The Atlantic is a somewhat highbrow monthly that is decidedly establishment in its point of view. I mention that only because the latest edition (March 2008) contains a couple of startling pieces touching on transportation issues of the future. Both suggest the limits of urban sprawl may be upon us.
The mass movement into suburbs over the past half century was made possible by the rapid construction of freeway systems heavily subsidized by the Federal government. This was an unforeseen consequence of the Interstate Highway program which was conceived as a means of quickly moving commerce about the country. The system is perhaps the fondest achievement of the Eisenhower administration. Ike was so impressed by the German autobahns during the World War II campaign there that he brought the idea home. As a booster to commerce and the economy the Interstate Highway program was a smashing success and the enabling of suburban growth was long seen as a side benefit. Today, however, fierce opposition to expanding commute highways have converted them into bottlenecks not only to commuters but to the flow of commerce originally envisioned. One of the Atlantic articles cites an academic study which quantifies the economic loss wrought by highways, mainly in urban areas, which are operating at volumes above capacity. This is reported to be nearly $50 billion annually.
Another article reports on how the rising costs, both in money and time, of commuting by automobile as well as the sterile environment of many suburban places have driven a rebirth of urban living. It goes on to predict that some of the suburban developments of recent years featuring large homes on large lots are already beginning to resemble urban slums with an excess of vacant buildings and an increase in crime. It foresees a future where suburbia will be the home of crime and poverty, a 180-degree change from recent history. For myself, the peaceful middle class suburb where I grew up has already made this conversion with plenty of vacant buildings and a general sense of menace in public spaces.
In today's global economy the United States is competing with Europe, the Pacific Rim, China, and, increasingly India. All of these places are well ahead of us in building diverse transportation systems designed to move both commerce and people efficiently. In general, this means a separation of the two. Travel to London, Shanghai, Tokyo. or even Mexico City and your trip from the airport to the commercial district will be rapid and relatively stress free. Compare that to arrival at Kennedy or LAX. The difference is that in America you are competing for travel room in heavy traffic.
The time is coming where we will have to change our relationship with the automobile. We're not going to be able to afford them sooner than we all think. But, of course, we are not making any rational or even different plans. Let's hope we don't wait too long.
We should get behind ideas like hefty penalties for driving into certain congested areas, development of high speed electric train systems both local and regional, and separations of commercial and individual traffic. But we have done little of this. In California proposals have been made to address each of these areas and have died in a storm of protest from the keepers of the status quo. We are very much like addicts who realize that we should cease our behavior but haven't the fortitude to do so.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Not Infrastructure
Try as I might I find myself unable to ignore the Presidential election campaigns now running at full speed. After seven plus years of the worst President in my lifetime (stretching back to Roosevelt), there is a feeling that this particular election is very important.
As a consequence of the younger Bush's administration and the knee jerk Republican Party, the prestige of the United States is at a low ebb, our economy is in serious jeopardy, our multiplying enemies are emboldened, and our people are fixated on the personal foibles of witless celebrities. This last is important because many many of our people don't care about the rest of the world, think they'll win the lottery soon, and believe we can and should smash our enemies, widely viewed as the females and non-whites of the world, any time. Meanwhile they're off to Wal-Mart or checking out the latest with Brittany.
Right now the presumptive Republican candidate is Senator John McCain of Arizona who is running on the notion that he was one of the few Republicans who occasionally opposed Bush and that he was a Prisoner of War for some five or six years during the Viet Nam war, which we are encouraged to think noble of him. In fact he is a conventional Republican, very closely attuned to the corporate agenda including lower taxes, particularly for the well-off and the corporations, strong doses of imperialism, free trade when it suits his corporate friends' needs, and reduction of government services so government policing can be increased. He will pay lip service to the so-called conservative social agenda which means opposition to any significant change in the patriarchal status quo. One senses that he's pretty indifferent to the latter, however.
McCain can be counted on to appoint judges who are not interested in protecting individual rights, to cut taxes for the well-off, and, by the way, to continue and expand our imperial incursions into the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere. I believe he will run on pretty much the Bush agenda but promise competent management of it. He will likely jettison some of its more ludicrous aspects such as the environmental degradation and stifling of scientific inquiry the Bushies are so fatuously proud of. But he will run against Bush, not his program.
The Democrats on the other hand have reached an interesting point in their history and, I would suggest, will likely die as a national party if they don't win this one. First off, their nominee will almost certainly be either a woman or a black man, two categories of individuals thought impossible to elect a short generation ago. Both will start off with a sizable number of people who will vote against them strictly on the basis of their gender or racial identity. That's a good reason to think they'll lose in November right there.
But the two are engaged in an extremely close chase to the nomination, closest since Kennedy/Johnson in 1960, that feature what we might call the old party and, just maybe, the new. The old is represented by Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, the woman. Her claim to fame is being the wife of Bill Clinton, the President immediately prior to Bush the younger. She has also been in the Senate since 2000 where she has pretty much established herself as a separate entity from her husband. Even so, if elected she will probably be a lot like Bill, triangulating on key issues, moving cautiously into new initiatives. She will appoint safe judges and play the imperialism cautiously. Corporations do not fear her.
The new is represented by Seator Barack Obama of Illinois. His father was a black African, his mother a white from Kansas. He has established himself as a charismatic speaker during a meteoric career which includes a lot of high achievement both inside and outside of politics. How he would govern is not clearly predictable due to limited experience in Washington. His campaign has been long on ideals and short on particulars. He has promised an end to divisiveness and the old class warfare rhetoric. His followers (full disclosure - he's my choice) are very enthusiastic over his intelligence and charisma. He has built a staff that has proven quite capable.
Who ends up with the Democratic nomination is truly anyone's guess at this point. It is entirely possible that the decision will not be made until the convention, so a compromise or brokered candidate is also possible, although unlikely. It's odd because you'd think the Republicans would be in total disarray given the Bush disaster, but they're looking good right now. So the question becomes, will we miss the national Democratic party? And can we survive four more years of a Republican President?
As a consequence of the younger Bush's administration and the knee jerk Republican Party, the prestige of the United States is at a low ebb, our economy is in serious jeopardy, our multiplying enemies are emboldened, and our people are fixated on the personal foibles of witless celebrities. This last is important because many many of our people don't care about the rest of the world, think they'll win the lottery soon, and believe we can and should smash our enemies, widely viewed as the females and non-whites of the world, any time. Meanwhile they're off to Wal-Mart or checking out the latest with Brittany.
Right now the presumptive Republican candidate is Senator John McCain of Arizona who is running on the notion that he was one of the few Republicans who occasionally opposed Bush and that he was a Prisoner of War for some five or six years during the Viet Nam war, which we are encouraged to think noble of him. In fact he is a conventional Republican, very closely attuned to the corporate agenda including lower taxes, particularly for the well-off and the corporations, strong doses of imperialism, free trade when it suits his corporate friends' needs, and reduction of government services so government policing can be increased. He will pay lip service to the so-called conservative social agenda which means opposition to any significant change in the patriarchal status quo. One senses that he's pretty indifferent to the latter, however.
McCain can be counted on to appoint judges who are not interested in protecting individual rights, to cut taxes for the well-off, and, by the way, to continue and expand our imperial incursions into the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere. I believe he will run on pretty much the Bush agenda but promise competent management of it. He will likely jettison some of its more ludicrous aspects such as the environmental degradation and stifling of scientific inquiry the Bushies are so fatuously proud of. But he will run against Bush, not his program.
The Democrats on the other hand have reached an interesting point in their history and, I would suggest, will likely die as a national party if they don't win this one. First off, their nominee will almost certainly be either a woman or a black man, two categories of individuals thought impossible to elect a short generation ago. Both will start off with a sizable number of people who will vote against them strictly on the basis of their gender or racial identity. That's a good reason to think they'll lose in November right there.
But the two are engaged in an extremely close chase to the nomination, closest since Kennedy/Johnson in 1960, that feature what we might call the old party and, just maybe, the new. The old is represented by Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, the woman. Her claim to fame is being the wife of Bill Clinton, the President immediately prior to Bush the younger. She has also been in the Senate since 2000 where she has pretty much established herself as a separate entity from her husband. Even so, if elected she will probably be a lot like Bill, triangulating on key issues, moving cautiously into new initiatives. She will appoint safe judges and play the imperialism cautiously. Corporations do not fear her.
The new is represented by Seator Barack Obama of Illinois. His father was a black African, his mother a white from Kansas. He has established himself as a charismatic speaker during a meteoric career which includes a lot of high achievement both inside and outside of politics. How he would govern is not clearly predictable due to limited experience in Washington. His campaign has been long on ideals and short on particulars. He has promised an end to divisiveness and the old class warfare rhetoric. His followers (full disclosure - he's my choice) are very enthusiastic over his intelligence and charisma. He has built a staff that has proven quite capable.
Who ends up with the Democratic nomination is truly anyone's guess at this point. It is entirely possible that the decision will not be made until the convention, so a compromise or brokered candidate is also possible, although unlikely. It's odd because you'd think the Republicans would be in total disarray given the Bush disaster, but they're looking good right now. So the question becomes, will we miss the national Democratic party? And can we survive four more years of a Republican President?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Something Happening Here?
The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, is thinking about running for President this year as an independent. Like every candidate does these days, he's going through the "exploratory" phase of his campaign meaning that he's trying to figure out if he has any chance to win. I don't think he'll run unless he feels like he's got a reasonable chance to win. This differentiates him from the last two, rather notorious,independent candidates, Poss Perot and Ralph Nader. Both of those guys had huge egos that needed massaging and both of them, inter alia, assured victory for the candidate who would have likely not won if they had stayed home, Clinton in 1992 and W Bush in 2000. Neither Perot or Nader had any chance of actually winning their election and, unless one or both of them are unusually delusional, a possibility too grim to contemplate, they knew it.
Bloomberg is different though. First off he's got more money by far than all the Republican and Democratic candidates combined and second of all he actually has some experience as an elected government official, to wit Mayor of New York. Of note is the fact that his regime has won plaudits from a broad spectrum of political commentators. His approach is to identify problems and apply practical solutions to them with little regard to whose political ox gets gored. From him you hear very little rhetoric about supposed social ills. He carries almost no political baggage. He seems to have a knack for understanding the problems of a lot of people, not just those of his class, or those belonging to groups that have supported his election. In other words we may be looking at a genuine breath of fresh air here.
He recently gave a de facto campaign speech wherein he criticized the Federal government's neglect of infrastructure over the past several decades, pointing out very effectively how our decaying infrastructure is already taking a toll on the economy that can only get worse if the neglect continues. He's right of course. We don't seem to fully appreciate the value of good infrastructure and instead squander our money on some pretty silly pork barrel project which are designed more to reward political contributors than serve us well.
In the 1950s we started the Interstate Highway Program and in the 1970s the Clean Water Program. Both were remarkably successful. But the infrastructure we built with these programs will not last forever and needs attention right now. Right now our airports are badly overcrowded, our rail system a relic in near ruins, and our ports falling behind. The need has become urgent. Go Bloomberg!
Bloomberg is different though. First off he's got more money by far than all the Republican and Democratic candidates combined and second of all he actually has some experience as an elected government official, to wit Mayor of New York. Of note is the fact that his regime has won plaudits from a broad spectrum of political commentators. His approach is to identify problems and apply practical solutions to them with little regard to whose political ox gets gored. From him you hear very little rhetoric about supposed social ills. He carries almost no political baggage. He seems to have a knack for understanding the problems of a lot of people, not just those of his class, or those belonging to groups that have supported his election. In other words we may be looking at a genuine breath of fresh air here.
He recently gave a de facto campaign speech wherein he criticized the Federal government's neglect of infrastructure over the past several decades, pointing out very effectively how our decaying infrastructure is already taking a toll on the economy that can only get worse if the neglect continues. He's right of course. We don't seem to fully appreciate the value of good infrastructure and instead squander our money on some pretty silly pork barrel project which are designed more to reward political contributors than serve us well.
In the 1950s we started the Interstate Highway Program and in the 1970s the Clean Water Program. Both were remarkably successful. But the infrastructure we built with these programs will not last forever and needs attention right now. Right now our airports are badly overcrowded, our rail system a relic in near ruins, and our ports falling behind. The need has become urgent. Go Bloomberg!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)