Seattlest: What Mass Transit Funds?

MvB

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:54:41 -0800

Oh man, those CFL bulbs! I was an early adopter, and just never imagined someone would call "green" a bulb with toxic chemicals in it that you can't throw away. I did in fact throw one in the garbage before learning that you had to dispose of them in the non-existent "safe" manner. That is one of the worst failures of the green/sustainability movement in recent memory that I can think of. Closing the loop on harmful chemicals is basic, basic, basic stuff, and yet there's no in-store bulb recycling so you can drop off the old ones while buying new ones. (Which is not to get into the health hazards of accidentally breaking one and inhaling the gas.)

Jeremy M. Barker

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:36:26 -0800

@4 -- You're dead on about infrastructure improvements in the wake of the bridge collapse. While I don't fancy spending lots of money on roads, the sad reality is that a lot of our infrastructure is crumbling, in no small part because state and local governments have been starved on funds by anti-tax activists over the last 20 years, which has also helped prevent further transit development. Point is, the roads are a problem and you can't just ignore them, but the response--whether it's Congress giving the fund an $8 billion life-line, or the White House "borrowing" from the transit fund--totally ignores the fact that we also need transit investment on a massive scale if we're going to deal with perennially high gas prices, let alone the climate crisis. @3 -- A nice detail, mvb, I didn't hear that, and a good point to bring up: it feels like half or more of the crap we propose as "solutions" to problems are just a way of changing the exact same input. It's like electric cars: the electricity has to come from somewhere. And don't even get me started on the crap they use to make compact fluorescent bulbs. I have the Sunday-greens who buy those things have the good sense never to throw them out in the trash.

cbendixe

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:20:36 -0800

However. According to a story on NPR that I heard this morning, Congress is not about to approve such a near-sighted fiscal move (but they're probably not about to raise gas taxes either). Sounded like the only option was to take $ from the general fund and put it into the highway trust fund. Knock on wood that transit doesn't get screwed over in the transaction. As for construction & maintenance on roads that are being driven on less, I think the infrastructure maintenance problem has gotten so bad in this country that the traffic volumes aren't the issue. After the Minneapolis bridge collapse last year, hundreds of local governments freaked out about their infrastructure projects and now the feds have to foot their part of the bill for those projects. There's probably a little more to the story, but that's enough for one comment post.....

MvB

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:01:11 -0800

On the other hand, re: "peak oil" gloom-and-doomers, Toyota just raised the cost of its hybrid by $500 because of the cost of the petroleum used to make the car. That to me represents the most salient aspect of the peak oil alarm: we've been relying on cheap oil for everything. As the price goes up, it goes up everywhere, not just at the pump.

TroyJMorris

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:30:27 -0800

With nearly half a over 9 trillion in debt, I don't really think this administration has the best grasp on how to handle surpluses.

Charles Redell

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:55:24 -0800

I heard this yesterday on Marketplace. On that show, the long-term fix suggested is to *gasp* raise the gas tax to about .22 a gallon. According to the "expert" on the topic, at $4 gas, that's inconsequential. But, here's my question (and my wife's): If people are driving less, isn't there less wear and tear on the roads meaning less money is needed to fix them? Either way, taking the funds from transit is a BAD idea.