We will experience a serious transportation crisis in the USA when the conventional oil depletion rate accellerates, which is likely before the end of this decade. Calls for transit whether rail or buses do not ever seem to pay attention to the freight component. Freight railways must be part of the discussion!

Simply addressed, we must find a way to enable shortline rail operators to proliferate on a massive scale, so as to re-connect the downtown victuals markets and warehousing with good rail/delivery truck interface. The energy crises (plural) will hit us like waves, affecting certain regions, trucking in some, automobiles in others. Eventually, the feds will institute allocation, or rationing. It is important to inventory rail corridors that can be rehabbed, military bases & manufacturing sites with rail footprint for secure warehousing and victuaks centers.

Region by region, locale by locale, planners must refamiliarize with footprint that can be rehabbed with regard to new demographics, etc. Above, the references to peaking oil must be studied, and understood in a manner to give responsibles in transit & transportation planning the backbone to withstand the criticism sure to appear when the policies favoring highway begin the deliberate turn back to rail and bus methodology.

Here is boilerplate on a page: (peakoil.net) -website for “The Association For The Study Of Peak Oil & Gas”- check out article 374 in the Newsletters section, extrapolate the concept to your locale. Rattle some cages!

I have been involved in Transit as an Elected Transit Director serving 32 years, 20 years on AC Transit and 12 on BART. I have been appointed to two standing Committee at TRB and a Registered Engineer who is a life Member of ITE and APWA. I Retired after 40 years as a Public Works Engineer working with State, County, and City Civil Service on jobs ranging from Construction Engineer, Road Design, Development Review, Sewage Treatment, Traffic and Acting City Traffic Engineer. Therefore, I have a broad viewed of whether we are Pro/Anti Transit.

Also in my 32 years as a Transit Director, I have traveled to almost every major City in the US, Canada well over dozen times, Europe 6 times, Asia 5, Mexico 3 and South America twice examining overall transportation including transit and land use. Taking into account how we develop and consider transit, compared to other developed Countries I conclude my answer is YES, US is Anti Transit.

In planning developments, we require the developer to provide adequate roads and do not consider transit to serve the development as well. Then, whenever we encounter congestion, we habitually spend fortunes to relieve it but the relief build on itself and returns in a few years as a vicious cycle. We seldom consider transit alternatives to moderate congestion.

Meanwhile there are growing reliable reporting we are in the midst of Global Warming problem and continuing how we live and currently emit Greenhouse Gases (GHG) there will be dire results to our environment, weather changes; water shortage; sea level rise, drought, and quality of life.

It is known that autos are the major generators of GHG. US comprise of just 1/21 of the worlds population, but shamefully per capita is the greatest generator of GHG. SF Bay Region study indicated 50% of GHG was from vehicles which was greater than US overall and 3.6 times higher than rest of the world.. US utilizes third of the world’s petroleum production, which is mainly consumed by our vehicles producing major portion of our GHG. We are so inundated by vehicles we have more registered vehicles than issued driver licenses.

It will take major changes to reduce auto emission in how we develop, travel and live. This involves where and how we develop especially around low lands around the Bay for it is predicted that sea level will rise from a meter to what some studies predict more than 6 meters by year 2100. Single-family homes utilize several times the fuel and water than dense living units. An eminent problem of drought, caused by emission of GHG from autos is a reason we need to redevelop into more dense development as well as dense development uses less water.

We need to reduce GHG using comprehensive plans with developments utilizing increase transit. To accomplish this we need to place more emphasis on development of dense corridor routes for transit that increases transit operation and vitality. Additionally we need to educate everyone of the ineffectiveness of Congestion Relief because we will have it whether we develop or not.

I have viewed Dense Developed Communities in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Zurich, Yokohama, Tokyo, Kobe and Curitiba, which we call “Transit Oriented Development”. The TODs have dense nodal mixed-use corridors with businesses, institutions, and residential developments with minimum parking in which transit operates with priority. There people rely less on the auto and more on other modes of mobility as walking, bicycling, and public transit use. They create an enriched livable environment that provides a sense of neighborhood and community. Many have public open pedestrian space as plaza that is closed to auto. They substantially reduced the use of the auto, the major emitter of pollution and GHG.

Curitiba redeveloped high density corridors where prior to its development transit had only a 7% mode share but after the development of dense corridors with buses operating on Busways the mode share increased to 70%.. Almost every 5 Busway radial spine carries 100,000 trips per day, which is greater than any of the individual BART line and its cost was under 5% of what BART cost.

As for Milwaukee, they should consider beginning on a plan of developing dense corridors that are integrated with a plan to phase in enhanced bus operation using Bus Rapid Transit elements. Los Angeles has converted many of their major bus corridors with enhanced buses which they label Metro Rapid with great success. LA is looking forward to eventually converting these enhanced bus routes into a Busway and at existing major transit centers plan dense nodal TODs.

All the while we need to enlighten the public and politicians of what we are facing with Global Warming and GHG emissions and the need to reduce auto use by promoting better developments served by transit

“Our problem is not in the stars,…”

Robert J. Burke

While the rest of the world embraces mass transit, Milwaukee truly needs to recognize that the time for a serious committment to transit is upon us. The proven benefits of transit are strong and clear. Milwaukee leaders need to end their political posturing and gather a community together to formulate an organized transit plan for the betterment of the community.

Milwaukee has unbelievable transit ridership compared to its peer cities, yet it appears that some of the local politicians are unwilling to show true leadership and get behind permanent, adequate funding for its mass-transit system. MCTS has historically been one of the best-run, most efficient transit systems in the country. It, along with Louisville Transit Company and Indianapolis Transit, were three of the last “large” private transit systems to go public in 1974 because they were so well-run.

Here in the mid-south, and at systems further south, there is another, less-obvious force behind the dearth of political support for urban transit. A lady who came in (a few years ago) to tell me about how service ‘adjustments’ were going to affect her Sunday bus ride to church put it perfectly: She referred to it as a “plantation mentality.”

Thus we have public transit begging for funding throughout the south, especially in Alabama and Mississippi, but also in Tennessee and here in Kentucky.

As it turned out, the service adjustment worked out better for her, but she was concerned about others who used the route to get to and from jobs.

So am I.

Cliff Kuhl
Schedule Analyst
Transit Authority of River City
Louisville, KY