cudahynow.com
search all things local
Rummage MapseHarmony
weather

71°

Partly Cloudy | 5MPH

NEWSROOM * CIRCULATION * ADVERTISING

Saturday

July 2009

4

Blog Home |  Email Author  |        Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

The Way I See It!

I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.

The Metra and Cudahy Station

By Randy Hollenbeck
Monday, Feb 4 2008, 04:36 PM

First, you already know I am a conservative and most conservatives are against light rail for many of the reasons I am giving.

 

Here is what those in favor of the Metra/Commuter Light Rail are not talking about.

 
  1. It will have to be funded by tax payer money
  2. There is no firm date, this is all just possible that the Metra will happen.
  3. A study was done for South Milwaukee and here is what was found: “Based on extensive data compiled by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, businesses located within one mile of a Metra stop tend to do well, says Plan Commission member Brett Briesemiester.  Under the proposed plan, South Milwaukee is targeted as one of the stations along the commuter line.”  The full article is at the link below.  One mile! 
  4. For businesses to do well beyond the one mile, those getting off the Metra will have to walk (not in Winter), take a bus (how does that help businesses not on a bus route) or Cudahy will have to have a streetcar service like Kenosha has (of course Taxpayers paying for it).
  5. If the Metra goes through as with any light rail, it will need to be funded by tax increases.  A never-ending tax increase.  Look at Chicago or Minneapolis - where they're contemplating a second light-rail line for $900 million - the plans and the costs would just keep getting bigger.  How many are profitable?  Hint “zero”!
  6. They would have to share existing train lines, which means train schedules for both commercial and this Metra will have to be worked out.  That is a large complaint of those using Amtrak. 
  7. The other alternative would be to put in new lines at taxpayers cost.  On our dime or in this case Millions!
  8. Is this a case of Overstating a benefit, while Understating the cost?
  9. Can this have a positive impact?  Sure, it will just cost the taxpayers in the end.
  10. Who wins is up for debate, who loses isn’t.  All together – The Taxpayers!
  

Now my understanding is that the train is used currently in Kenosha to Chicago mainly for those working in Chicago or Kenosha.  That tourism is just a small part.  Some feel that people getting off and on a Cudahy Station would be upset at seeing a Wal-Mart.  I must ask the question, why would they be upset?  The building would have to be approved by our elected officials.  Are they not going to dislike the smell from Patrick Cudahy as someone already pointed out as well?  How is this going to play out if Milwaukee decides to add a backside Amtrak station that would stop on the train lines that runs just west of the parkway at Mitchell Field, continue on to Chicago, and make the turn to O’Hare, instead of connecting with the Metra?  Would that not harm rider ship on the Metra?  I know that there are a lot of “if’s” with even this competing train line as is with the Metra.  At this point, the Metra/Commuter Light Rail and the competing train line are rumors based on the assumption they will happen!  According to the RTA (Regional Transit Authority), the date has slipped from the 2010 to 2012 already.  We have no fact it will happen or that it will not become the next “White Elephant.”

 

I am also not clear on this.  Is it more for getting people to and from their jobs, I thought it was for tourism?  Boy, I am confused.  Aren’t you?  Why should the taxpayers be paying to offset the cost of it, if it will only save money for those going to work.  If I car pool does the state or city pay for my costs?  Also, if people are going to use it for tourism and going to be walking, what are they going to do when it snows?  Does that mean only the Cudahy Station will see the benefit during that time?  Will the city have to make sure that the areas that they feel will benefit have snow removed first or more often?  Will we put in a streetcar system like Kenosha has at taxpayers expense or are they going to use the bus?  Will the streetcar be public or privately run?  Again, how is this going to help out the rest of Cudahy further south of Layton on Packard or off a bus line?  There is no guarantee that Cudahy will be the only official stop for the airport (what about South Milwaukee or St. Francis), thus taking the wind out of the sails.  Will we have a parking lot to store cars and bikes that the riders may leave behind while they are riding the Metra and gone maybe for days?  Now, you want to talk about a magnet for crime!!

 

Are we really looking at having people move from Chicago to Cudahy to live in the expensive Condos that are being talked about?  Is that the real reason for it?  Are these the well to do people that someone had mentioned?  Sure the tax base from these Condos would be nice, but at what cost?  Are these socialites going to run us out?  A few people in favor of the Metra at the last Common Council meeting said Cudahy was one of the most underrated property values in the area.  That many homes sit on land worth much more.  What is their angle on this?  When something doesn’t smell right, you know something is not right!  Something doesn’t smell right and it isn’t Patrick Cudahy!!! 

 

It is tax money that has to pay for the Metra.  Many clamor to have an eco-friendly mode of transportation as the reason for the Metra.  How many “Green” cars could we supply people with instead of using the money on the Metra at the same cost.  I am sure if you were to do a study on the costs it would be freighting.  To those so much in favor, they don’t care that taxes will go up, just build it. 

 

I am not going to sit on the sidelines as the events that affect me unfold to determine the course of my life.  I'm going to take a stand.  I'm going to defend it.  Right or not wrong, I'm going to defend it.  Do we want another Ice Port debacle to happen? 

 

This has to be stopped as soon as possible, otherwise this small flame could take the shape of a big fire and then it will become almost impossible to get rid of this mess.  We will face the never-ending task of paying for it or the mindset, “We have come this far.  We must see it thru.”  Or, “We have to finish it or the money we used to start it will be wasted!”

 

It would be nice for everyone to understand what are we trying to gain by this?  How much is it going to cost?  How are we going to pay for it?  When will it happen?  Do “WE” the citizens have a say?  Who are the players in this, names please?  We need all of these questions spelled out for us in writing, we should not all have to drive multiple times to city hall for answers or play phone tag.  How about this, just have the lawyers draw up a document in plain English and have Cudahy Now post it.  That way the officials can claim, I cannot confirm nor deny any information that was posted due to legal factors.  At least then, we would have some information rather than silence and more questions.

 

My understanding, to fund this, we are going to use taxpayer money from either an increase in sales tax, which Cudahy has an extra amount already added for other things, or from increase in service taxes.  I guess Cudahy will again be the butt of jokes, now more jokes about being the highest tax area in the state.  In an economic time when finding money to pay for public services is hard, it is tough to swallow more taxes!  This should serve as a notice, that in a time of money crunches, the taxpayers should not be paying for new services while existing services are constantly under attack to be cut.  If we don’t raise taxes then no light-rail or we cut the Police, Firefighters, or the new expensive library to fund it.  Aren’t we taxed enough? 

 

If taxes go up, will this not push out more people who live in Cudahy that cannot afford to pay more taxes?  Yes, and I think that maybe one thing some are looking for.  Replacement of demographics one of them uttered.

 

Mark Beling said it best, "The cruelest irony is that all of these “White Elephants” are paid for by the very people who never use them.  So why do we keep building these things?  Part of it is a neurotic desire to copy whatever other cities are doing.  It’s a kind of inferiority complex".  Part of it is narcissistic; I just want it and have to have it.  To those people I say “Better to want something you can’t have, then have something you don’t want”.

 

If I am wrong, please, someone correct me.

 

How will the train be policed?  Are we going to have police officers on the train?  Will this not have the possibility of bringing in rift raft with such a cheap subsidized ticket price?  If the subsidizing ends will the rider ship follow?  Didn’t Milwaukee try something like this not too long ago from Oconomowoc to Milwaukee and once the ticket price was no longer free or reduced, rider ship plummeted?  Do we not learn from experiences? 

 

I am concerned that this date is not even a firm date if the Metra line is even going to happen.  The date has moved for 2008, 2010, and now to 2012.  Will it help the business close to the train station?  Yes!  However, it will act like business welfare since taxes will be paying for this off the coat tails of the taxpayers.  Taxpayers are fitting the bill to prop up the Metra or whatever light-rail connecting train to the Metra.  Our local government should respect themselves as leaders and they should get involved and stop this madness instead of wasting taxpayer’s money.  More taxes are not the solution, but the problem!

 How about a train on and off toll to pay for it instead of sales tax?  That way those that use it pay for it!  Now that is a fair solution.  What do you say folks, fair is fair.  You use it, you pay for it!!  

http://www.southmilwaukeenow.com/story/index.aspx?id=710147

 
Filed under:
Permalink |  Mail to a friend

Comments

davels   

In your earlier sidewalk blog, you clamored for sidewalks to be integrated as part of being a “balanced” transportation system.  I agree 100%.  Pedestrian friendly traffic is part of the system and should be encouraged.  Commuter rail is also an integral part of a balanced transportation system.  In fact, there is no other transportation method that promotes pedestrian friendly traffic as much as commuter rail.

You have referred to commuter rail and light rail interchangeably throughout when in fact they are different.  Metra and KRM, as well as the media do not refer to it as light rail.

www.jsonline.com/.../index.aspx

I agree with you that users should be the ones to pay for the system.  If you use it, you should pay for it.  But shouldn’t we apply the same line of thinking to interstates?  It works in many states that have toll roads yet Wisconsin has none.  Fair is fair right?  Highway-user generated revenues do not cover all of highway spending.

www.midwesthsr.org/news_library_highways.htm

Even proponents of highway building who claim that mass transit costs cause the shortfall suggest that it may not be reasonable to assume that highway users pay the full cost of highway spending.

www.publicpurpose.com/pp-hwyuser$.htm

Given the impending Highway Trust shortfall, I would have to believe the ever increasing road construction costs have more to do with the shortfall then spending on mass transit ever did.  The conservative Wall Street journal speaks about this trust shortfall and mentions the proposal of cutting back funds devoted towards mass transit to make up the difference.

online.wsj.com/.../SB120217140388342579.html

But this isn’t a debate of should we have roads or should we have rail.  We need both.  That’s what a balanced transportation system is about.  Yet we continue to hold rail to this higher standard of needing a referendum or having to scramble to find funding for its projects.  Everyone balks at the 200 million dollar price tag of KRM when the lines are already there and in place.  But I haven’t heard the same outcry against the 810 million dollar Marquette Interchange project where roads already stood.  Not everyone who is paying for this project will use the interchange.  What about the I-94 rebuild?  Price tags that range from 1.4 billion to 1.9 billion for roads that are already there.  

www.dot.wisconsin.gov/.../index.htm

Why don’t we hold a referendum for this project?  And wouldn’t this be the time to add toll booths to the highway so users can pay for its construction and maintenance?  Fair is fair right?

February 5, 2008 10:25 AM

Randy Hollenbeck   

Thank you for your reply.  I am against all light rail, commuter rail or connecter rail.  However or whatever words they want to describe the rail.  It started out have the Metra come up here and now we will need or own commuter rail to connect with it. At meetings, I have heard the word connector rail talked about now.  They keep changing the name to try and rid the stigmatism and stench that get associated with them.

I am glad you didn’t deny that taxes will be used to fund it.  I am disappointed you didn’t state the transportation fund has been raid by the current and former governors.  Also if you put a toll on the interstate you lose federal funding like much of how the Marquette Interchange was paid for.  Trucking companies pay a road use tax.

Don’t use highway and interstates interchangeably they are not the same!

If you drive and live in or around Milwaukee, you will use the Marquette Interchange.

Here is the definitions of the rails:

Light rail or light rail transit[1] (LRT) is a form of rail transport system that generally uses electric rail cars[2] on private rights-of-way or sometimes in streets. Light rail traces its pedigree to horse-drawn street railways, whereas rapid transit technology evolved from steam-powered commuter operations, such as were seen in London, New York City, and Chicago.  The use of the generic term light rail avoids some serious incompatibilities.

Light rail, unlike rapid transit, is not fully grade separated from other forms of traffic and thus is a step below a true rapid transit system.[

The most difficult distinction to draw is that between light rail and streetcar or tram systems. There is a significant amount of overlap between the technologies, many of the same vehicles can be used for either, and it is common to classify streetcars/trams as a subtype of light rail rather than as a distinct type of transportation.

Commuter rail (also known as regional rail in North America[citation needed]) usually[vague] provides rail service between central business districts and commuter towns or other locations that draw large numbers of people on a daily basis. The trains providing such services may be termed commuter trains.

Metra (Officially known as the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation) is a regional rail that serves the city of Chicago, Illinois, and surrounding cities, many of them Chicago suburbs. The railroad serves over 200 stations on 11 different rail lines across the Regional Transportation Authority's six-county service area (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will Counties) providing over 80 million rides annually.

We should have a referendum on it.  Since people are becoming educated that taxes will pay for it, I know the swing of momentum is now on my side.  When the people who “I did not get a choo choo as a kid and now want you to buy me one crowd” meet the people paying for it I am said to say some other way besides taxes will have to be found.  Especially if other services are threatened to be cut.

February 5, 2008 4:54 PM

Randy Hollenbeck   

Davels - You will have another shoot at it.  In a few weeks Metra II will be up.  Have to get to many other important subjects first.  I love debate.

February 5, 2008 6:20 PM

davels   

my question is why don't we have referendums on the interstate or highway projects?  why are you not for that as well?  the Marquette interchange project is four times the cost of the KRM project.  why is rail held to a higher standard?  You previously called for balanced transportation but that doesn't extend to passenger trains.

so if I use the interchange twice a week and someone uses it daily, that should preclude them for paying more for it?  If someone uses the commuter rail twice a week and someone uses it daily, should they both pay the same user fee?  you make a case for one, but it is hypocritical to not make the same argument for road usage.

i'm well aware that taxes will pay for it.  taxes pay for our roads, not just user-generated taxes either.  this is from a bicycle website, not a rail site.

www.stlbikefed.org/.../Default.aspx

so again i say, shouldn't we have a referendum for the I-94 reconstruction?  The most expensive option with additional lanes is estimated at 1.9 billion dollars (which the DOT favors).  The middle cost option is 1.7 billion dollars.  This includes safety improvements but not additional lanes.  There's the 200 million right there, no new taxes.

February 5, 2008 8:13 PM

Randy Hollenbeck   

Your Idea of balanced and mine are different.  So if I use the interchange twice a week and someone uses it daily, that should preclude them for paying more for it - YES.  We don't have a toll system.  The person driving more on the roads is paying more – I guess you choose to forget about gas tax.

Your argument is pointless to say things should be the same.  Should those that don’t have kids or kids that are out of school not pay property taxes that fund schools.  Using your logic they should not.  

Even if bicyclists didn't pay a nickel towards the roads, there are important economic, social, and legal reasons to allow bicyclists on the road.   Confused to what you are trying to say?  What taxes are they paying?

How are trucks going to use the rail?  Rail only moves from point a to b.  The Interstate is not just for cars.  

The state or city is not subsidizing my costs to use the Interstate, as it would be for the rail.

They do have referendums on some road projects.  The Interstate projects get money from the state, city, and federal government since it is an Interstate.  Don’t be jumping to conclusions on how I feel about roads.  My post is about the rail and not roads.  Just because you want to make them the same subject doesn’t mean they are.

You have a driver’s license and plates on your car.  You are paying for roadwork.  Those that use the road more often can as anyone can use it.  Are we asking for an increase in sales tax to fix the roads, like the rail?  NO!

Once the sales tax cap is breached for the first time, what is to stop the spread of such special, local-option tax increases across the state?  Higher sales taxes will affect businesses to be sure, but it is the consumer who will foot this bill and bear the heftier tab.

The New York City subway is the only rail transit line in the country that carries as many people as a single freeway lane.

Combine inflated rider ship projections and enormous cost overruns that have plagued rail projects like this across the country with the reality that people have not given up their cars en masse despite the construction of fancy rail lines, and the only promise taxpayers can count on is that this will require their continued and growing financial obligation for decades to come.

Touted as a way to defeat gridlock, the only promise commuter rail transit brings is expense and taxes.

Large cities are too dispersed for a rail system to take most people where they want to go, nor can rail's relatively low rider capacity influence urban development in significant and desirable ways.  Meanwhile, rail's huge construction costs and operating subsidies divert resources from more suitable transit projects.  Advocates of rail transit say it would siphon excess traffic from roads and freeways.  But the proportion of travelers riding rail is invariably minuscule, and any increase in freeway speeds is fleeting, as new drivers fill the available space.

Rail systems tend to cost much more to build and operate, yet carry far fewer passengers than forecast.  Indeed, costs have become so high that taxpayers could save money by paying some new riders to quit working and stay home.

The test of rail's success is not the number of people on the train, but the number of cars removed from the road.  In all U.S. urban areas except New York and Chicago, transit ridership is less than 3% of travel.  This means that even significant increases in transit ridership (a rare occurrence) have little traffic impact.  New rail systems have removed so few autos.

February 5, 2008 9:39 PM

Randy Hollenbeck   

Here is the rest of what you quoted.  Notice all of the projects the money goes for!

Public looks at I-94 plan

State seeks to expand 37 miles of freeway

By TOM HELD

theld@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Dec. 3, 2007

Nearly two dozen engineers, consultants and project managers put a $1.9 billion I-94 reconstruction plan on display Monday and gave the public a chance to kick the tires in a school cafeteria-turned-showroom in Oak Creek.

At times, the road planners from the Department of Transportation outnumbered residents, but the informal public hearing at West Middle School drew a steady flow of people with questions and comments about the massive freeway plan.

The comments, those written or recited to a court reporter on hand, will be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration as part of the state's petition for federal approval to rebuild and expand the 37 miles of freeway between the Illinois border and the Mitchell Interchange in Milwaukee County.  The deadline for submitting comments is Dec. 31, and the state is hoping to have its answer from the federal agency in the spring.

Construction would start in 2009, if the project proceeds as planned.

Attendees sat through a brief overview from Roberto Gutierrez, state supervisor for freeways in southeast Wisconsin, who explained the timelines and built a case for expanding the freeway from six lanes to eight.  The extra lanes would reduce congestion and crashes on the 50-year-old freeway corridor.

In addition, the expansion would add only $200 million to a $1.7 billion price tag for reconstructing the roadway and 17 interchanges, he said.

Residents quizzed engineers on the specific designs of the interchanges and the potential impacts on their properties, and they reviewed the nuggets of information: The expanded freeway will require 68 acres of additional right-of-way, create noise above 67 decibels in 881 additional homes and reach into 53 acres of wetlands.

None of the maps or boards included a financing plan, something that opponents of the expansion proposal have demanded. The Citizens Allied for Sane Highways, in a release issued Monday, criticized the lack of an invoice or payment plan.

Asked about the criticism, Gutierrez said the financing details would be worked out after the project receives federal approval and an estimate on the federal dollars available. At that time, the DOT will ask the Legislature to allocate the money necessary to complete the work by 2016.

February 5, 2008 9:44 PM

Randy Hollenbeck   

Our future is cars.  Hydrogen powered cars.  Cars will need roads not rails.

February 5, 2008 10:11 PM

Randy Hollenbeck   

2007 Report Card on Wisconsin’s Infrastructure prepared by the Wisconsin section of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Governor Doyle’s raids of the Transportation Fund have been substantial. During Wisconsin's past two budget cycles, the state budget transferred $1.1 billion from Wisconsin's transportation fund to cover spending in other programs. The state borrowed money to replace much of the transferred funds that totaled $675 million in 2003-05 and $427 million in 2005-07 to give to schools despite being presented with a budget by Republicans that contained the single greatest increase in public education funding in Wisconsin history.

February 5, 2008 11:03 PM

davels   

Just because you use the interchange more than I do doesn't mean I drive any less and pay any less gas tax.  You brought up pay for use not I.  And same thing with logic for the schools.  I applied your logic to the schools.  I never came up with the get off a train pay a tax idea, you did.

I am not confused to what I'm saying.  My point is everyone pays for roads whether they use it or not.  The bycicle article has nothing to do with rail more than supporting the fact that general use taxes do not cover the entire cost of roads.  You missed the point of the post.

Your response suggests there would be no roads or interstates.  Not once in my responses have I suggested that.  We will always need roads and interstates.  It is part of a balanced transportation system, though your idea of balanced transportation is questionable and misleading.

You don’t think there is a possibility a sales tax could ever pay for roads?  Check out what ultra-conservative Fox News said about the Federal Highway Trust Fund.  There use of the word, not mine.

www.foxnews.com/.../0,2933,274113,00.html

And just so people know, RTA suggested funding the project with an increase on tax on rental cars by $13 in the three county area served by KRM.  Not exactly the pure sales tax you suggest is it?  I guess it is if you rent a lot of cars in the area.  And if a real sales tax is imposed, it most likely will be the result of a republican introduced bill.

www.journaltimes.com/.../doc47a14e955e3bd989607646.txt

Your suggestion that all rail projects have inflated ridership projections is incorrect.  The FINAL page of this presentation is a compilation of projections and in what year those projections are to be met.  It also shows actual ridership at the latest date.  Please show me your source on inflated ridership projections.  Here’s mine.

www.commentmgr.com/.../Reconnecting%20America%20Presentation%20August%202007.pdf

Your suggestion that larger cities are too dispersed to take most people where they want to go is absurd.  You suggest the benefits of commuter rail in these larger cities are non-existent or minimal at best.  If Metra or New York transit trains did not exist, those people couldn’t get to work or worse, would flood an already overburdened interstate system to get to their downtown jobs.  Over a hundred thousand people a day use one of the four commuter rail stations in downtown Chicago.  Could you imagine over a hundred thousand more vehicles in Chicago?  Even if half of them carpool or take the bus, that’s over 50,000 more vehicles a day converging on Chicago.  More gas used raising gas prices.  More parking spots used raising parking prices.  More traffic.  That sounds fun.  The last page of this link shows they typical weekday ridership total.

metrarail.com/.../current.pdf

You also failed to mention that the areas that have over your unsubstantiated 3% mass transit usage also have robust transit systems.  Fast and frequent mass transit options are the key to increasing ridership and reducing traffic congestion.  Areas outside these cities do not spend nearly the same amounts of money on their mass transit systems.  These cities also do not have the overall economic prosperity these cities have as well.

If the 1.9 billion goes for all these projects like widening the interstate, then it will just induce more traffic in the long run, not reduce congestion as your article post suggested.

www.sierraclub.org/.../gridlock.asp

In the end, I finally got the response I wanted from you.  Roads aren’t held to the higher standard because cars are our future.  Thank you for deciding that.  And while we wait for hydrogen based vehicles to become broadly available, which may not be in our lifetime, the record 100 dollars a barrel of oil will seem pretty darn cheap and we will yearn for the days when gas was only 3.50 a gallon.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Hydrogen_vehicle

February 6, 2008 8:11 AM

Randy Hollenbeck   

First off, sales tax or service tax.  Reread…..

I didn’t make the decision cars are our future, the majority of people do!

Unless you are going to die in the next 10-20 years hydrogen cars will be here.  Count on it!  That is what the rail people fear the most.  Rail reduces only a minimal amount of traffic.  That is it!!!!!!!!!!!!

California and Florida lead the way in Hydrogen stations.  Just because Wisconsin doesn’t, doesn’t mean other wise.

www.h2carco.com/refueling_map.html

Roads and rails are not the same, so anyone except you, can see they have different standards.

Show me one rail that makes a profit.  Just one.  I am not talking about the tracks, here.  Plenty of cars and trucks make profits, how many commuter rail services do?

Only one can handle the same traffic.

In the end you point is clear.  You think rail is the answer.  Too which I don’t!

February 6, 2008 9:03 AM

davels   

show me one road that makes a profit?  how many passenger vehicles do you own that make money?  the vehicles don't make the money, you do when you get to your job.  Similarly the Metra brings people to a job to make money.

I am a proponent for a balanced transportation system.  That includes having suitable rail service.  I never said rail is the only way, the magic bullet or "the answer". I have said and continue to say balanced transportation is the answer.  That includes cars, trains, and planes.

The market demands cars because thats the transportation mode we pour the most money into.  

www.foe.org/.../Amtrak%20Funding%20Factsheet.pdf

30 to 1 according to this link.  Of course cars will be used more, it's been supported more for fifty years!

Before Eisenhower built the interstate system, that was not true.  If roads were so profitable, Why do private corporations not build them?  And if rail is such a waste, why do so many businesses endorse the KRM proposal?

www.transitnow.org/key-endorser-list.html

Leading the way is 13 hydrogen stations in California?  I pass more gas stations in my 7 miles to work.  That hardly constitutes widespread acceptance.  And if you correctly read what I stated, I said it wouldn't become broadly available in our lifetimes.  What percentage of hybrid cars are on the road today?  They've been available for what ten years?  They seem to have taken off well.  According to the links below they accounts for 4.3% of all registered US vehicles.  In another ten years, maybe it will be 10% at this rate, in twenty years, maybe 20% of vehicles.  That doesn't seem very broad now does it?  If you want to refute my extrapolation, provide me with something more concrete than 13 current hyrdrogen stations.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

hybridreview.blogspot.com/.../105-million-alternative-fuel-vehicles.html

I would like some links to support your views so I can read and do the research.  Still waiting for support to ridership inflations that have plagued rail projects like this across the country or evidence to your statement "Large cities are too dispersed for a rail system to take most people where they want to go, nor can rail's relatively low rider capacity influence urban development in significant and desirable ways."

Seriously I want to read that stuff.

February 6, 2008 10:51 AM

Randy Hollenbeck   

With 267,894 miles on my car and 35mpg, my car does make money.  I get .485 per mile to drive to my customers.  Some in St. Louis.  Just because you don't know doen't make it so.  Roads are profitable, just ask the private companies that build them.  With out the roads, the people driving would not get to work and make money.  Funny how you send a link for bikes, yet roads are not the same in your mind.  What do the people riding bikes pay to build the road or repair it?  In Interstate system was done to provide jobs, just as the park systems.

Here is your new car

automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity

You must be dead!!!!  Or your lifetime is short!

February 6, 2008 11:40 AM

Randy Hollenbeck   

Due to fuel stations, it is sold only in Southern California.  If you would choose to move there, they have a nice rail system. The Zero-Emission Sedan of the Future. A reality today.  Is your rail zero-Emission?

February 6, 2008 11:49 AM

davels   

i didn't say they were NOT available, I said they weren't broadly available.  As in people can't afford them.

www.autobloggreen.com/.../first-drive-2009-honda-fcx-clarity-on-the-road

an excerpt,

"If you do qualify, the Clarity will cost you $600 a month for three years which will get you the car, maintenance and collision insurance. The insurance is because the actual cost of the cars is still high enough to be prohibitively expensive."

We'll see how many people are driving these cars of the future around Cudahy in the next couple years.

Funny you bring up California because they have realized the importance of rail.  

www.midwesthsr.org/news_library_cal.htm

And again you post a link to support your claim, yet it is about light rail.  Nearly all the comments listed there disagree with the claims made in that article and there was even a rebuttal piece that you failed to mention.

latimesblogs.latimes.com/.../buses-trains-an.html

We need a balanced transportation system, a real balanced transportation system.  You have failed to address your idea of a balanced transporation system, and frankly it sounds far from balanced.  My argument from the very beginning has been about balance.  Not removing roads, not building only rail.  It has not even been about how to fund it, whether by general taxation or strictly pay to use.  It hasn't been about administration, which I believe needs to be done in the private sector.  It has been about the need to help an aging transportation infrastructure that sorely lacks balance.  The more cars on the road, the faster we need to repair them.  And clearly our current method is not fast enough as we've seen in the I-35 bridge collapse.  The collapse generated a study of bridges that need to be repaired now or very soon.

www.msnbc.msn.com/.../20095291

All of this in the face of an impending deficit to the Federal Highway trust fund.

The lack of balance has been shown with all the urban sprawl and the cost of traffic in America.  78 billion dollars in 2007.

www.blog.thesietch.org/.../americans-waste-78-billion-dollars-a-year-stuck-in-traffic

Will your super car reduce the lost hours or lost fuel?  Maybe fuel is cheaper and we can get that figure down to 60 billion dollars.

The lack of balance has caused oil prices to soar.  As globalization occurs and other nations begin to industrialize, the demand for oil continues to rise at exponential rates.  This is a video clip from Matt Simmons who is an energy investment banker, not a train advocate.

www.youtube.com/watch

300 dollars a barrel.  We just hit a hundred a couple months ago.  Are we going to get three times the gas mileage out of our current vehicles?  Will the uber vehicle of the future be in everyones garages before this happens?  Who knows.

The lack of balance will see a surge of baby boomers hitting the interstates and highways across the country in record numbers.  Individuals on fixed incomes that even if they bought the "prohibitively expensive" supercar will increase traffic times.  It will possibly also increase accidents and insurance rates.

www.insurance.com/.../480

We need balance.  I've said it in every post of mine and you've failed to address your notion of what is balanced transporation.  The kind you clamored for in the sidewalk, pedestrian friendly blog which I agree with.

February 6, 2008 1:22 PM

Randy Hollenbeck   

My balanced doesn't have cummuter rail.  Buses we already have, buses that we are cutting service routes, buses that a felxable.  As far as the car.  I now understand. I said it wouldn't become broadly available in our lifetimes.  Just watch how fast our economy changes to a hydrogen economy.  Clean air act of 1990 is making that happen.  Yes your rail zero?  I will answer for you NO.  Not yet, maybe.  Don't worry at 300 a barrel we will have more to worry about then your rail!  You clamour your balance.  Cars will fly before the nation is mainly rail.

February 6, 2008 1:53 PM

Randy Hollenbeck   

Funny how quickly costs come down on things.  5 years ago 55 inch flat screen 13,000 Now 2,000.  What will your camp say when the price comes down, when the rest of manufactures catch up.  

February 6, 2008 2:00 PM

Randy Hollenbeck   

Hydrogen cars are the future, so why not take a test drive of this website right now and see what you'll be driving a few short years from now. The hydrogen economy is just around the bend. Will you be ready?

www.hydrogencarsnow.com

February 6, 2008 2:02 PM

Randy Hollenbeck   

www.msnbc.msn.com/.../14798876

The complete change from a fossil fuel infrastructure to a hydrogen economy will require decades,"  Not lifetime.

February 6, 2008 2:03 PM

davels   

lifetime was not my words, it was DOE official Romm's words.  I thought I posted the link but apparently didn't.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Hydrogen_vehicle

You failed to address how this vehicle will solve the 78 billion dollars of wasted money spent in traffic jams last year.  And for the record I'm glad a better vehicle is available.  Actually that BMW is pretty sweet.  It's too bad they have both a gasoline and hydrogen option though.  I thought it would have been better to be hydrogen only.

Busses are not a substitute for commuter rail.  Far from it.  I posted the LA times rebuttal that goes into that.

Your idea of balance is putting more and more on the road.  That is not balanced.  That should be the definition of imbalanced transportation.  My issue from the beginning has been balance or lack thereof, not whether one car should be on the road versus another.  You turned it into that.  My intial post talked about a need for a balanced transportation system and why you are not asking for a referendum or do not support pay for use in the form of tolls for roads or interstate construction.

this has been fun.  I will wait to your part 2 to continue this.  until then.

February 6, 2008 2:38 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

About Randy Hollenbeck

I have lived in Cudahy for 13 years and on the south side of Milwaukee for 36 years. I was selected by CNI NOW of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel as one of three influential people in Cudahy for 2007. In my neighborhood, many of the older people ask me to contact our elected officials to be the voice of the people. I am married and have a 2-1/2 year old daughter. I spent 11 years as a retail manager and currently I am a computer engineer with co-ownership of a computer consulting company.

Posts

Your browser must support javascript to use the posts pager. Please enable javascript or return to the home page to page through posts.
Newer Older

Tags

News

Please Don’t forget my Alpha Site at http://www.rightviewwi.com/milwaukeesouthshore/

Search the Blogs