double the amount of CO2, a greenhouse gas.
"The most astounding thing is that agencies pinch their pennies on transit and cut back and we feel like we can't afford not to save that service," said Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm. "We're already spending more than seven times as much as our agencies spend on public transit and roads just on buying and operating our vehicles."
What's more, the report points out that fuel costs represent a small minority of the cost of owning a car, so the craze for electric and other low-emission vehicles will not dramatically reduce the transportation costs for those living far from their jobs and far from transit. The best solution to combating climate change, the report notes, is to build walkable, vibrant communities where residences are situated close to job centers.
Household CO2 from transportation in the Bay Area.
The report highlights California's Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), which establishes a legislative framework for mandating smart growth along transit corridors, and it argues there are economic incentives for individuals, developers, cities, and regions for limiting the role of the private automobile in transportation spending.
"By reducing public and private transportation costs and increasing revenues to local governments, SB 375 can help put dollars back in the pockets of consumers and local governments," said Cohen.
Windfall for All counters the claim that SB 375 will be too costly to implement during the current economic crisis with several examples of how planning denser cities and offering alternatives to private car travel can save money.
First, in Sacramento, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) created a 2050 development blueprint that forecasts current development patterns and compared them to smart growth patterns. SACOG found that Sacramento would save $9.4 billion in public infrastructure costs (transportation, utilities, water, etc), $655 million in annual residents' fuel costs and $8.4 billion less for land purchases to offset environmental degradation from sprawl. The city would also see a 300 percent increase in public transit use if the city clustered development around transit within an urban growth boundary.
Benefits of public transportation for household costs and pollution. Image: TransForm.
Another case study from TransForm's report analyzed the promising results from the University of California San Diego's (UCSD) experiment in promoting non-automobile travel to the campus. Rather than build 10 additional parking facilities that had been planned and using parking revenue from three garages built between 2001 and 2007 at UCSD's La Jolla campus, the university invested in shuttles, expanded routes, discount and free fares on transit, as well as facilities for bicycling and pedestrians, all of which has resulted in a dramatic reduction of solo-driver trips. The alternative transportation measures and the costs savings from not building the new garages were so significant, UCSD has frozen the construction of new garages. The USCD model was successful enough to convince the University of California system to require universities to present a business model analyzing the benefits of transit, ride sharing, and bicycle facilities before building new garages.
In the Bay Area, parking regulations are a significant impediment to dense development. In San Leandro, parking minimums of more than two parking spaces for each new home made dense development a planning impossibility. When San Leandro re-wrote its downtown plan, it rezoned to allow 3,400 new homes, more than seven times the limit under the old zoning laws. The first development in the new Downtown Transit-Oriented Development Strategy, The Alameda, designed by San Francisco Architect David Baker, saves $3.9 million by eliminating a level of parking and produces 30 more affordable units, according to the report.
Based on these and other case studies, Cohen suggested California should consider levying a climate impact fee on gasoline to generate enough money to expand public transit options and expand walkable communities while improving the economy and meeting ambitious greenhouse gas targets.
"Building our communities with the expectation that every driver in a family is going to have to own their own car is part of what is part of what is bankrupting families," said Cohen. "The infrastructure for the... roads and those patterns of growth is part of what is bankrupting our public agencies."
Windfall for All Critical Recommendations
* Integrate full economic analysis into planning. The huge dividends from efficient land use become evident once personal costs, not just public budgets, are considered. Without such analysis, we will continue to promote plans and policies that cost too much for families, businesses, and local governments.
* Provide cities and counties with an infusion of funds to engage the community in planning. The state should make funds available for updating zoning codes and parking policies to make more efficient use of land and resources. Identifying strategies to maintain and expand the number of affordable homes is also critical.
* Fund cost-effective public transportation. The state needs to provide leadership and restore funds for public transit, as well as make it easier for regions to raise new revenues with climate-impact fees. Economic analysis could determine whether such fees, if spent in ways that promote more efficient communities, can reduce our overall costs.
* Innovate, evaluate and replicate. There are dozens of innovative strategies – whether an individual program such as car-sharing, or a comprehensive rewards approach such as UC San Diego’s. MTC, the Bay Area’s transportation agency, will soon launch the first “Transportation Climate Action Program.” This program will seed, evaluate and replicate innovative programs. Other regions should follow suit.
* New development should minimize pollution from new residents – or pay to mitigate it. The San Joaquin Valley is encouraging efficient development from the start. New developments that don’t provide walkable communities with convenient transportation choices must mitigate the costs of the air pollution that will be generated by future residents. The state and regional air districts should encourage this same system for mitigating the costs of greenhouse gases.
New Study Quantifies High Personal Costs of Building CA Cities for Cars
by Matthew Roth on November 19, 2009
Annual household transportation costs in the Bay Area.California residents living in sprawling suburban developments could save billions of dollars every year if they lived in denser, urban zones and along transit corridors, according to a study released today by smart growth and transit advocates TransForm. Analyzing four metropolitan areas--Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and Sacramento--Windfall for All found that shifting populations in those regions to denser development along transit corridors would save save $31 billion per year, or $3,850 on average per household [Report Summary PDF].
In the Bay Area, where annual car ownership costs on average over $8,000 per person, individuals spend roughly $34 billion every year on personal transportation costs, compared to only $4.6 billion spent by public agencies on transit and roads combined. Households with poor access to public transit not only spend double the amount per year on transportation when compared to those with good access to transit, they produce more than double the amount of CO2, a greenhouse gas.
"The most astounding thing is that agencies pinch their pennies on transit and cut back and we feel like we can't afford not to save that service," said Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm. "We're already spending more than seven times as much as our agencies spend on public transit and roads just on buying and operating our vehicles."
What's more, the report points out that fuel costs represent a small minority of the cost of owning a car, so the craze for electric and other low-emission vehicles will not dramatically reduce the transportation costs for those living far from their jobs and far from transit. The best solution to combating climate change, the report notes, is to build walkable, vibrant communities where residences are situated close to job centers.
Household CO2 from transportation in the Bay Area.The report highlights California's Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), which establishes a legislative framework for mandating smart growth along transit corridors, and it argues there are economic incentives for individuals, developers, cities, and regions for limiting the role of the private automobile in transportation spending.
"By reducing public and private transportation costs and increasing revenues to local governments, SB 375 can help put dollars back in the pockets of consumers and local governments," said Cohen.
Windfall for All counters the claim that SB 375 will be too costly to implement during the current economic crisis with several examples of how planning denser cities and offering alternatives to private car travel can save money.
First, in Sacramento, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) created a 2050 development blueprint that forecasts current development patterns and compared them to smart growth patterns. SACOG found that Sacramento would save $9.4 billion in public infrastructure costs (transportation, utilities, water, etc), $655 million in annual residents' fuel costs and $8.4 billion less for land purchases to offset environmental degradation from sprawl. The city would also see a 300 percent increase in public transit use if the city clustered development around transit within an urban growth boundary.
Benefits of public transportation for household costs and pollution. Image: TransForm.Another case study from TransForm's report analyzed the promising results from the University of California San Diego's (UCSD) experiment in promoting non-automobile travel to the campus. Rather than build 10 additional parking facilities that had been planned and using parking revenue from three garages built between 2001 and 2007 at UCSD's La Jolla campus, the university invested in shuttles, expanded routes, discount and free fares on transit, as well as facilities for bicycling and pedestrians, all of which has resulted in a dramatic reduction of solo-driver trips. The alternative transportation measures and the costs savings from not building the new garages were so significant, UCSD has frozen the construction of new garages. The USCD model was successful enough to convince the University of California system to require universities to present a business model analyzing the benefits of transit, ride sharing, and bicycle facilities before building new garages.
In the Bay Area, parking regulations are a significant impediment to dense development. In San Leandro, parking minimums of more than two parking spaces for each new home made dense development a planning impossibility. When San Leandro re-wrote its downtown plan, it rezoned to allow 3,400 new homes, more than seven times the limit under the old zoning laws. The first development in the new Downtown Transit-Oriented Development Strategy, The Alameda, designed by San Francisco Architect David Baker, saves $3.9 million by eliminating a level of parking and produces 30 more affordable units, according to the report.
Based on these and other case studies, Cohen suggested California should consider levying a climate impact fee on gasoline to generate enough money to expand public transit options and expand walkable communities while improving the economy and meeting ambitious greenhouse gas targets.
"Building our communities with the expectation that every driver in a family is going to have to own their own car is part of what is part of what is bankrupting families," said Cohen. "The infrastructure for the... roads and those patterns of growth is part of what is bankrupting our public agencies."
Windfall for All Critical Recommendations* Integrate full economic analysis into planning. The huge dividends from efficient land use become evident once personal costs, not just public budgets, are considered. Without such analysis, we will continue to promote plans and policies that cost too much for families, businesses, and local governments.
* Provide cities and counties with an infusion of funds to engage the community in planning. The state should make funds available for updating zoning codes and parking policies to make more efficient use of land and resources. Identifying strategies to maintain and expand the number of affordable homes is also critical.
* Fund cost-effective public transportation. The state needs to provide leadership and restore funds for public transit, as well as make it easier for regions to raise new revenues with climate-impact fees. Economic analysis could determine whether such fees, if spent in ways that promote more efficient communities, can reduce our overall costs.
* Innovate, evaluate and replicate. There are dozens of innovative strategies – whether an individual program such as car-sharing, or a comprehensive rewards approach such as UC San Diego’s. MTC, the Bay Area’s transportation agency, will soon launch the first “Transportation Climate Action Program.” This program will seed, evaluate and replicate innovative programs. Other regions should follow suit.
* New development should minimize pollution from new residents – or pay to mitigate it. The San Joaquin Valley is encouraging efficient development from the start. New developments that don’t provide walkable communities with convenient transportation choices must mitigate the costs of the air pollution that will be generated by future residents. The state and regional air districts should encourage this same system for mitigating the costs of greenhouse gases.
November , Mexico: Take the Metrobús in Mexico City
Article and picture published by The Atlantic Magazine.
Take the Metrobús in Mexico City
With hopes largely dashed for completing a comprehensive global climate change treaty agreement in Copenhagen next month, the spotlight will shift toward 2010 and upcoming international gatherings such as the United Nations climate change summit scheduled for next December in Mexico City. The greening of this gridlocked, sprawling metropolis is underway, so delegates to the meeting--or any visitors to the city--should consider doing their own small part to combat global warming by taking the Metrobús when they get there.
The Mexico City Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System, a public transportation system in the heart of a city better known for its smog, is a novel initiative to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hazardous air pollutants from cars and minibuses, as well as the commuting time for workers, students and others who flood the city each day.
Metrobús also offers a remarkable example of how to put a new transport system into place in a relatively short time, how to foster cooperation over competition in a city known for its rough-and-tumble politics, and how to create a public-private transport system that does not rely on massive public subsidies. In other words, not business as usual.
I had the opportunity to meet the mayor of Mexico City and other key players in the Metrobús project when they came to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government last week to accept the Roy Family Award for Environmental Partnership. Mexico City's Metrobús was chosen because of the unusual public-private collaboration among nine local and international organizations that developed and supported the project, which is considered a model for other large cities seeking timelier, less costly urban transit solutions.
In 2005, a mere three years after planning began, clean, energy-efficient, high-capacity buses began carrying passengers down dedicated bus lanes on Avenida de los Insurgentes, the city's main north-to-south traffic artery and one of the world's longest urban avenues. Since then, expansion of the Insurgentes line and the addition of a second line has resulted in about 450,000 passengers each day riding buses running on clean-burning ultra low sulfur diesel fuel along routes currently totaling 51 kilometers (about 32 miles).
By 2012, Mexico City's "green" mayor, Marcelo Ebrard, hopes to expand Metrobús to 10 lines carrying 1.5 million passengers. Since taking office three years ago, Ebrard has advocated an ambitious "plan verde" to improve the city's environment and public health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make it one of the most livable, sustainable mega-cities in the world.
To do so, requires a sea change in transportation and mobility, says Ebrard, with the Metrobús the "most important" part of his strategy. Combining an expanded Metrobús system with the city's Metro subway system, new bike lanes, and improved pedestrian walkways, he wants to make it possible to get to any part of the city using public transportation, non-motorized vehicles, or on foot. The passionate young Mexico City mayor (and potential presidential candidate) plans to participate in the Copenhagen meeting next month.
Although only a drop in the global greenhouse gas bucket, Metrobús has started to make a dent in the carbon dioxide emissions from Mexico City traffic, cutting them by an estimated 60,000 to 80,000 tons per year. In 2007, it also became the first public transportation system worldwide to sell carbon credits on the international market, according to Metrobús director Guillermo Calderon and Walter Vergara, lead engineer in the Latin America Environment Department of the World Bank.
Payments to Mexico City for the carbon reductions, which Calderon hopes to use in part for bike parking at Metrobús stations, came from the Spanish Carbon Fund, a clean development initiative of the World Bank working with the Spanish Government. Vergara said the World Bank, one of the Metrobús funders, is planning to announce next month a dramatic infusion of funds, $380 million, to help support 18 other Mexican BRT projects over six years.
In Mexico City, low-emission new buses have already replaced more than 800 of the polluting, often unsafe, minibuses, or peseros, which are commonly used for getting around the traffic-clogged city. One of the most striking aspects of getting the new system up and running was the city's success in convincing minibus owners and operators to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem: they joined a public-private consortium that owns and runs the Metrobús system.
Metrobús_Set_Dominguez.jpgWith their dedicated lanes, smart-card payments, stations, and reliable routes, the long, segmented buses have won growing numbers of converts largely because of the promise of shorter commutes--40 to 50 percent less time than they would spend riding in private minibuses or cars along these crowded streets, according to Adriana Lobo, executive director of the Center for Sustainable Transport in Mexico, a non-profit set up to provide technical assistance to the Metrobús system.
Lobo said surveys show that about 15 percent of the riders are car owners, a sign that the system is starting to get private cars off crowded commuter roads. Recent customer surveys have consistently given the Metrobús high marks, she said.
The success of the Metrobús system thus far is the result of an unusually cooperative group of partners. The project was launched by EMBARQ-The World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport, working with the Mexico City government, a Mexican NGO called CEIBA, and the Shell Foundation. The Hewlett and Caterpillar Foundations, as well as big international financing agencies--the Global Environment Facility as well as the World Bank--also provided funding and support.
The collegial atmosphere was evident at a Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs seminar for faculty and students held as part of the Kennedy School's Roy Award events (Disclosure: I served on the award selection committee). Metrobús participants frequently deferred to one another and gave credit to each other's groups (a refreshing difference from the sharp-elbows approach that often characterizes such projects).
With all the goodwill in the room about the future of Bus Rapid Transit expansion in Mexico City and elsewhere, Nancy Kete, director of EMBARQ, felt compelled to interrupt "the love fest" with a note of caution about the potential economic "challenges coming" in getting future deals closed with other minibus owners. Lobo and Calderon are also worried about keeping the Metrobús system financially self-sustaining but affordable in the future. Lobo noted that Metrobús operations are financed by fares--5 pesos (about 38 cents) per trip--that are much higher than the highly subsidized Metro subway system (2 pesos, or about 15 cents per trip). The minibus prices, about 3 to 4 pesos depending on the ride, fall in between.
Nonetheless, because creating Bus Rapid Transit systems is far cheaper and faster than constructing subway systems, their economic and environmental appeal is catching on in other major cities, particularly in the developing world. The success of Mexico City's Metrobús helped spawn a new Macrobus rapid transit system which opened earlier this year in Guadalajara, Mexico's second largest city, with President Felipe Calderón on hand. Participants in the seminar cited Curitiba, Brazil's pioneering BRT system, as well as the TransMilenio BRT in Bogotá, Colombia, one of the world's largest. BRT is growing throughout Latin America, as well as parts of Canada, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Bus Rapid Transit is also catching on in American cities, with a new system is set to open later this month in Washington State's Puget Sound region. In the other Washington, where political and economic gridlock is as common as the traffic variety, a new BRT is being planned along the city's downtown K Street corridor where the wide street, and its side lanes, offers enough space to create a dedicated bus lane. If Mexico City could do it, perhaps Washington DC could too. But I won't be holding my breath--gridlock has unfortunately become the norm in our nation's capital.
(Photo: vonKinder/Flickr and Wikimedia Commons)
Take the Metrobús in Mexico City
With hopes largely dashed for completing a comprehensive global climate change treaty agreement in Copenhagen next month, the spotlight will shift toward 2010 and upcoming international gatherings such as the United Nations climate change summit scheduled for next December in Mexico City. The greening of this gridlocked, sprawling metropolis is underway, so delegates to the meeting--or any visitors to the city--should consider doing their own small part to combat global warming by taking the Metrobús when they get there.
The Mexico City Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System, a public transportation system in the heart of a city better known for its smog, is a novel initiative to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hazardous air pollutants from cars and minibuses, as well as the commuting time for workers, students and others who flood the city each day.
Metrobús also offers a remarkable example of how to put a new transport system into place in a relatively short time, how to foster cooperation over competition in a city known for its rough-and-tumble politics, and how to create a public-private transport system that does not rely on massive public subsidies. In other words, not business as usual.
I had the opportunity to meet the mayor of Mexico City and other key players in the Metrobús project when they came to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government last week to accept the Roy Family Award for Environmental Partnership. Mexico City's Metrobús was chosen because of the unusual public-private collaboration among nine local and international organizations that developed and supported the project, which is considered a model for other large cities seeking timelier, less costly urban transit solutions.
In 2005, a mere three years after planning began, clean, energy-efficient, high-capacity buses began carrying passengers down dedicated bus lanes on Avenida de los Insurgentes, the city's main north-to-south traffic artery and one of the world's longest urban avenues. Since then, expansion of the Insurgentes line and the addition of a second line has resulted in about 450,000 passengers each day riding buses running on clean-burning ultra low sulfur diesel fuel along routes currently totaling 51 kilometers (about 32 miles).
By 2012, Mexico City's "green" mayor, Marcelo Ebrard, hopes to expand Metrobús to 10 lines carrying 1.5 million passengers. Since taking office three years ago, Ebrard has advocated an ambitious "plan verde" to improve the city's environment and public health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make it one of the most livable, sustainable mega-cities in the world.
To do so, requires a sea change in transportation and mobility, says Ebrard, with the Metrobús the "most important" part of his strategy. Combining an expanded Metrobús system with the city's Metro subway system, new bike lanes, and improved pedestrian walkways, he wants to make it possible to get to any part of the city using public transportation, non-motorized vehicles, or on foot. The passionate young Mexico City mayor (and potential presidential candidate) plans to participate in the Copenhagen meeting next month.
Although only a drop in the global greenhouse gas bucket, Metrobús has started to make a dent in the carbon dioxide emissions from Mexico City traffic, cutting them by an estimated 60,000 to 80,000 tons per year. In 2007, it also became the first public transportation system worldwide to sell carbon credits on the international market, according to Metrobús director Guillermo Calderon and Walter Vergara, lead engineer in the Latin America Environment Department of the World Bank.
Payments to Mexico City for the carbon reductions, which Calderon hopes to use in part for bike parking at Metrobús stations, came from the Spanish Carbon Fund, a clean development initiative of the World Bank working with the Spanish Government. Vergara said the World Bank, one of the Metrobús funders, is planning to announce next month a dramatic infusion of funds, $380 million, to help support 18 other Mexican BRT projects over six years.
In Mexico City, low-emission new buses have already replaced more than 800 of the polluting, often unsafe, minibuses, or peseros, which are commonly used for getting around the traffic-clogged city. One of the most striking aspects of getting the new system up and running was the city's success in convincing minibus owners and operators to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem: they joined a public-private consortium that owns and runs the Metrobús system.
Metrobús_Set_Dominguez.jpgWith their dedicated lanes, smart-card payments, stations, and reliable routes, the long, segmented buses have won growing numbers of converts largely because of the promise of shorter commutes--40 to 50 percent less time than they would spend riding in private minibuses or cars along these crowded streets, according to Adriana Lobo, executive director of the Center for Sustainable Transport in Mexico, a non-profit set up to provide technical assistance to the Metrobús system.
Lobo said surveys show that about 15 percent of the riders are car owners, a sign that the system is starting to get private cars off crowded commuter roads. Recent customer surveys have consistently given the Metrobús high marks, she said.
The success of the Metrobús system thus far is the result of an unusually cooperative group of partners. The project was launched by EMBARQ-The World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport, working with the Mexico City government, a Mexican NGO called CEIBA, and the Shell Foundation. The Hewlett and Caterpillar Foundations, as well as big international financing agencies--the Global Environment Facility as well as the World Bank--also provided funding and support.
The collegial atmosphere was evident at a Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs seminar for faculty and students held as part of the Kennedy School's Roy Award events (Disclosure: I served on the award selection committee). Metrobús participants frequently deferred to one another and gave credit to each other's groups (a refreshing difference from the sharp-elbows approach that often characterizes such projects).
With all the goodwill in the room about the future of Bus Rapid Transit expansion in Mexico City and elsewhere, Nancy Kete, director of EMBARQ, felt compelled to interrupt "the love fest" with a note of caution about the potential economic "challenges coming" in getting future deals closed with other minibus owners. Lobo and Calderon are also worried about keeping the Metrobús system financially self-sustaining but affordable in the future. Lobo noted that Metrobús operations are financed by fares--5 pesos (about 38 cents) per trip--that are much higher than the highly subsidized Metro subway system (2 pesos, or about 15 cents per trip). The minibus prices, about 3 to 4 pesos depending on the ride, fall in between.
Nonetheless, because creating Bus Rapid Transit systems is far cheaper and faster than constructing subway systems, their economic and environmental appeal is catching on in other major cities, particularly in the developing world. The success of Mexico City's Metrobús helped spawn a new Macrobus rapid transit system which opened earlier this year in Guadalajara, Mexico's second largest city, with President Felipe Calderón on hand. Participants in the seminar cited Curitiba, Brazil's pioneering BRT system, as well as the TransMilenio BRT in Bogotá, Colombia, one of the world's largest. BRT is growing throughout Latin America, as well as parts of Canada, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Bus Rapid Transit is also catching on in American cities, with a new system is set to open later this month in Washington State's Puget Sound region. In the other Washington, where political and economic gridlock is as common as the traffic variety, a new BRT is being planned along the city's downtown K Street corridor where the wide street, and its side lanes, offers enough space to create a dedicated bus lane. If Mexico City could do it, perhaps Washington DC could too. But I won't be holding my breath--gridlock has unfortunately become the norm in our nation's capital.
(Photo: vonKinder/Flickr and Wikimedia Commons)
November 23, 2009 New Jersey: "Hoboken Daylighting" In Lieu Of Bump-Outs
From the article at www.planetizen.com "Hoboken Daylighting" In Lieu Of Bump-Outs an alternative to curb extensions.
"Hoboken Daylighting" Simply Involves Two Vertical Delineators Per Corner
Hoboken Daylighting Is Installed Here For Both "Critical Approaches"
"Hoboken Daylighting" Simply Involves Two Vertical Delineators Per Corner
Hoboken Daylighting Is Installed Here For Both "Critical Approaches"
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
November 11, 2009 BBC: Hot Cities
Video and text from the BBC's Hot Cities. Access the web page to see more documentaries on the topic.
The world’s biggest cities are already victims of climate change. There are real economic and social impacts as climate refugees swell urban populations, food and water supplies are threatened and sea levels rise. “Hot Cities” travels the world from Lagos to Los Angeles, from Shanghai to Surat, from Dhaka to Durban to see if our cites can adapt and survive.
The world’s biggest cities are already victims of climate change. There are real economic and social impacts as climate refugees swell urban populations, food and water supplies are threatened and sea levels rise. “Hot Cities” travels the world from Lagos to Los Angeles, from Shanghai to Surat, from Dhaka to Durban to see if our cites can adapt and survive.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
November 8, 2009 Wales: Cardiff Castle (Castell Coch)
Text and pictures from Wikipedia.
William Burges was an English architect and designer. The greatest of the Victorian art-architects
William Burges was an English architect and designer. The greatest of the Victorian art-architects
Cardiff Castle
Thursday, November 05, 2009
November 5, 2009 DDB Stockholm Makes Fun of Environmentalism
See full article at link below.
DDB Stockholm Makes Fun of Environmentalism
DDB Stockholm has launched a campaign for Volkswagen based on the belief that the best way to get people to make positive changes in life, including taking care of the environment, is to make it fun. We call it The Fun Theory or Rolighetsteorin.
DDB Stockholm Makes Fun of Environmentalism
DDB Stockholm has launched a campaign for Volkswagen based on the belief that the best way to get people to make positive changes in life, including taking care of the environment, is to make it fun. We call it The Fun Theory or Rolighetsteorin.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
October 28, 2009 Highway Trust Fund: Senator Kay Hutchison
Simply brilliant. Following can be found at C-SPAN. Note highlights in red. Opting out of the highway trust fund is likely the best alternative for states like Texas. Too bad Texas will not have the experience and seniority of Senator Hutchison as she runs for governor of Texas.
July 30, 2009 - Text from congressional record
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the transfer of the highway trust fund money. I do, of course, support having the money in the highway fund because so many States need to have this money and we need to assure it is there. I also support the amendments that would use the stimulus money so it would not be new money.
But I do wish to talk about the highway trust fund because I think it is important, as we are talking about this very important transportation issue for our States, that we begin the debate about whether the highway trust fund is now the appropriate vehicle for keeping our Federal highways repaired and also doing the best for every State in transportation. What concerns me is that the first reason for the highway trust fund back in President Eisenhower's day over 50 years ago has been achieved.
Yet we are still continuing to have the same formulas where some States are winners and some States are losers. But every State today has the capacity to determine its own priorities and the capacity to fund those priorities, unlike 50 years ago when there were many States that had very little capacity. They had little property, they had little taxable revenue sources, and therefore there was a need for a national system of highways to assure that we had national security. That was the first reason for it--but also mobility and commerce.
Today, however, I think it is time for us to start all over. I think it is time for us to allow States to opt out of the highway trust fund.
Of course, I am speaking for the largest donor State in America. We give more back to other States than any other State. We are a State that has more highway miles than any other State; therefore, we collect more taxes. Because we are a donor State, we give the most away. If these were States that could not meet their own needs and my State of Texas was a State that had its needs covered, maybe you could argue that would be OK. But, in fact, that is not the case. In fact, Texas is facing a huge shortage in our highway funding. We now have two cities that have mass transit systems that are certainly very successful but very far behind the curve when it comes to the transportation glut on our highways. We need to have the money in Texas to start meeting our great transportation needs.
This also affects our environment, because when we have people clogged in traffic, sitting on freeways hour after hour, of course it is bad for the ability to get where you want to go, but it is also bad for the environment to have the fumes going in the air.
I think today it is time for us to start the debate. Why not let a State opt out, agree to keep in good repair the Federal highway system and allow the States to use their own taxpayer dollars for their own priorities to meet their own transportation and mobility needs? If Texas could keep all the money it raises, rather than toll roads, which are now being contemplated throughout our State, perhaps we could have a mobility plan that would include highways, rapid transit, high-speed rail, and more innovative ideas that are very costly, which we cannot afford at this time.
Obviously, today we are going to go forward with extending the trust fund and replenishing the highway trust fund because that is what people want to do because we don't have time to address the whole issue of reauthorization at this very complicated time. I wish we were not going to consider an 18 month extension in September because I think we ought to have a short-term extension, so we do have the reauthorization of the highway bill, so we can start discussing these priorities--so we can start maybe thinking outside the box. Maybe we can start all over.
The highway trust fund and the highway authorization bill is a mishmash of different projects. I don't think there is fairness in the system at all. You have donor States, you have winner States, and the winner States have all the capacity. The loser States have as much need as the winner States, and the winner States have the ability, I believe, to fund their own options.
Even though I know we are going to extend the highway bill for 18 months by the end of September, and I know we are going to replenish the highway fund today--and I wish it would be from our stimulus package so it would not be yet another deficit-inducing measure from this Congress--I think I am going to lose all the arguments I am making. But I do think it important that we bring this issue to the forefront.
There is no reason in this country today for winner States and loser States. Our States should be able to plan for themselves, make their own priorities, meet their needs, be able to be more efficient, have multimodal systems--which is what I hope for Texas--and be able to use our own tax dollars for our own needs. Were we a State that did not have needs, were we a State that was not growing, maybe we could afford to continue giving 8 cents back for every $1 we send to Washington. Maybe we could afford to leave the 8 cents in Washington.
Instead, we are getting 92 cents back for every $1 we send to Washington. That is hundreds of millions of dollars that we need for our high-growth State that has many traffic problems and congestion problems today. We will repair our highways. We would sign an agreement to repair our highways so there would be no Federal responsibility for that. But I hope this argument will be the beginning of a debate so we can instate a system that will be more in tune with today's times, 50 years after the National Highway System was created--a wonderful system that connects our country but one, now, that is finished. We have our National Highway System. We do have [Page: S8526] connectivity among our States. Why not allow the States to go out from those Federal highway miles and lanes, to go into their States in the best way for each individual State?
I thank Senator Brown for allowing me to speak on this issue. I hope, as we go through, we will have more of a discussion.
I do have a bill introduced that would allow States to opt out. It is something I think the time has come to address.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
July 30, 2009 - Text from congressional record
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the transfer of the highway trust fund money. I do, of course, support having the money in the highway fund because so many States need to have this money and we need to assure it is there. I also support the amendments that would use the stimulus money so it would not be new money.
But I do wish to talk about the highway trust fund because I think it is important, as we are talking about this very important transportation issue for our States, that we begin the debate about whether the highway trust fund is now the appropriate vehicle for keeping our Federal highways repaired and also doing the best for every State in transportation. What concerns me is that the first reason for the highway trust fund back in President Eisenhower's day over 50 years ago has been achieved.
Yet we are still continuing to have the same formulas where some States are winners and some States are losers. But every State today has the capacity to determine its own priorities and the capacity to fund those priorities, unlike 50 years ago when there were many States that had very little capacity. They had little property, they had little taxable revenue sources, and therefore there was a need for a national system of highways to assure that we had national security. That was the first reason for it--but also mobility and commerce.
Today, however, I think it is time for us to start all over. I think it is time for us to allow States to opt out of the highway trust fund.
Of course, I am speaking for the largest donor State in America. We give more back to other States than any other State. We are a State that has more highway miles than any other State; therefore, we collect more taxes. Because we are a donor State, we give the most away. If these were States that could not meet their own needs and my State of Texas was a State that had its needs covered, maybe you could argue that would be OK. But, in fact, that is not the case. In fact, Texas is facing a huge shortage in our highway funding. We now have two cities that have mass transit systems that are certainly very successful but very far behind the curve when it comes to the transportation glut on our highways. We need to have the money in Texas to start meeting our great transportation needs.
This also affects our environment, because when we have people clogged in traffic, sitting on freeways hour after hour, of course it is bad for the ability to get where you want to go, but it is also bad for the environment to have the fumes going in the air.
I think today it is time for us to start the debate. Why not let a State opt out, agree to keep in good repair the Federal highway system and allow the States to use their own taxpayer dollars for their own priorities to meet their own transportation and mobility needs? If Texas could keep all the money it raises, rather than toll roads, which are now being contemplated throughout our State, perhaps we could have a mobility plan that would include highways, rapid transit, high-speed rail, and more innovative ideas that are very costly, which we cannot afford at this time.
Obviously, today we are going to go forward with extending the trust fund and replenishing the highway trust fund because that is what people want to do because we don't have time to address the whole issue of reauthorization at this very complicated time. I wish we were not going to consider an 18 month extension in September because I think we ought to have a short-term extension, so we do have the reauthorization of the highway bill, so we can start discussing these priorities--so we can start maybe thinking outside the box. Maybe we can start all over.
The highway trust fund and the highway authorization bill is a mishmash of different projects. I don't think there is fairness in the system at all. You have donor States, you have winner States, and the winner States have all the capacity. The loser States have as much need as the winner States, and the winner States have the ability, I believe, to fund their own options.
Even though I know we are going to extend the highway bill for 18 months by the end of September, and I know we are going to replenish the highway fund today--and I wish it would be from our stimulus package so it would not be yet another deficit-inducing measure from this Congress--I think I am going to lose all the arguments I am making. But I do think it important that we bring this issue to the forefront.
There is no reason in this country today for winner States and loser States. Our States should be able to plan for themselves, make their own priorities, meet their needs, be able to be more efficient, have multimodal systems--which is what I hope for Texas--and be able to use our own tax dollars for our own needs. Were we a State that did not have needs, were we a State that was not growing, maybe we could afford to continue giving 8 cents back for every $1 we send to Washington. Maybe we could afford to leave the 8 cents in Washington.
Instead, we are getting 92 cents back for every $1 we send to Washington. That is hundreds of millions of dollars that we need for our high-growth State that has many traffic problems and congestion problems today. We will repair our highways. We would sign an agreement to repair our highways so there would be no Federal responsibility for that. But I hope this argument will be the beginning of a debate so we can instate a system that will be more in tune with today's times, 50 years after the National Highway System was created--a wonderful system that connects our country but one, now, that is finished. We have our National Highway System. We do have [Page: S8526] connectivity among our States. Why not allow the States to go out from those Federal highway miles and lanes, to go into their States in the best way for each individual State?
I thank Senator Brown for allowing me to speak on this issue. I hope, as we go through, we will have more of a discussion.
I do have a bill introduced that would allow States to opt out. It is something I think the time has come to address.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
