GM Exec Speaks Out Against Efficient Transit

[iheartthed]

Just how many workers are paying $380 a month for parking?

For most of the population, parking is free.

Parking is only free in places where the land is worthless.

[lilpup]

Parking is only free in places where the land is worthless.

Maybe in a greedy metropolis like NYC but here employers will see to it that there's free or low cost parking as part of or near their facility/campus and it's part of the planning process for most major new builds.

NYC doesn't think that way because it's greedy and overpriced [[and that's why people are leaving now).

[Augustiner]

Maybe in a greedy metropolis like NYC but here employers will see to it that there's free or low cost parking as part of or near their facility/campus and it's part of the planning process for most major new builds.

This is not a good thing. You can't have a city if everything in it is surrounded by twenty gazillion parking spaces. It just doesn't work.

[Hermod]

This is not a good thing. You can't have a city if everything in it is surrounded by twenty gazillion parking spaces. It just doesn't work.

Maybe that is why nobody is building tax generating factories in Detroit. How is that working out for you? People build office complexes and factories where they can provide parking for employees and customers. Unless they provide a unique product not attainable elsewhere, I do not patronize merchants who do not provide convenient parking.

[Jason]

Maybe in a greedy metropolis like NYC but here employers will see to it that there's free or low cost parking as part of or near their facility/campus and it's part of the planning process for most major new builds.

NYC doesn't think that way because it's greedy and overpriced [[and that's why people are leaving now).

I think they do that because they're directly competing with the suburbs, which have free parking because the land is worthless.

If the city were stronger they would probably still be building some parking component, but it wouldn't be like it is now where every building requires a parking garage almost as big as the building itself, because everybody drives and everybody expects instant and free parking.

These huge parking needs cost a lot of money and are weighing things down. If there were better mass transit, I think more projects would be feasible, since the parking burden would be off the developer's shoulders.

[Augustiner]

Maybe that is why nobody is building tax generating factories in Detroit. How is that working out for you? People build office complexes and factories where they can provide parking for employees and customers. Unless they provide a unique product not attainable elsewhere, I do not patronize merchants who do not provide convenient parking.

I'm talking about downtown, not factories in the neighborhoods.

Almost every other building downtown is a parking structure, and there are blocks and blocks around the edges that are nothing but surface lots [[and most of them sit empty unless there's a Tigers or Lions game). The result of this is that downtown is not a very interesting place to spend time, because any destinations worth walking around and visiting are separated from one another by a bunch of parking. The result of that is that some people start to drive between downtown destinations, and then you need two parking spaces for those people instead of just one, and you have to destroy something else to make room for that parking. It's a vicious cycle.

To counter the drop in intensity of use, the standard remedy is to try to increase further the accessibility by cars--usually, first, by making parking easier for them...Thus does erosion, little by little, subtract reasons for using an eroded district, and at the same time make it less lively, less convenient, less compact, less safe, for those who continue to have a reason to use it. The more concentrated and genuinely urban an area, the greater the contrast between the smallness of what is delivered and the significance of what is lost by the process of erosion.

If vehicular traffic in cities represented some fixed quantity of need, then the action of providing for it would produce a satisfying and fulfilling reaction. Something, at least, would be solved. But because the need for more vehicles grows with the palliatives, the solution keeps receding.

-Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

[iheartthed]

Maybe in a greedy metropolis like NYC but here employers will see to it that there's free or low cost parking as part of or near their facility/campus and it's part of the planning process for most major new builds.

NYC doesn't think that way because it's greedy and overpriced [[and that's why people are leaving now).

LOL @ greedy metropolis. If that's what you call greedy then what you advocate must be socialism.

[Pcm]

Unless they provide a unique product not attainable elsewhere, I do not patronize merchants who do not provide convenient parking.

Wow. It must suck to live by that rule.

[Mikeg]

While Mr. Spaulding can be fairly described as a "retired GM Executive", he is not a GM Executive Retiree. Knowing the facts about his departure from GM might cause one to consider him a little differently.

Mr. Spaulding last worked for GM in 1981. At that time he was the 61 year old General Sales Manager of the Pontiac Motor Division. A new Pontiac General Manager was appointed and he wanted to move someone else into the General Sales Manager position on his staff. Mr. Spaulding was offered a different but similar executive position, but he declined it. His employment was terminated the following year. He then moved to South Carolina and unsuccessfully sued GM for "negligent termination". Since then, he has written a local newspaper column for the past 23 years and serves as a guest lecturer and fundraiser for the College of Charleston.

Therefore, he is more accurately described as a retiree who formerly worked as a GM Executive. At the time of his termination, he undoubtedly was entitled to a vested basic GM Salaried Employee pension and the holdings in his GM Stock Savings and Purchase Program [[unfortunately, GM common stock at the time of his departure in 1982 was trading at its second-lowest share price range in 27 years). However, immediately upon termination he would have lost his rights to his supplemental executive pension benefits and all of his unexercised stock options would have been canceled.

Given these facts about his background, it's kind of difficult to write him off simply as a rich, smug, fat-cat defender of the status-quo. A "90 year-old crank", perhaps, but not a GM executive retiree with a "lavish pension and stock portfolio."

[BrushStart]

To even suggest that present-day cars are more efficient than mass transit is ridiculous. 4.5 million people each driving their own vehicle to every destination is NOT more efficient than the same amount of people using mass transit to travel between dense commercial and residential centers. Dr. Spaulding's conclusion is flat wrong because it assumes that car drivers and transit riders will be traveling the same distances in their daily lives. This is a huge oversight. In a car-centric world, things are spaced far apart, so significantly more driving is required than that required by a transit rider. A car driver may travel 30 miles/day between commuting to work, shopping, and driving to the gym, while an average transit rider may travel <5 miles/day on the train between work home, and a number of other destinations.

Secondly, mass transit is not just about efficiency. It's about quality of life. It's about being able to concentrate cultural and entertainment attractions so that they can be easily accessed by many. Total dependence on the automobile makes such a world impossible.

[DetroitDad]

Yes. I'm not even just thinking car travel; I am a frequent flier and believe that air travel will be the first to go unless we figure out other fuel sources. Also, air has become far more inconvenient and stressful post-9/11. Took Amtrak business class to Chicago for a job interview earlier this year and swore I'd never drive or fly there again...

an algae-based product is already in the works

There will always be fuel, the question is how much it will cost. Algal-derived fuels are still quite expensive--the algal fuel the Navy tested this year cost $800/barrel. No doubt production processes will improve, but there is no telling where the cost will end up. I don't know exactly what the demand curve looks like, but I am positive that if it costs more than maybe $200/barrel in 2010 dollars there will be much less commercial aviation.

Algae is all but dead in the water. Cost is one issue, another is scalability. At the scale we [[us and the developing world) will be running in twenty to thirty years, it would take a massive amount of fresh water to grow enough algae, less we forget we are also facing issues with water shortages in many parts of the world. To my understanding, algae must also be dried before it can be used as efficient fuel, which requires a heat sources and ventilation fans.

The United States uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day, with something like 70-75% of that going directly towards transportation. If we were to switch over to algae based fuel, we would need 14-15 million barrels, along with significant non renewable fuels to produce it. It just doesn't add up.

[DetroitDad]

This is from an WSJ interview this spring with Craig Venter who as you are probably aware is well known for his work on the human genome and synthetic biology and is now working on algal biofuels. The whole interview is at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...809632222.html but I am pretty sure it is paywalled.



This accords with the other information I have on this subject: It may work. It should be researched. We can't do it economically yet. We don't know if we will be able to.

So... let me see if I got this straight.

We are spending countless millions [[during a depression), and using our top minds for overly complex technological answers to problems that could just as easily be solved by simply using efficient transit, existing infrastructure, and better land use policy?

Does anyone else think that is pure madness?

[Jimaz]

At the scale we [[us and the developing world) will be running in twenty to thirty years, it would take a massive amount of fresh water to grow enough algae, less we forget we are also facing issues with water shortages in many parts of the world.

Wikipedia's Algae fuel article makes it look pretty promising.

Among algal fuels' attractive characteristics: they do not affect fresh water resources, can be produced using ocean and wastewater, and are biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled.

[Mikeg]

The United States uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day, with something like 70-75% of that going directly towards transportation. If we were to switch over to algae based fuel, we would need 14-15 million barrels, along with significant non renewable fuels to produce it. It just doesn't add up.

Your "70-75%" statistic includes all types of transportation, including diesel-fueled trucks and locomotives. Considering the topic of this thread, that is an irrelevant statistic.

2009 statistics from the US DOE indicate that while 72% of petroleum usage was for transportation, only 47.9% of the usage [[about 9 million barrels per day) was in the form of gasoline which is primarily used for personal transportation vehicles.

In other words, if you could theoretically build enough high-speed rail, light rail and streetcar systems throughout the US to get everyone out of their cars, you would only cut petroleum consumption by less than one-half and you would still need to maintain the existing highway systems to enable commerce.

In the non-theoretical world where I live in, I doubt that even with unlimited federal funds to build new high-speed rail, light rail and streetcar systems, the US would be unable shave more than 10% points off that 47.9% statistic, yielding a savings of no more than 2 millions GPD.

[j to the jeremy]

So... let me see if I got this straight.

We are spending countless millions [[during a depression), and using our top minds for overly complex technological answers to problems that could just as easily be solved by simply using efficient transit, existing infrastructure, and better land use policy?

Does anyone else think that is pure madness?

Yes, but if you point this out, there will be a bunch of DYes users who have never been south of 8 mile spouting off about how it's much crazier just to build trains and stop subsidizing gas companies with the money that other countries use to subsidize rail. After all, the entire world lives in Troy, and any other ideas about land use are so foreign here they might as well have been written by evil people from cities with healthy urban cores. After all, in this thread we've seen a great claim that NYC is a "greedy metropolis" because they are so dense that parking isn't cheap! Most people who live there don't own cars.

In all seriousness, this recent "no" vote on funding may have been Michigan's last chance at upgrading our rail. I highly doubt Obama will take another chance on states that haven't bought in, and I'm guessing anyone elected after him won't be a rail advocate unless some crazy miracle happens. Remember, Bush gave tax cuts to the oil crowd and then wrote in Amtrak's budget at $0 for four straight years in an attempt to kill it off. Between Obama backlash and Snyder cronying up to every businessman who didn't like Granholm, I predict a bona fide Michissippi by 2012.

[bobby wobby]

Let me get this straight, the same execs who talked Detroit L.A and hundreds of other cites into getting rid of their street cars and trains,back in the 50s, for busses, now want us to abandon high speed rail ! I only drive American cars but they better shut up ,if they want to keep me as a customer.

[citylover]

Let me get this straight, the same execs who talked Detroit L.A and hundreds of other cites into getting rid of their street cars and trains,back in the 50s, for busses, now want us to abandon high speed rail ! I only drive American cars but they better shut up ,if they want to keep me as a customer.

Sorry to tell you but that is a myth.And in the interest of bringing all sides and fact to to the table this should be read.


http://blogging.la/2007/03/09/top-la...es-streetcars/

I support public transit.I also support the truth and not perpetuating a myth that is so entrenched that I even heard the sec of trans giving it a perfunctory nod.....he should be better informed.

[Detroitnerd]

First of all, this link is about Los Angeles' Red Line in particular. Most people who accuse the "great streetcar conspiracy" of being a hoax are actually talking about National City Lines.

Furthermore, the idea that the National City Lines story is a "myth" is freakin' hilarious. In other words, Standard Oil, Firestone Rubber and General Motors start funding a company called National City Lines [[NCL). NCL goes around the country, buying up dozens of streetcar companies and converting them to bus lines. In fact, NCL has a directive that all the companies they buy must use Standard Oil, Firestone Rubber and General Motors vehicles. Finally, the feds pursue a case against NCL and its backers and win on every count -- except on the charge that they were specifically trying to rub out streetcars and monopolize urban transit. [[Please, somebody tell me how you buy dozens of streetcar companies, convert them to buses, thereby benefiting the oil, rubber and auto interests, but are not guilty of this.)

It is because of this one charge not sticking in federal court that we have these people talking about "conspiracy hoaxes" and other claptrap.

When accepting the final ruling in 1951, GM and company essentially said, "We didn't do it; and we won't do it again."

You don't need to be a genius to see that GM was hostile to the streetcars. Look at their FUTURAMA exhibit: Miles of sparkling concrete and high-rises, scads of personal vehicles on futuristic highways -- and not a streetcar in sight.

Oh, and the fact that GM had a division as early as the 1920s that sought ways to eliminate the "competition" from streetcars is probably meaningless to these "conspiracy criers" as well.

[citylover]

First of all, this link is about Los Angeles in particular. Most people who accuse the "great streetcar conspiracy" of being a hoax are actually talking about National City Lines.

Furthermore, the idea that the National City Lines story is a "myth" is freakin' hilarious. In other words, Standard Oil, Firestone Rubber and General Motors start a company called National City Lines [[NCL). NCL goes around the country, buying up dozens of streetcar companies and converting them to bus lines. In fact, NCL has a directive that all the companies they buy must use Standard Oil, Firestone Rubber and General Motors vehicles. Finally, the feds pursue a case against NCL and its backers and win on every count -- except on the charge that they were specifically trying to rub out streetcars and monopolize urban transit. [[Please, somebody tell me how you buy dozens of streetcar companies, convert them to buses, thereby benefiting the oil, rubber and auto interests, but are not guilty of this.)

It is because of this one charge not sticking in federal court that we have these people talking about "conspiracy hoaxes" and other claptrap.

When accepting the final ruling in 1951, GM and company essentially said, "We didn't do it; and we won't do it again."

You don't need to be a genius to see that GM was hostile to the streetcars. Look at their FUTURAMA exhibit: Miles of sparkling concrete and high-rises, scads of personal vehicles on futuristic highways -- and not a streetcar in sight.

Oh, and the fact that GM had a division as early as the 1920s that sought ways to eliminate the "competition" from streetcars is probably meaningless to these "conspiracy criers" as well.

Believe what you want to believe.There is plenty of evidence to show that streetcar ridership went down as jitneys and then buses came on the scene......and then cars....because simply put that is what people preferred

[Detroitnerd]

Believe what you want to believe.There is plenty of evidence to show that streetcar ridership went down as jitneys and then buses came on the scene......and then cars....because simply put that is what people preferred

Oh, sure there is. Point out where I've denied that in my hundreds of posts related to streetcar history. [[Although you give an overly simplistic version of "what people preferred" with no mention of subsidies, prejudices against rail and how the private automobile just happened to fall in line with real estate bonanzas that made some well-connected players a ton of money -- all "giving people what they want.")

Again, I'm just pointing out that the powers that be did conspire to eliminate the streetcar. Sorry that this is a true fact of history that you do not seem to want to believe -- and are so eager to call a hoax. Believe what you want to believe indeed!

[Augustiner]

Believe what you want to believe.There is plenty of evidence to show that streetcar ridership went down as jitneys and then buses came on the scene......and then cars....because simply put that is what people preferred

Are you saying that ordinary riders preferred buses to streetcars?

From your link:

So how are all these auto industry corporations responsible for the decline of the Red Cars? Well, the Red Cars were eventually terminated because service deteriorated to unacceptable levels. The Red Car travel speed, as well as the declining quality of the vehicles themselves, were due to two major factors:
a) the streetcar speed was reduced where car traffic and crossings were present. Some tracks were even paved over with asphalt to accomodate automobiles
b) the cars were replaced with buses that could be integrated into the flow of automobile traffic. However, the buses were inferior in quality to the streetcars when it came to the comfort and experience of the rider.

[SaintMe]

Just how many workers are paying $380 a month for parking?

For most of the population, parking is free.

For what it's worth, I pay $60 a month for the pleasure of parking downtown.

On the flip side, I have friends in Chicago who pay $500 or $600 a month to rent a space on a surface lot across the street from their condo.

[citylover]

The point I am attempting to make is that it is unfortunate that a myth needs to be perpetuated in order to advance the agenda. And I support mass transit in whatever form it takes.But to continually demonize GM as some sort of bogeyman is just wrong.

more evidence: http://ridesharechoices.scripts.mit.edu/home/histstats/

you will note that jitneys took people door to door an upgrade at least to those riders and you will also not that streetcar co and local gov't attempted to curtail jitney service because of lost revenue[[all in 1st part of link).

and still more

http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf

[Detroitnerd]

The point I am attempting to make is that it is unfortunate that a myth needs to be perpetuated in order to advance the agenda. And I support mass transit in whatever form it takes.But to continually demonize GM as some sort of bogeyman is just wrong.

Um, no. The point I am attempting to make is that your "myth" about Los Angeles' streetcars is irrelevant to any discussion of National City Lines. Why you need to bring up a case that is so obviously wrong in order to somehow claim that no automotive, tire or oil interest had a hand in doing away with streetcars is suspect. Maybe a good secondary point is that people feel the need to cry "myth" when it comes to the National City Lines case, which, again, is cold, hard, historical fact. And far from attempting to demonize GM, what I have outlined is a cold, hard look at what they've done in the past, which you seem eager to overlook.

Want to disregard the history, or call it a "hoax"? Don't like that Generous Motors has had a hand in doing away with streetcar lines? Just because you don't like history doesn't mean you can disregard it. Sorry.

[citylover]

Um, no. The point I am attempting to make is that your "myth" about Los Angeles' streetcars is irrelevant to any discussion of National City Lines. Why you need to bring up a case that is so obviously wrong in order to somehow claim that no automotive, tire or oil interest had a hand in doing away with streetcars is suspect. Maybe a good secondary point is that people feel the need to cry "myth" when it comes to the National City Lines case, which, again, is cold, hard, historical fact. And far from attempting to demonize GM, what I have outlined is a cold, hard look at what they've done in the past, which you seem eager to overlook.

Want to disregard the history, or call it a "hoax"? Don't like that Generous Motors has had a hand in doing away with streetcar lines? Just because you don't like history doesn't mean you can disregard it. Sorry.

I have posted plenty of evidence to the contrary of what you claim.It is ip to others to make up their own minds. Also have looked up streetcar systems in other cities i.e. Paris, London and Rio De Janeiro and in those three cities streetcars gave way to trolley buses as late as 1965......did GM do that?