Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
In The Public Interest: What’s Next for High-Speed Rail?
Phineas Baxandall, The Huffington Post
Last month the nation learned that 31 states will receive one-time high-speed rail stimulus grants totaling $8 billion.
But what happens next?
The last time our country sought to achieve a national infrastructure vision was in the 1950s. Roadways between cities at the time were haphazard and largely mud or gravel. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had seen the future in the German autobahn and set out to construct a national network of limited-access highways connecting major American cities. It took over three decades of sustained investment to complete that vision. The result was “the greatest public works project in history,” according to the Federal Highway Administration.
Constructing high-speed rail will take no less of a commitment.
In a new report released today, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group is calling for another great public works project – one that will connect, by high-speed bullet trains, all of America’s major cities which are between 100 to 500 miles from each other.
A high-speed rail network that competes with intercity commuter air travel would have huge benefits for our economic, energy, and environmental problems. It will create up to 1.6 million construction jobs, provide thousands with jobs related to the new lines, cut our energy consumption, improve travel and assist in the resurgence of American manufacturing. Replacing short-haul airplane flights will also free up precious air space at our crowded airports, and let airlines concentrate on the cross-country trips where they make sense…
(9 February 2010)
Mayor: Metro riders come first
Mike Snyder, Houston Chronicle
As Mayor Annise Parker awaits reports from transition committees studying the Metropolitan Transit Authority, fundamental questions loom about how the agency should deliver and pay for services and its role in shaping regional growth and development.
Parker has signaled that she is not wedded to conventional wisdom about Metro, even suggesting eliminating fares to increase lagging ridership. While acknowledging that Metro would have to cope with the loss of fare revenues — $66 million in 2009, about 20 percent of its expenses — she said it is a discussion the agency needs to have.
The mayor, who appoints five of the nine members of Metro’s board, said she envisions a seamless network of transportation services that move people efficiently throughout the eight-county Houston region.
“The goal should be, wherever you get on our ultimate mass transit system, from commuter rail, to light rail, to bus, you get one ticket, you go anywhere in the region,” Parker said.
The mayor said she expects reports from the five committees reviewing Metro by the end of this month. Their finding will inform her choices on a number of difficult policy questions:
-What share of the population in a sprawling, car-dependent city can reasonably be expected to use public transportation?
-Should Metro gradually reclaim the 25 percent of its 1-cent sales tax it now pays to cities for road and bridge improvements?
-What should the city and Metro do to encourage dense, walkable development along rail lines that could absorb growth and spare prairies and fields from being paved over with subdivisions and shopping centers?…
(8 February 2010)
The Bikeway Network
Mike Lydon, reconnecting america
[This is the second of four-part expert blog post by Mike Lydon, the founding Principal of The Street Plans Collaborative. Lydon’s posts are part of a series of expert blogs on TOD highlighting work and research that experts are doing in the field.]
While the bicycle shed is an important conceptual planning tool, it is meaningless without the physical development of bicycle infrastructure. Therefore, each bicycle shed should not be conceived in isolation, but as part of a regional bikeway network. This network should be designed to connect people to important destinations—schools, neighborhood centers, regional centers, open space, and of course, local and regional transit systems.
In general, the bicycle network should be comprised of many bikeways types. These include, but are not limited to shared-use paths, shared lanes (sharrows), bicycle boulevards, bicycle lanes, and physically separated bicycle lanes—sometimes called cycle tracks.
Before assigning bikeway types, the unique characteristics of each thoroughfare and its urban context must be considered holistically. This includes analyzing street width, street type, existing land use and urban form, density, traffic control devices, posted speed limits and actual travel speeds, and traffic volume.
But while the existing conditions of each thoroughfare are important, the urban context is rarely static. Therefore, considering the desired character and urban context is critical to the selection process, as context-specific bikeways can help strengthen a more immersive, accessible, and equitable urban environment.
To this end, special emphasis should be placed on providing safety and comfort for all types of bicyclists. Bikeway infrastructure that appeals to those who are interested in bicycling, but who are too often deterred by the perception—and reality—of unsafe bicycling conditions, must be prioritized. Research conducted by Roger Geller, Bicycle Coordinator for the City of Portland, Oregon, identifies four types of bicyclists, of which the majority seek more comfort and safety. “Riding a bicycle should not require bravery. Yet, all too often, that is the perception among cyclists and non-cyclists alike,” says Geller…
(12 February 2010)
Part 1 in the article series is here
