Comments on: Why Aren’t Urban Pols Talking About Transit?

By: Erich

Erich — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:06:52 +0000

I live have lived in Florida for over 20 years, and public transportation is the worse. I am sure the planning dept in Florida must have known for years the problem with either taffic congestion, or gas issues, but were extremely slow in doing anything about it. If gas continues to go the way people are predicting, than I don’t know what Florida will do.

http://www.yourocnaworld.org

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:05:07 +0000

Politicians know that buzzwords like “alternative energy”, “solar”, “wind”, “renewable fuel”, “energy independence”, “big oil”, etc… are playing well right to the masses.

Plus, no politician wants to tell Joe Sixpack that he’s gonna have to live closer to a mass transit station and ditch the SUV if he wants to get by. It’s much easier to tell him, “Don’t worry, I’m gonna go after Big Oil and get serious about developing alternatives to oil”. Those “solutions” don’t require any sacrifices or departures from the suburban way of life.

It’s a sad state of affairs right now. Hopefully everyone will take some time to get educated on real solutions rather than solutions that only make good political buzzwords.

By: rhubarbpie

rhubarbpie — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:02:15 +0000

I agree with Cap’n Transit. The 7 line extension and the Moynihan station are both low in priority, compared to other mass transit needs. Unlike Sen. Moynihan himself, who pushed for new federal formula that increased mass transit dollars and for a heavily increased pre-tax write-offs for transit, Sen. Schumer is mostly just making sure he has something to blab about at his next Sunday news conference.

By: uSkyscraper

uSkyscraper — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:34:32 +0000

This is very easy to explain.

You can’t easily have a conversation with constituents about something that doesn’t exist, and no politician will talk about creating something that takes longer to design, approve and construct than any political term lasts.

Because transit options are so poor for most Americans, even in many urban areas, there is little for them to switch to. And blanketing the country with rail lines, or even more frequent and efficient bus lines, is something that takes years and years so there is no interest.

Therefore, there is nothing to talk about from a political view when it comes to transit. Endless discussions about gas taxes, gas supplies, fuel efficiency are all much more “real” to voters.

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:29:53 +0000

Paco, I don’t consider the Moynihan Station (“West”) to be mass transit infrastructure. The improvements in travel would be tiny compared with the expense.

http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2008/03/you-dont-eat-stone.html

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:48:27 +0000

Excellent post, but it omits one major factor — the fantasies surrounding electric and hydrogen cars. As long as people think they can continue car culture with a different technology, they won’t explore the alternatives, even if their survival is at stake.

By: Paco

Paco — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:28:08 +0000

i agree its sad and illogical that politicians are not talking about new, non-automobile transportation policy, but i also know I’ve read that Chuck Schumer is a big advocate pushing for the Moynihan station to get realistic funding and for the 7th avenue extension to add a stop at 41st street rather than just the one on the MTA’s plans for now. I don’t always agree with Chuck, but at least in some regards, he is pushing for mass transit infrastructure.