Comments on: Anti-Driving

By: Gunnar Henrioulle

Gunnar Henrioulle — Sat, 26 May 2007 16:00:37 +0000

One thing comes into every conversation like this- there is just too much ground to cover for me/us to use transit/ or at least use it all the time. We built ourselves away from where public transit goes, since the end of WWII. The 1956 Interstate Defense Highway Bill made it formal & official, like a government directive, that the USA would proceed without public transportation…

Cheap oil was the key to the great automobile breakout after WWII. Now, what are we going to do, as the oil tapers off faster than the alternative energy & alternative transport can be mustered? One can easily look at writings by James H. Kunstler, Heinberg, Matthew Simmons, and other Peaking Oil authors. This is more than a compendium of alarmists!

It is respectfully requested that individuals reading this take it upon themselves, as they are so inclined & able, to get together, locale by locale, an accurate & complete mapping of the all-time rail footprint. This should start at the top- what rail is now working.

Next, inventory abandoned rail lines still somewhat intact, but inoperable. Most could be rehabbed for mixed passenger & freight use (at night) for reconnecting local victuals warehousing. This is really more than just an exercise. The Peaking Oil Emergency will impact long haul trucking to such an extent that the branchline railway network will become a requisite part of our economic fabric once again.

Fred Jandt has in common something with most Public Transportation Officials & employees- they believe in the importance of their vocation. A growing number of new generation employees are energy-savvy, and know the history of public transit as well. They know that over the next few years proximity to alternative transportation will be a crucial element in our daily lives.

By: Steve Roper

Steve Roper — Fri, 25 May 2007 21:32:23 +0000

The comments in last weeks blog were about transit executives and management who have the CHOICE of using a bus or a train and not doing so.

Citing a few exceptions will not carry any weight with those of us who have been in the actual industry for years and have been simmering quietly at our own managers snubbing a service that we work hard to make happen.

Incidentally, the comments in last weeks blog were not “anti-driving” as the title of this blog suggests. Nor were they “anti-car”. Nor were they made by ‘transit crazies’.

Which begs the question “Who touched whose nerve?”

By: Tom Mauser

Tom Mauser — Fri, 25 May 2007 14:47:59 +0000

I feel I must echo the comments of RK, that it’s understandable that you must drive to work, since it’s the only viable option in Ft. Atkinson. But why in the world would Mass Transit Magazine CHOOSE to locate in Ft. Atkinson instead of downtown Milwaukee? Wouldn’t farmers feel a disconnect if Agriculture Today magazine was headquartered in San Francisco? Would NASCAR enthusiasts feel a strong connection with magazine offices in New York City? I think not.

By: Kevin Heanue

Kevin Heanue — Thu, 24 May 2007 19:54:24 +0000

Fred:

You blew it or just don’t get it. Many of us locate our residences so that we can have access to transit. More us will have to do it if we are to make progress on sprawl, urban congestion, global warming, etc.

Yor stridency borders on hipocracy for one who drives to work.

Kevin Heanue

By: Therese Donlan

Therese Donlan — Thu, 24 May 2007 19:42:32 +0000

What concerns me is when transit personnel who don’t use public transit to get to work cut service for transit dependents who have no other option. These individuals should be made to ride public transit so they realize what their actions entail.

I also agree with RK about locating your facility at a location without transit access. It blows my mind when there are transit conventions, seminars, etc. at locations not accessible to public transit. What message are we sending?

By: Donald Shoff

Donald Shoff — Thu, 24 May 2007 17:42:42 +0000

Allow me to add two more requirements for more people to move to mass transit — convenience and reliability. I think these terms are self-explanatory. das

By: Norman Mars

Norman Mars — Thu, 24 May 2007 16:54:14 +0000

Like you, I live in a very small town over 20 miles from the nearest public transit line, and my job requires travel at a short notice to any of the 11 remote facilities I oversee, so I drive. With gasoline in my area now selling for $3.399 per gallon, I’d be on that transit bus is there was one anywhere in my area going where I need to go. As the price of gas has risen, I’ve noted that more and more of our employees at our facilities that are served by transit are using it.

By: RK

RK — Thu, 24 May 2007 16:39:50 +0000

Fred, though I didn’t comment on your last post, I admit I did do a double take when I read that you drove to work. Of course it’s perfectly understandable that you must drive to work since it’s the only viable option in Ft. Atkinson, WI. The question becomes, then, why is Mass Transit Magazine locatd in Ft. Atkinson, instead of, say, downtown Milwaukee, or some other place that is transit accessible? Lower cost maybe? Taxes? I only speculate. I think the real issue is not why there isn’t good public transit in Ft. Atkinson, WI, but rather, why be in Ft. Atkinson in the first place? We have land use and development policies that not only encourage, but require low-density, automobile-oriented separated use sprawling development. At the same time, we discourage infill and mixed use developments in transit-accessible places. As long as land use and transporatation planning occur separately, mass transit will not be an economically viable or convenient option for most.