Comments on: Shaping the 2009 Transpo Debate: Rockefeller Foundation’s Nick Turner

By: TLNelms

TLNelms — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:36:29 +0000

One of the criteria any study of transportation policies should include would be the amount of energy used by different modes. I realize this probably goes to the argument of mode against mode, but it would be instructive to see how many BTUs of energy are consumed by auto, airline & rail. I believe you will find that rail is the most cost efficient in terms of energy used per mile. I offer this from the perspective of having worked in the transportation field and from talking to my father who was a railroad engineer.

We, as a nation, are playing catchup with other nations when it comes to addressing transportation needs that would change the habits of most Americans in traveling across this great continent of ours. Clearly, a chenge in mindset is called for. The biggest challenge is convincing the leaders of our society that it is in their best interest as well as the nation's, to pursue these questions and arrive at some equitable answers.

By: Brian Ketcham

Brian Ketcham — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:25:22 +0000

It is nice to learn of the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement investigating the nation’s transportation problems. To appreciate the challenges and opportunities here the Foundation (and the rest of us) needs to understand that Americans already pay nearly $2 trillion annually for travel, all modes, including freight--auto travel totals $1.2 trillion; truck freight movement, $220 billion. Our transportation systems are inefficient and hugely wasteful, in part because our infrastructure is underfinanced. In addition, the hidden costs of auto use and truck freight movement alone exceeds $1.6 trillion annually (the costs of lost productivity and wasted fuel from car and truck use, the cost of traffic accidents not covered by insurance, and various environmental damages including air pollution). These costs are high in part because of our deteriorated infrastructure. Improving the efficiency of travel could cut these hidden costs significantly and save Americans tens of billions of dollars every year off-setting needed investments.

Another way to address the problems we face with regard to transportation is how we utilize our land—developing efficient communities with greater opportunities to live, work and play in close proximity. However, let’s not forget that 90% of travel still occurs over our highways and we cannot continue to neglect highways, bridges and other roadway transport infrastructure while we search for more efficient ways to travel. For example, New York City’s roads are in abdominal condition.

America’s infrastructure is collapsing. Roads, bridges, transit and utilities are in need of major repairs or replacement and expansion. We need about $300 to $400 billion annually to accomplish this. As this is about 8 to 10% of all taxes paid (federal, state, local), this should not be that difficult to accommodate especially when you compare these costs with the benefits of bringing America’s infrastructure to a state of good repair. At the same time, given the recent collapse of our economy, we may not be able to afford to invest so much repairing our nation at least for a couple of years. The bigger question is can we afford to wait?

Finally, regarding making transportation more efficient: why are we not importing the small, diesel powered (and very attractive) vehicles produced in Europe and Japan that are so ubiquitous overseas (40, 50 even 60 miles per gallon is what is available right now)?

Perhaps these are issues that the Rockefeller Foundation and their partners can investigate?

By: Ian Turner

Ian Turner — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:27:16 +0000

Thank you, Rex. I appreciate it.

By: rex

rex — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:35:03 +0000

Wow, Mr. Turner hit the nail on the head. How refreshing.

By: JK

JK — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:19:24 +0000

This is pre-season stuff. Good for warming up, but the national transportation discussion centered around T4 authorization, green jobs, infrastructure and carbon taxes/caps isn't going anywhere during the final stretch of the presidential campaign. Neither candidate wants to tell voters they will have to pay more for gas and energy. Nor has the extent of national political change become known --- especially how many seats Dems pick-up in the senate. So, the real discussion starts after the election, probably not until late January.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:16:27 +0000

On this note, I was surprised to see a lack of coverage on Streetsblog about a report issued this week by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, which put a dollar figure on the benefits that could be seen if the feds stepped up investment in bike/ped in the next transpo bill. It's an interesting read. http://www.railstotrails.org/whatwedo/trailadvocacy/ATFA/index.html

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:56:38 +0000

I'm pleased to think that a lot of this money comes from Standard Oil profits.

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:31:22 +0000

Very good piece Aaron, though I guess I'm sort of concerned that such substantive and thoughtful discussion stimulates so little back and forth among your collected throng whereas the next superficial discussion of light rail v/ BRT will use up all the zeros and ones.