Comments on: Fear Growing Senator Boxer Won’t Deliver Progressive Transportation Act

By: AnthonyA

AnthonyA — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 06:50:38 +0000

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is making headlines, but it isn’t for doing something useful for the nation or the citizens of California. Barbara Boxer, though rightfully proud of becoming a Senator, grilled Brigadier General Michael Walsh of the Army Corps of Engineers for calling her Ma’am. The title is one of respect, but apparently it wasn’t good enough, so she insisted he call her “Senator.” Senator Boxer would likely give payday loans now to make this go away. The nation has real problems before it, and Barbara Boxer has decided to waste valuable time with trifles rather than put effort and maybe a cash advance into getting something useful done.

By: Colin

Colin — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:32:33 +0000

Douglas, indeed highway builders and planners always want even more highways than are actually built and are happy to put and keep them on the drawing board. But there certainly are plenty of new highways and expansions- as you know, here in the DC area we have the massive Intercounty Connector, the new Springfield interchange, a new Woodrow Wilson bridge, and ongoing projects to widen I-66, 270, 395, etc ever farther out. It’s time to ditch the 80/20 split for a greener, more multi-modal model.

By: Douglas Willinger

Douglas Willinger — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:53:31 +0000

What new freeways?

19th Street Tunnel in SF?
Cross Harbor-Brooklyn Tunnel?
Long Island Cross Sound Tunnel?
D.C. I-66 K Street-NY Avenue Tunnel?
D.C. I-95 Grand Arc Mall Tunnel?
Alexandria Virginia Route 1 Bypass Tunnel?

By: vito

vito — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:43:53 +0000

For a senator that will be up for reelection, I hope she does the right thing by the citizens of California. I wrote a letter urging her to do so. I hope you all will too.

By: Charles Siegel

Charles Siegel — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:12:59 +0000

I am dubious about all the calls for more money. Both AASHTO and APTA feed at this trough, so their estimates are bound to be exaggerated.

When Oberstar says that $500 billion is needed rather than $312 billion, isn’t he assuming that we will continue to increase road capacity?

Less money would be needed if we made the only environmentally sound decision: to spend the funding on public transit and on maintaining existing freeways, but not on building new freeway capacity. If we don’t make that decision, allocating more money to TEA will mean that we build more new freeways.

I suggest that, instead of abandoning the battle to shift money to transit in order to win the battle for more money, Pelosi and environmentalists should take the opposite tack. Accept just $312 billion for the next 5 years, and concentrate on the battle to shift as much of that money as possible to transit.

If we win the battle this time to get away from the usual 80% freeway / 20% transit split, then we can try for more money 5 years from now, at the next TEA reauthorization. After we win the battle to change the split, then future TEAs will tend to follow that new split, and we can concentrate on getting more money for transit.