The idiotic Department of Transportation rule that's killings American cities

**Wesley Mouch** · January-29-12, 02:22 PM

Leaving behind all the opinions about I94 and whether we'll get whatever system the gods of Detroit decide for Woodward....

I came across this article on transit rules and potential changes that address the heart of the issues of urban transit design. The tension between 'frequent stops' and 'express' service reminded me that LRT is not just a single decision -- yes or no. Like highway design, it too is full of alternatives that can make a system great, or not.

Lots of food for thought on what Detroit really needs from its transit...http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...n_cities_.html

**DetroitPlanner** · January-29-12, 11:03 PM

Welcome to my world!

On the plus side things are changing. Every year there are more projects being coordinated between HUD and DOT. This makes a lot of sense.

**maxx** · March-04-12, 04:10 PM

The forces of evil are always chipping away at basic services. This from Transportation for America:

"A key House Committee is threatening to kill three decades of successful investments in mass transit — originally started under President Ronald Reagan — by ending the guarantee for dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold. .."

Fortunately, enough people fought for this so...
http://t4america.org/blog/2012/03/02...-overall-bill/

**Wesley Mouch** · March-04-12, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

The forces of evil are always chipping away at basic services. This from Transportation for America:

"A key House Committee is threatening to kill three decades of successful investments in mass transit — originally started under President Ronald Reagan — by ending the guarantee for dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold. .."<snip>

I find it best to ignore sensationalist sentences such as the bolded above. The blame game is not serving us well. The public servants on this committee I trust are doing their best to represent the public, and balance competing needs in economically difficult times.

How about...

'A house committee is debating an end to a three-decade long subsidy for mass transit -- originally started during Ronald Reagan presidency -- by ending guaranteed funding for public transporation. Loss of federal support for mass transit will make it much more difficult to serve anticipated mass transit needs of America's cities. Similar to the way roads are funded, this support for capital investment in our communities is critical to our ability to create transit options in dense city centers.'

I don't agree with President Obama on mandatory funding of abortions by religious health-care providers, but I don't think he's 'evil'.

I don't agree with Senator Santorum on banning abortion, but I don't think he's 'evil'.

**antongast** · March-04-12, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

The public servants on this committee I trust are doing their best to represent the public, and balance competing needs in economically difficult times.

Well, they're not. They're fighting a culture war against transit because they see it as a proxy for city-dwellers, Democrats, and racial minorities. There's no conceivable economic justification for what they tried to do here, and I don't see how you can successfully fight back against things like this unless you're willing to recognize that sometimes people are just being assholes and are not acting in good faith.

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I don't agree with President Obama on mandatory funding of abortions by religious health-care providers, but I don't think he's 'evil'.

What is President Obama's position on this issue? I don't think I've heard him express one, and Google didn't turn anything up.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-04-12, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I find it best to ignore sensationalist sentences such as the bolded above. The blame game is not serving us well. The public servants on this committee I trust are doing their best to represent the public, and balance competing needs in economically difficult times.

Members of a House Committee are NOT public servants--they are elected political figures.

BUREAUCRATS--the professionals with technical know-how, analytical skills, and an agenda of objectivity--are public servants.

**Wesley Mouch** · March-05-12, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by antongast

Well, they're not. They're fighting a culture war against transit because they see it as a proxy for city-dwellers, Democrats, and racial minorities. There's no conceivable economic justification for what they tried to do here, and I don't see how you can successfully fight back against things like this unless you're willing to recognize that sometimes people are just being assholes and are not acting in good faith.

You see 'culture war'. I see difference of opinion. Allow that other people may have different priorities than you do. Work to change their minds. Demonizing them is harmful, most of all to you.

Originally Posted by antongast

What is President Obama's position on this issue? I don't think I've heard him express one, and Google didn't turn anything up.

Sorry. I mean 'contraception', not 'abortion'. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us...catholics.html -- which btw, might suggest a 'culture war' against the Catholic Church.

**DetroitPlanner** · March-05-12, 12:27 PM

Funding transportation here is the issue. Its not necessarily as partisan as it appears. The highway trust fund has been around since the 1920's. Its been used to build and maintain a huge network of roads. We now have a lot of expensive roads that need reconstruction and no political will to increase the gas tax. We have gone a long time since the last increase and the dollars being generated are less than they were 25 years ago due to both inflation and the fact that people are driving more fuel efficient cars and more mindful about how much they drive due to the increase in fuel costs.

One way to get that money is to cut out everything that the highway trust fund pays for but the roads. The problem with this is that if you cut transit funding, bike path funding, you become more reliant on single occupancy vehicles as a mode, this goes against public policy for reducing our dependancy on oil.

I would doubt the bills as they stand could ever be compromised into one that can be signed by the president. They stand too far apart. One thing that is clear though, both bills will lead to reduced funding for all modes of transportation.

**maxx** · March-05-12, 12:40 PM

At some point in time, and it may not be far off, Americans will have to decide whether they want a country that meets the needs of the average citizen or only the wealthy.

**DetroitPlanner** · March-05-12, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

At some point in time, and it may not be far off, Americans will have to decide whether they want a country that meets the needs of the average citizen or only the wealthy.

Sad thing is few realize that wealth only comes through trade. Trade can only happen my moving capital, be that people or goods. Not much good having an internet based economy if there is no way for UPS drivers to get to work or deliver packages.

**Wesley Mouch** · March-06-12, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Sad thing is few realize that wealth only comes through trade. Trade can only happen my moving capital, be that people or goods. Not much good having an internet based economy if there is no way for UPS drivers to get to work or deliver packages.

Good posts, DetroitPlanner.

This debate is central to the success of Detroit.

**ordinary** · March-07-12, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

BUREAUCRATS--the professionals with technical know-how,

Bureaucrats with technical know how sounds like an oxymoron to me.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-07-12, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by ordinary

Bureaucrats with technical know how sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Hardy har har. We get it--you hate gubmint "just because". So you'll denigrate the thousands of:

lawyers
geologists
engineers
accountants
doctors
technicians
archeologists
scientists
historians
park rangers
meteorologists
and others who serve YOU

as incompentent simply because you have a political axe to grind.

How hilarious.

**Hermod** · March-07-12, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Hardy har har. We get it--you hate gubmint "just because". So you'll denigrate the thousands of:

lawyers
geologists
engineers
accountants
doctors
technicians
archeologists
scientists
historians
park rangers
meteorologists
and others who serve YOU

as incompentent simply because you have a political axe to grind.

How hilarious.

Unfortunately, the ratio of competence to deadwood is pretty low. I was a supervisory engineer [[GM-15) working for the federal government and the number of zombies I had to surmount to get anything done was appalling. There are too many high graded people that are high graded because of bureaucratic infighting skills rather than technical or professional competence.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-07-12, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Unfortunately, the ratio of competence to deadwood is pretty low. I was a supervisory engineer [[GM-15) working for the federal government and the number of zombies I had to surmount to get anything done was appalling. There are too many high graded people that are high graded because of bureaucratic infighting skills rather than technical or professional competence.

So how is that different from any private-sector outfit?

**Hermod** · March-07-12, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So how is that different from any private-sector outfit?

Private sector businesses in theory can go broke and thus "thin the herd". You can't stop being a customer of and paying the freight for the government.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-08-12, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Private sector businesses in theory can go broke and thus "thin the herd". You can't stop being a customer of and paying the freight for the government.

So there are no successful private sector businesses with "dead-weight" employees, right?

**Wesley Mouch** · March-08-12, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So there are no successful private sector businesses with "dead-weight" employees, right?

Of course a city can be successful with some 'dead-weight'.

Are you arguing that 'dead-weight' employees are OK in public sector, just because they exist in private sector?

I don't need to pick the trash up from my front yard because you don't.

That's a formula for certain success.