|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 12, 2007 9:34:07 GMT -8
It looks like Bill Richardson supports light rail- and he's not afraid to say so. Too bad this has gotten almost no coverage: www.santafenewmexican.com/news/62976.htmlRichardson backs light rail in Los Angeles By Michael R. Blood | Associated Press June 12, 2007 WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. — In the nation’s capital of gridlock, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson promised Monday to create a partnership to build a light rail network and help untangle the Los Angeles region’s notorious traffic. With gas prices rising and roadways jammed, Richardson said it was time to rethink a federal transportation policy that pumps billions of dollars into new roads each year. Mass transit, he said, will be the best, cleanest way to move metropolitan residents in the future. If elected, he would “make it a major effort to refocus transportation construction of roads into light rail and more energy efficient transportation,” the New Mexico governor told reporters at a news conference. “I would make light rail at least an equal partner” with highways, he said. With more rail and clean-running buses, “it’s going to improve the quality of life in this country.” Richardson provided few specifics about funding, but said the construction would be financed with bonds backed by the state and federal government. Richardson started a commuter rail project, the Rail Runner Express, that runs along a 50-mile stretch through New Mexico’s most populous city, Albuquerque. It is not light rail; it uses existing track and conventional engines and cars. The nearly $400 million project also includes a planned extension north to Santa Fe to help ease roadway congestion. Richardson said the Bush White House has been “absent” when it comes to developing light rail, high-speed trains and other cleaner-running transportation systems in big cities. He said vast sums of money are siphoned off for pork-barrel road projects, which are of questionable value. “I believe light rail is for the future,” he said. “The president can be a partner, working with state and city and local communities in joint funding.”
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 12, 2007 10:18:20 GMT -8
Unfortunately for Richardson, with that tone he's going to lose the automaker industry support and his campaign will go to flames. It's unfortunate that the automaker lobby has such a strong influence in U.S. transportation. It may not be fact, but I'm sure through digging the financials of all elected U.S. govt officials, they have some backing of the automakers and thus HAVE TO support more road construction, suburban development, etc... And, I bet the automaker lobby is pumping more money into the politicians now especially seeing that gas is vulnerable to the "American Dream" and the perception of transit v. single-passenger vehicles today.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 12, 2007 11:03:40 GMT -8
Well, there's also the train and transit lobby, but they don't have enough clout like the automotive industry does. Still, I'm glad Richardson really put it out there, and it would be nice if both Democratic and Republican candidates can discuss putting rail and cars on an equal footing.
Where's it suburban and rural, it's not realistic to promote too much rail, but where it's dense (even megadense) and urban, it's silly to not promote rail.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 12, 2007 11:22:04 GMT -8
I always thought that the oil industry was a bigger lobbyist group than the automakers.
in any case, right now a lot of the car companies are focusing their attention on defeating the various gas mileage proposals and I can't imagine that they would divert funds from that effort to support somebody who may or may not be our next president, but what do I know?
anyways, Richardson is already in third or fourth place behind Clinton, Obama and possibily Edwards, so he probably figures he has less to lose by angering automakers and attempting to grab transit-friendly voters like us.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 12, 2007 20:13:37 GMT -8
;)You know I don't think Richardson will get far in the Primarys. Rudy Guiani being the Mayor of NYC is the top runner, and my vote for the California Primary. How does he stand on Mass Transit? He's probably our top man (both for Transit and for the Country!) Sincerely The Roadtrainer. P.S. Hillary? HELL NO!!!!
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 12, 2007 21:26:03 GMT -8
Yes, Bill Richardson is certainly a relief from the SUV driving, Global Warming denial, Oil puppets who control the White House. But if he starts making the mistake of labeling Corn Ethanol as "Clean and Abundant" fuel... I guess I'd have to give up on politics altogether.
The Oil industry is reaping record billions in profits... that's a heck of alot of lobbying power in Congress.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 12, 2007 23:08:12 GMT -8
hey roadtrainer- I wasn't going to say anything, but since you bought it up, I'm an Obama man myself. I have to admit that Richardson really got me thinking though. not many of the candidates even mention light rail, or mass transit at all, in their plans. Mayor Bloomberg deserves a lot of credit for proposing "congestion pricing" in New York.... but he's not the one running for president, former mayor Giuliani is. just for fun, I did a google search for "obama 'light rail' " and here's the first thing that popped up: (from LightRailNow.org) U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D) noted, "Every year they make the same proposal and some of it is just ideological.... It strikes me that we should make a greater investment in upgrading our rail system rather than eliminating the subsidies that already exist. If you look at the amount of subsidies that we provide the highways relative to the subsidies that we provide rail transportation, it pales in comparison." a bit wordy and a tad vague, but clearly pro-rail. P.S. Hillary? WHY THE HELL NOT? ? ;D
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 16, 2007 0:51:06 GMT -8
Gang, keep this in mind before becoming too enamored by pro-transit musings from presidential candidates.
Our government process operates under a principle of checks and balances. It is the two houses of Congress, not the president, that commits funding to any project. No president can deliver a promise like this.
Also, if you closely examine Congress, House and Senate seats are very static. Incumbents have a 99 percent chance of being re-elected. And if you look at the partisan breakdown, neither party has an overwhelming advantage over the other. So a lot of compromises are going to be made along the way. Also, the House and Senate often vote on two very different versions of the same bill and must reconcile a version that goes before the president, thereby changing its composition again.
Next lesson ... the sausage-fest that is FTA New Starts.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 16, 2007 8:02:08 GMT -8
the president may not have total power in our system of checks and balances, but he definitely has a lot of influence. he can try to steer the debate, as Bush has attempted to do with immigration, and the president also serves as one of the de facto leaders of his party. he pretty much has the power of the media on his side, since any press conference, from the State of the Union address to a "Mission Accomplished" photo op instantly becomes national news. and finally, even an unpopular president whose charismatic power has declined considerably can still veto any bill he doesn't like the looks of.
so, making sure that rail transit friendly congress members get elected and remain in office is extremely important (and defeating opponents like Sen. James Inhofe); but, we shouldn't underestimate the president, either.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 16, 2007 8:20:13 GMT -8
Never underestimate the power of the bully pulpit and of the ability of the president to influence the FTA. Should a president say, "Doggone it, we need more transportation spending and we need to stop treating our cities and rail projects so poorly!" then things would change in rapid order with respect to road and rail spending.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 16, 2007 10:36:04 GMT -8
I wasn't going to say anything, but since you bought it up, I'm an Obama man myself. P.S. Hillary? WHY THE HELL NOT? ? ;D[/quote] Fujita: which is it? Obama or Hillary? Rudy sealed it for me in the way he ran N.Y.C. after 9-11, Obama is a new comer, and Hillary is the same woman who tried to stick to us with her wild-eyed health plan back in the early Ninety''s. A better Woman canidate would be Condaliesa Rice,(and a lot smarter too!) but she isn't running, So it is Rudy
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 16, 2007 19:11:46 GMT -8
Dear Mr. Roadtrainer,
My first choice would be Obama. However, if he doesn't make it through the primaries, then I would be flexible enough to support Hillary in the general election. What will you do if Rudy doesn't make it beyond March? Not vote?
You are entitled to whatever views you may hold as far as ex-Mayor Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson or whomever you wish; or any boneheaded viewpoint regarding Iraq, immigration, health care or the like and I will not argue the point with you. If you say that the Earth is flat and was created in seven days, I will simply agree to disagree. This is a transit board, after all.
As far as transit is concerned, I will direct this message to anyone and everyone reading this: please please please do not act so naive as to believe that only Democrats or only Republicans are capable of believing in rail transit. I was once convinced of such myself, and I have since realized for the better. That said, there is more to life than transit, and I have made many political choices on the basis on their beliefs on global warming, the environment, etc.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 16, 2007 20:54:53 GMT -8
No one knows what the future holds, and although it does appear to be a Rudy vs. Hillary matchup at this immediate time, I am confident that the next President will almost certainly be more pro-transportation (and therefore more pro-transit) than the current administration.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 16, 2007 23:20:27 GMT -8
Rudy Guiliani, "America's Mayor" did preside over New York City... home of the best damn rail system in America. I'm sure he can relate to the numerous mass transit projects in many Cities, the current Administration has failed to support.
Rudy knows the value of rail.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 17, 2007 0:49:20 GMT -8
Never underestimate the power of the bully pulpit and of the ability of the president to influence the FTA. Should a president say, "Doggone it, we need more transportation spending and we need to stop treating our cities and rail projects so poorly!" then things would change in rapid order with respect to road and rail spending. A bully pulpit does not produce results. Transit funding is a product of the legislative process, and legislation is greatly influenced by the bribery Americans euphemistically call "campaign finance." The only national constituency for public transportation is the transportation workers unions. UTU and ATU are prolific spenders, so that's good. On the other hand, Big Roads have auto manufacturers, the oil companies, highway construction contractors and suburban developers who can outspend the transport workers unions dozens of times over. Not only that, they are also larger employers, so people who depend on these industries for their livelihoods also hold more sway over politics. A more concerted effort is needed to influence the legislative branch, rather than the executive.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 17, 2007 7:05:54 GMT -8
A bully pulpit does not produce results. It's a mistake, from a political communications standpoint, to get caught up in sausage making. The factory can't even be built to begin making the sausage without it becoming a major national discussion item. From that, thousands will write their Congress person, lobbyists will be propped up, and advocates become fixtures on the editor's page.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 17, 2007 9:22:55 GMT -8
a wise man once said that democracy was the worst form of government, "except for all the others."
a considerably less-wise man said that a "dictator would be easier."
both were correct.
our government may be a sausage factory, but in the United States, you either make sausage or you starve. I vote, I write letters, I write editorials for a ridiculously small newspaper, I donate to organizations such as this one, I tell friends about the advantages of transit. what else can you do?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 17, 2007 11:36:06 GMT -8
Sorry, wad, I can't agree with you here. Damien and James are more on the mark. If a President or a prominent political leader says, "We can't build more freeways anymore in certain megadense regions of the country, and the only realistic thing we can do with respect to traffic and the environment is build more rail lines and fund rail by the same formula we do freeways!"...then the discussion, legislation and lobbyists will line up to create more rail projects.
The country is more pro-transportation than it's been in years, and in as much as it wants to expand and shore up its freeway projects it also wants to create more rail projects where it's feasible.
Just as the country shelled out more money and advocacy for stem cell research (regardless of whether one supports it, or distinguishes between the "right" or "wrong" type of stem cell research), it will do the same for rail and for roads and for transportation in general.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 17, 2007 12:53:01 GMT -8
Government's first priority:
1. Enact Fuel Economy standards. Dismantle Bush's Hummer tax credit and phase out the Detroit gasoline guzzling machine.
2. Promote renewable sources of energy and cut foreign energy dependence.
3. Increase construction of rail transit systems, upgrade existing mass transportation, airports, and sea ports.
Given the order of priorities, I'm happy as long as we can get to step 3 with Bipartisan Support.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 17, 2007 20:51:38 GMT -8
getting all three of these priorities enacted will require a certain type of politician, and unfortunately, Bush is not this type of politician. if you want somebody who will fight to keep Terri Schialvo alive, protect zygotes from stem cell research and keep gays out of wedding chapels, Bush's your man. if you want more rail transit, what we need are the following: 1) willing to accept that global warming is real and that mankind is at least partially responsible for it. those who are skeptical of climate change are going to be much more harder to convince that rail transit is necessary to help protect our atmosphere from pollution. of the major candidates with a chance of winning, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Barack Obama all seem to have gotten the message, in varying degrees. Mitt Romney got the message and then switched sides. Fred Thompson definately doesn't believe in global warming: tinyurl.com/35mpzr2) willing to spend what it takes to actually get these construction projects off the ground. this could mean higher gas taxes, it could mean bond measures, it could simply mean not shifting funds away from transit to pay for other projects. since candidates tend to not talk a whole lot about transit in general, you have to get clues in other, more indirect ways. for example, rail transit looks an awful lot to most people like government spending, so the more fiscally conservative a candidate is, the less likely he or she is to support a "subway to the sea"
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 17, 2007 22:21:52 GMT -8
<<since candidates tend to not talk a whole lot about transit in general, you have to get clues in other, more indirect ways. for example, rail transit looks an awful lot to most people like government spending, so the more fiscally conservative a candidate is, the less likely he or she is to support a "subway to the sea">>
Perhaps--but if one states that there is no freeway alternative (or if a freeway was built, then it would as much if not more expensive), and that the economy depends on enhancing transportation, and that freeways subsidies are as real as transit subsidies, then it would definitely appeal to conservatives.
Overall, I'm a conservative, and I know for certain that most conservatives recognize the need not just for mass transit but high-quality mass transit in dense urban areas. Most liberals don't want to just shut down all the freeways, either. If one frames it in spending, then it diverts from the fact that quality transportation projects pay for themselves in so many ways.
For example, our brilliant conservative leaders David Dreier and Gary Miller and Jerry Lewis could have lionized the cause of the Alameda Corridor East and emphasized that during the port strike the economy lost $1 billion a day...as much as it costs to build the Alameda Corridor East.
Having a way to facilitate port traffic and get trucks off the roads and eliminate rail/road crossings to benefit the national economy would win just about everyone over...and Dreier and Miller and Lewis absolutely blew it when they had their chance. One good press conference would have gotten the ball rolling and probably would have furthered their political careers. Again, they blew it.
Conservatives like Rudy Giuliani (and perhaps Mitt Romney) who represent urban areas, or areas with urban foci, can emphasize the need to spend a good investment rather than look like a pork-spending idiot. Rail need not look like a bad investment--including the subway to the sea--when presented the right way.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 18, 2007 9:38:53 GMT -8
I do apologize, I wasn't trying to disparage the entire conservative movement.
there are folks like Rudy Giuliani, who could reasonably be considered a moderate conservative, much like our own Arnold Schwarzenegger, and these people clearly do see the value of transit.
then there are others, like the aforementioned Fred Thompson, whom I suspect would follow Bush's current transportation and energy policies straight into hell.
the real troublemakers are the libertarian conservatives, like Grover Norquist, who has been famously quoted as saying that he would like to shrink government down to the size where he could "drown it in a bathtub." it would be interesting to come up with an argument in favor of rail transit that would satisfy a hardliner like him, because clearly there are no good government investments in his eyes! ("Roads aren't supposed to be beautiful, and light rail is useless and expensive." -Norquist)
so, I should clarify my previous statement with an asterisk stating that not all conservatives are built alike- but beware of any who proclaim to be card-carrying members of organizations like the Americans for Tax Reform, which has come out consistently against rail of any kind.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 18, 2007 13:14:52 GMT -8
I think that most conservatives aren't the foaming-at-the-mouth, libertarian yahoos that fight anything good that the government can come up with with religous ferocity. Yes, government has a terrible track record at times, but the world doesn't exist with the all-or-nothing philosophy that the libertarians like to pretend it does.
Rudy and Arnold and Romney probably understand that money spent well is an investment, and money spent poorly is pork. As much as I like some of the ideas espoused by Thompson, I agree with your statement that he "would follow Bush's transportation and energy policies straight into hell."
I am hoping that level-headed Republican voters go for Giuliani (who at least has declared himself a runner, and not sat on the fence as long as he has), and that the voters in the final election have a choice that ensures that transportation will not be starved like it has been over the last two presidential terms.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 18, 2007 17:36:49 GMT -8
I think we can all be thankful that all conservatives aren't foaming at the mouth ;D
when you live in a place like California, it is easy to forget that there are people out there who believe that the UN is evil, that man and dinosaurs co-existed and that "Hitler was OK at the beginning, he just went too far" (to quote Marge Schott). the problem is, is that people like that have outsized amount of power during the primaries. the first states are rural (Iowa), 90 percent white (New Hampshire) and heavily racist (South Carolina).
Rudy, Arnold and Mitt all come from places (New York, California, and Massachusetts) that are relatively diverse, urban and voted against Bush twice. heck, in some states Arnold would be considered almost a liberal.
if Fred Thompson got off the fence and got into the race, he would pose a serious threat because he would rally the far right much more than Rudy or Mitt have. and that would be bad news for transit fans.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 19, 2007 1:48:10 GMT -8
It's a mistake, from a political communications standpoint, to get caught up in sausage making. The factory can't even be built to begin making the sausage without it becoming a major national discussion item. From that, thousands will write their Congress person, lobbyists will be propped up, and advocates become fixtures on the editor's page. Then what's the over/under on ... ... health insurance for all ... ... impeachment of Bush ... ... or removal of Iraq? In other words, these are the issues where there is a massive, almost polar, disconnect between the electorate and politicians?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 19, 2007 4:32:31 GMT -8
All very good points, wad, but the questions of health insurance for all, impeachment of Bush (even to those who despise him), or withdrawal from Iraq, are probably much more controversial than we'd like to think:
1) Health insurance for all will inherently mean different things to different people, and had Mr. and Ms. Clinton been more compromising they would have succeeded. As a physician, this will be a multistep process with more baby steps needed than any of us would like to avoid creating new problems as old ones are resolved.
2) Impeachment of Bush is good political red meat, but confrontation and limitation of his sweeping plans for Iraq, illegal immigration policy and other key issues is probably more realistic for someone who's on his way out. The process of impeachment itself is so lengthy and controversial that, pragmatically, it's not likely to happen at all...and I consider Bush to be someone that history will not be very kind to.
3) As for Iraq, I think the arguments that Bush screwed up and was arrogant are as true as those arguments that legitimately ask what the benefits of winning vs. withdrawing are. Putting the thumbscrews to the Iraqis to clean up their own mess is a concept that most Americans seem to agree upon, but with the entire Middle East (lately the Palestinians) in turmoil with itself, that question seems to be both vital yet downright elusive in answering. I can only hope that both Sunni and Shiite exhaustion with killing will allow both the Arab and Western worlds to recognize that sociopathic killers are the enemy, and not each other.
Back to transportation, however: the key points of this needing its own legitimate place in the federal and state budget at a much higher fraction than it's been for decades is, hopefully, something we all need to agree upon, and our elected officials need to establish.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 19, 2007 10:10:40 GMT -8
I make it a point to avoid political conversations on the internet in forums not specific to politics for a lot of reasons. But I have to point out that as long as the oil lobby runs the Republican Party, and urban areas are almost exclusively represented by Democrats, it would take a remarkable level of political deftness for any Republican president to champion urban rail. A Republican president would need to advocate either raising taxes (to create a new separate source of funding) or diverting gas tax dollars from highways that mostly benefit suburban and rural America (Republican districts) and the freeway lobby. If you want a picture of how that would look turn on Fox News and observe the Republican Congressmen and political heavyweights racing to the cameras to distance themselves from the president on the immigration issue.
Any major change would only come from a Democratic administration, primarily because he has a base to work from and with.
And as for "bi-partisanship" and "consensus building" those are campaign/p.r. terms. It's a dog-eat-dog town and no person - not even someone as well liked as Obama or a Republican as liberal as Guliani is going to change that. People forget even Bush as governor of Texas was able to work with Democrats to a degree.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 20, 2007 6:21:20 GMT -8
Hard to say, Damien--both Giuliani and Romney, as well as other GOP members such as Weld, Schwarzeneggar and other folks from states with urban populations have also been entrusted with trying to get more GOP voters from blue states.
Whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, the transportation issue is meant to build up the economy while also attracting voters from the cities to either party. I'm certain that a Democratic candidate would be more likely to fund transportation, as you suggest, but I would not put it beyond a savvy GOP contender like Giuliani to suggest more infrastructure develop to support the economy while trying to attract the fastest growing bloc of voters--independents--to the GOP.
As I see it, transportation is one key way to get the growing number of voters disgusted with both parties off the fence and voting in a particular direction (since both parties, for different reasons, appear so very out of touch with the voters).
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 20, 2007 8:31:04 GMT -8
a guy like Giuliani is to be commended for standing up for transit, because he is standing up to the more anti-transit elements of his party.
Schwarzenegger I'm not so sure about.... he keeps dragging his feet on high speed rail and last time I checked, his proposed budget would shift money away from transit to pay for other priorities.
as for bipartisanship- maybe it is a ploy, but it is a ploy that we can't afford to ignore. right now Congress is fairly well divided, so any major initiative is going to require reaching across the aisle to the other side. speaking of which, have you all seen the pictures of the Governator from USC yesterday? chatting and smiling playing nice with Subway to the Sea Villaraigosa and Mr. Congestion Pricing Bloomberg.
I guess Bloomberg's solution to partisan political gridlock is leave the party and go independent!
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 22, 2007 6:14:39 GMT -8
a guy like Giuliani is to be commended for standing up for transit, because he is standing up to the more anti-transit elements of his party. Schwarzenegger I'm not so sure about.... he keeps dragging his feet on high speed rail and last time I checked, his proposed budget would shift money away from transit to pay for other priorities. as for bipartisanship- maybe it is a ploy, but it is a ploy that we can't afford to ignore. right now Congress is fairly well divided, so any major initiative is going to require reaching across the aisle to the other side. speaking of which, have you all seen the pictures of the Governator from USC yesterday? chatting and smiling playing nice with Subway to the Sea Villaraigosa and Mr. Congestion Pricing Bloomberg. I guess Bloomberg's solution to partisan political gridlock is leave the party and go independent! Mr Fujita: You keep hammering on the faults of the Republicans, but what have the Glorious Peoples party of the Democratic National Party done for Transit? You got to remember that the tax dollars doled out by congress has to be done by a majority of our elected officials. Transit dollars allocated have to be written in a "moderate position or in the middle of the road"to get the bill passed. Candidates for the Presidential Election have to present themselves as a moderate to get elected!! So will Obama or Guiliana present themselves as a better moderate as the 0ther? Come 2008 and we will know! Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|