Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Sohaib Ahmed

    Interesting information with great details given. ofcourse Gatwick Valet Parking is the best service to be used.
    Meet and Greet Gatwick


    Andrew T. Armstrong

    When the AAR failed to push for the adoption of electronic over pneumatic air brake systems, the biggest technological advance since diesel engines became wide spread, i lost all credibility for that organization, as well as the FRA, who had concerns with not being able to see the braking levels stored on the “black box”. So in 2014, we are using version 3 of George Westinghouse’s air brake system from the 1860′s.

    The AAR, is the sole purpose this entire Amtrak debate is in the news.


    Andrew T. Armstrong

    In an interview with The Columbian, BNSF Executive Chairman Matthew Rose noted railroads like his are required by federal law to haul crude oil and other hazardous materials as part of their “common carrier” obligations.


    C Monroe

    Yeah, San Antonio city itself includes most of its suburbs within city limits.


    Dexter Wong

    Are you sure the availalability of good transit outweighs the extremely high cost of housing in San Francisco (city)? From what I’ve read, it’s hard to find an affordable residence there.


    Coolebra “To enter a world of adventure, romance, secrets, Shanghai tongs, abandoned Paris Metro stations, pirates, screwball comedy, combat, espionage, satire, send-ups, absurdist humor and much more . . .”

    Perhaps you’re right – Streetsblog readers should “enter a world of adventure, romance, secrets, [et al.]” to find the truth about declining per capita VMT.



    Sorry, but indexing the gas tax to inflation isn’t gonna cut it. An indexed gas tax is coming, accompanied by increased pricing. However, all the King’s horses and all the King’s men are not enough to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

    We need to stop trying. Humpty Dumpty is irrevocably broken.

    We need 21st century solutions, not improved buggy whips.


    John Z Wetmore

    The videos have moved to YouTube:

    National Bike Summit – Blumenauer:

    National Bike Summit – Matsui:

    National Bike Summit – Lipinski:

    National Bike Summit – LaHood:


    John Z Wetmore

    There is no Federal regulation banning bikes or peds from Interstate highways — this is up to State policy. In fact, there are many states where bikes are allowed on some Interstate highway shoulders.

    I agree that access to bridges is essential.



    NO. There only 10 cities and they are all expensive! How ridiculous.


    Larry Littlefield

    One assumption seems to be that the alternative to motor vehicles is mass transit. Since I started getting around by bike most of the time a few years ago, I’ve been amazed at the amount of mobility one has by bicycle.

    That mobility would probably be even greater in other cities. Why? New York is so big. Assuming 10 miles is a maximum transportation ride to someplace like work, that gets you from one end of most cites to the other, or at least from the farthest reaches to downtown.


    Kevin Love

    I wonder how the CDC developed the mental telepathy capabilities to describe the deaths as “unintentional”?

    Do they also give stock market tips?



    1910 Meeting on Jekyll Island. Familiar with it? The legislation that it produced which was passed just before Christmas 1913? This was the start of the financialization of the country. Now the adverse effects are wide and varied. From money printing to boom-bust cycles and more. But the end result is that a tiny inside group ends up with most everything and everyone else with the rest. Now one could argue 80/20 rule, but we are closer to a 99.99/0.01 rule.

    The income tax also came about in 1913. The deductions and such are every bit social engineering and driving people’s choices for the economic benefit of those with political influence. For instance, if the mortgage interest deduction were eliminated, then the price of homes would drop and there would be less borrowing. Social security was ruled by government courts to be a welfare program and the payroll deduction a tax like any other. It can be changed at the whim of congress. It’s not a trust fund or savings account or insurance, it’s just a welfare program with the structural financing of a ponzi scheme.

    Your taxes will not go down if driving disappears. They’ll likely be increased if government thinks it can get away with it to replace lost revenues. The streets they pay for aren’t going away even if the cars do. The costs will largely remain, the revenues won’t. The goals of this website IMO are clearly anti-car first, everything else second or lower. If it doesn’t hurt driving there is no interest to opposition. But anyway rather than follow more of your tangents, the simple fact is that the demand for wealth is being put on drivers because that’s where the money is. As that money goes away, then what?

    I have to pay sales tax to support transit if I purchase anything other than food at a grocery store. This happened after it became too difficult for Chicago area transit to extract money from state government every year they ran short. Will the sales tax go to 12%? 15%? People don’t have any more to give. At some point punitive taxes on driving are going to collapse and that means either charging more realistic fares or greater subsidy from those who are not served by transit.



    Seems like a study written for an intended result. If you exclude a whole list of great cities that are obvious contenders like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Minneapolis, as examples – cities that have both low housing costs and fairly good public transportation – then of course this is the result you get. This study sounds like someone from the east coast trying to justify their high-cost lifestyle and convince themselves it actually isn’t a high cost lifestyle.

    That said, any study that tries to point out the fallacy of drive till you qualify is a good thing. The more times the nonsensicalness of that mantra is pointed out, the better.



    those have a higher rate of home ownership instead of renters and would screw up their predetermined results



    The affordability score here is (Housing + Transportation) / Income. This article talks a lot about Housing and Transportation, and nothing about Income. NYC doesn’t come out near the top because of its low housing or transportation costs, but because of its high incomes. Even the $51K median NYC income is far higher than most of the rest of the country. Similarly, Riverside comes out very low on affordability in spite of its low housing costs because there are no jobs nearby, and incomes are very low. It’s not so much a bedroom community with long commutes, as it is a dumping ground for the poor who have few other options.

    My guess is that income is the most important factor in evaluating the affordability of a region. Or put another way: people living in wealthy cities tend to pay more for housing than people living in poor cities, but they’re still better off and have an easier life.



    In defense of finance, Wall Street as a financial center dates back to the eighteenth century. How is it less a part of American history than the Main Street of car dealerships and lawnmower repair shops you’re referring to?

    How do most Americans buy their cars, by the way, and how do states finance their road- and school-building?

    I’m also very wary of getting into the makers-v-takers argument I think you may be suggesting. Just the idea makes me deeply uncomfortable. People claiming mortgage interest deductions on their tax returns for $75 billion a year; seniors receiving more in social security than they paid into the system; are they who you mean by the “very large percentage of the country needing a government check to get by”?

    But in terms of driving decreasing into a death spiral… it’s an interesting scenario. As someone who doesn’t drive much, I would be thrilled to quit supporting car-only road systems with my taxes. (Yes, I can and do vote with this in mind). I am completely happy to pay for the cost of transporting goods when I order them online or buy them from a local store, and to pay for what I use in terms of toll roads, train tickets, transit, parking, etc. To the extent that Streetsblog and communities work on projects to implement complete streets or road diets, it’s my understanding the goals are 1) to make the roads safer; 2) to have driving costs absorb slightly more of the negative externalities; 3) to make modes like biking, walking, and transit even possible on certain routes



    The federal gas tax is not indexed to inflation. It’s static. As the fed creates new money, the value of what they collect goes down in real terms. Perhaps you’ve noticed the increases in raw materials, energy, etc that drive the costs in numerical dollars?

    Of course not. That would require you actually study instead of cheering for a political team.



    Of course the transit er ‘smart transportation’ folks ignore the economy’s real condition. That’s why I commented on this article in the first place, because the streetsblog author ignored it. DUH!

    Instead of doing a circle jerk among the like minded, why not look at actual wages, jobs, you know, the things that show how much money people really have to spend. Check to see if their blather has anything behind it.

    My cites are up thread. I can have more if you want, and unlike you, I can vary the sources. What the hell, here’s participation rate in the labor force:

    Oh there’s no economic reason why people are driving less… except not having a job to drive to.



    Does it look at just the city or the entire metro region? You’d want to include suburbs to get a complete picture.



    Well if you consider that wages have been in near lock down for years, yet (not counting the burst bubble) housing costs keep rising may have some effect on the figures.



    “the report didn’t include Midwestern cities known for both low housing
    costs and lower transportation costs, like Minneapolis and Pittsburgh,
    the overall picture is alarming.”
    And there’s the answer to the headline.



    We need to see the data on a more regional basis. Like how would the affordability be effected by the distance from an employer. Real estate has long said drive as far as you can afford but people never account for travel expenses.



    for one thing, the study seems to be missing some cities



    Would it kill journalists to look at the economics of transit rather than to just believe the Gospel of Enrique Pen?alosa? They compare capital costs, and completely ignore buses’ permanent upfront higher operating costs. Heck, that buses have shorter service lives than rail even implies that capital costs are higher than a mere upfront comparison suggests. Bogota labor is presumably cheaper than first world labor, so they can eat these higher operating costs, and come out ahead for eschewing significantly higher capital costs that may even have to be financed in a foreign currency. This should be pretty “duh” stuff for anyone with a cursory knowledge of business or economics journalism.

    Buses are always going to be a piece of the transit landscape but, no, they are not uniform “the future of urban transit” anymore than dollar vans are. A good idea in Bogota is not necessarily a good idea in New York or Berlin.


    Sunny Mathew

    I’m amazed, I have to say. Really rarely ever do I face a blog that’s equally educative and entertaining, and enable me notify you, you might have hit the nail on the head. Your concept is excellent the issue is something that not sufficient people are talking intelligently about. I am very joyful that I stumbled throughout this in my look for for some thing referring to this.

    Affordable Driving School
    Driving School in Sunnyvale
    Driving School in Gilroy Driving



    That could be a map of Buffalo, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago, or Milwaukee, same for almost every other American city. It’s a result of hate and fear, but considered normal.

    So black folks are confined to the “slave quarters” far away from the big house, or caged or shackled in a prison-for-profit facility. God’s in His Heaven, all’s right with the world.



    False premise. Driving didn’t decline simply because people didn’t have the money to drive. There’s much more to it than that.

    “Unlike other past dips in driving, this recent downward shift has had no clear, lasting connection to economic trends or gas prices. Evidence suggests that the decline is likely due to changing demographics, saturated highways, and a rising preference for compact, mixed-use neighborhoods, which reduce the need for driving.”

    “Variations in the economy do not appear to be responsible for variations in the trends in driving among urbanized areas. In fact, the economies of urban areas with large declines in driving have been less affected by the recession according to unemployment and poverty indicators.”

    “As previously noted, fuel prices seem to have little relationship with VMT, and the trend toward lower levels of driving has persisted through economic prosperity, recession and recovery.”

    “”When people dismiss it, they say ‘it’s the economy.’ But if that was the case, you’d expect states hit the hardest by the economy to have reduced driving the most. That’s not at all the case.”



    Yeah, it’s all the government’s fault.

    The Highway Trust Fund would be fine.

    We need to spend less on alternative transportation and transit.

    Am I reading MAD Magazine?



    Chuck Marohn had some interesting and insightful comments about this problem in Ferguson, Missouri (where Michael Brown was shot, of course):



    What do you mean they can’t do research?

    By age group. Includes homicide firearm and suicide firearm numbers. Some age groups homicide firearm+suicide is higher than unintentional MV traffic, some the reverse.



    18266 number is for those aged 5-34. 8500 is for those 8500 is only for those aged 15-24.



    Unintentional injury includes “MV traffic. For example 874 unintentional injury deaths among 10-14 year olds in 2011. 437 were from MV traffic

    In the 15-24 year old range 6926 deaths from unintentional MV traffic. 3825 homicide firearm. 2168 suicide firearm. 5993 from guns total.



    Seriously, this is what SFMTA and the city and county of San Francisco should do when it comes to building new cycling infrastructure or hosting public meetings. If the Seattle DOT can think outside of the box and host meetings right on the proposal sites why can’t SFMTA?????? Instead of doing the traditional wasteful methods of regular public meetings where people have only an uninformed or misinformed myopic, obtuse or even a narrow minded sense of the proposals, why not do them at the site where people will have a better understanding as one can visualize more easily of the vision thus building a positive consensus and support. Now I understand that the tight schedule and the need to meet deadlines as well as the will to accelerate this project because it’s a high priority are the reasons why it came to be, but this should be standard and the norm, for DOTs when it comes to visualizing transportation improvements especially building better biking infrastructure, more planners should do this and host meetings at the site. This should be common practice



    For 2011 (latest numbers available) you have 13705 deaths for motor vehicle collisions and 20638 for homicide and suicide combined. Of course the CDC isn’t really allowed to do research on gun deaths specifically, so it’s hard to say how many of the suicides and homicides would count as “gun violence.” Anyways, both the numbers of deaths from traffic and other violence are shockingly high, and it’s great that Safe Routes is going to tackle them both, especially as there seem to be some links between the two.


    Kenny Easwaran

    Presumably gun violence includes a majority of homicide and also a majority of suicide. It’s hard to tell though whether the numbers do work out to put gun violence over traffic violence even if you combine these sources. (They seem to be broken out differently for different age groups in that particular link.)



    Blah blah blah…. same old propaganda. Do you have an argument of your own to make or are you just going to repeat the party line of excuses to go after drivers? I already know the party line and have dealt with it elsewhere on this site and other places. It’s tiresome and boring. Not only that, the language just goes after strawmen with notions of the road system looking like it did for 50 years. It’s just not worth my time again.

    But since we’re going off on tangents, you mentioned mortgaging the future. Why not focus yourself against the federal reserve, the too big too fail, wall street, etc? That’s where the future got mortgaged. Not someone driving to work.

    Our capital ‘investments’ are greatly skewed in the direction people spent their money individually. That’s why transit and other government programs go after drivers. That’s where the money has been for decades. Now people are running out of money. Government funneled it to 0.01% through monetary policy and other riggings of the economy. It sucked the future’s wealth to yesterday. We’ve arrived at the future and there’s nothing here.

    BTW, The highway trust fund would be just fine without monetary inflation, diversions for the police state, transit, graft, corruption, mismanagement, cronyism, etc. Not to mention other factors due to the government interfering into the economy so that we’ve arrived at future where the wealth was sucked out to juice the numbers in the past.



    Passenger cars (even passenger light trucks) have nearly zero impact to road life. Large trucks, buses, etc do almost all the wear and tear.

    For the sake of argument, even though everything I know is to disagree, I will accept the idea that transit is more efficient for the sake of argument, but the problem is that cost efficiency if it exists, comes at a total cost comparison over a desired inflexible route. This ultimately means closing the funding gap will have to come in the form of fares. But driving decreased because people didn’t have the money for it, so how are they going to pay the fares?



    Typical of this blog to use bogus stats.



    Not true. From the CDC again, the leading cause of death for people in the United States ages 5-34 is from car accidents: While 18,226 people in that age group died in motor vehicle crashes, less than half that, 8,500 died from Homicide.



    Traffic violence is not that big a factor for younger age groups. You can find the numbers here:


    Jonathan R

    I recall looking into this and discovering that gun homicides plus gun suicides was a distressingly large number, larger than traffic deaths.


    Kevin Love

    ” In 2015, gun violence will be leading cause of death for Millennials.”

    Source? When did gun violence take over from traffic violence as the leading cause of death?



    Sharing rides is working together. S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M.

    The GOP’s attempts to attract young people and Latinos are always comical. Like, hey, we just mortgaged your future/deported your family. But look here, we like something really minor and unimportant that you can agree with.


    Jeff Redding

    The FDOT maintains Bee Ridge Road in Sarasota, I don’t know about Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa.

    The FDOT and DOT FWHA have said lamp posts can be on the sidewalk as long as there is at least a 36″ clearance for wheelchair access.

    However, I believe they are using an ADA Law granting wheelchair access on narrow sidewalks as justivication to obstruct the middle of a normal width sidewalk,. They are circumventing DOT FWHA Above Ground Utility Structure Placement Standards and Sidewalk Width Standards which govern the obstruction of sidewalks.

    I think the County, FDOT, and State are wrong legally obstructing sidewalks. Residents and Businesses are not allowed to obstruct a sidewalk but the FDOT thinks they are above the law.

    As a Disabled Veteran it is an insult to my service to use the ADA to actually justify obstructing a sidewalk. The ADA is meant to grant access, not obstruct access.

    After doing a Google search about Florida Corruption and the FDOT I finally understood more why they act like the money would come from their own pockets to remove pedestrian right of way obstructions.

    It is difficult to find an Attorney willintg to sue the FDOT because the FDOT has about 75 full time lawyers on staff. I sure wish they would spend a little of their 8 Billion Dollar yearly budge to relocate pedestrian right of way obstructions, even if they were the ones who placed the obstructions.

    It is all about money. Poor people, the elderly, and disabled veterans don’t have a say. We are just tax burdens who are hated by our Tea Party Government Officials.



    “Not to mention the punitive measures being done to make it more expensive.”

    Why is making driving increasingly reflective of the public costs associated with it punitive? Vehicle owners have been on a multi-decade joy ride. The lights in the rear-view mirror are closing fast and the gig is up. However, we’re hitting the accelerator to get away rather than braking and pulling over to face the music.

    It’s a perverse OJ Simpson chase scene where the longer we endeavor to elude our future, the worse that future outlook becomes; in our case, the glove fits.

    We’re guilty.

    Guilty of harming the present. Guilty of mortgaging the future. Guilty of making the same types of investments over and over again while expecting to cultivate different outcomes.

    The Highway Trust Fund is insolvent. General Fund revenues are being diverted to prop it up. We already have the most complete road network on the planet, yet it can take up to 2.5 hours to travel six or seven miles by transit. People are being killed walking and biking. We live in a designated non-attainment area for air quality.

    Our major capital investments are severely skewed in favor incremental highway capacity and construction of new highways.

    No, our road network does not need to look and function the same it has for over 50 years. That notion is both outdated and absurd.

    The movement of goods and people is not reliant on the presence of ever-expanding roads and highways. Rather, we need innovative ideas and investments that – for the first time in recent history – promote compact development, encourage walking and biking, and connect people to their destinations by transit.

    The myopic focus on roads as the end-all, do-all for urban life is highly deleterious to our communities, our people, and our economy.

    The King has no clothes.

    Even OJ pulled over eventually.


    Jake Wegmann

    Wouldn’t a light pole placed smack-dab in the middle of a narrow sidewalk so as to render it unusable for whole categories of (vulnerable) people violate some sort of standard? ADA at the very least, right?

    Not trying to doubt what you’re saying in any way– you obviously know of what you speak. Just trying to understand how we got to this status quo that seems to fly in the face of basic common sense.


    stephen e hansen

    milloy has baited on race for decades, that’s his meal ticket. for him, killing a biker is killing a rich young honky. the bay area would never tolerate a ‘columnist’ like him. or stanford to be particular.



    Driving will decrease only slowly, it is a viable funding source for at least a couple decades. In operation it allows certain efficiencies over personal vehicles that can allow for lower costs than is currently needed for transportation. Can is the operative word, as it depends on politics as much as anything else.

    In cities it would be feasible, though it would add to shipping costs, to transfer goods from heavy trucks or rail to smaller vehicles for last mile deliveries. This is already done to some extent, reducing vehicle size to a few thousands pounds in some cases would be possible. Getting the cars off the road would let the road last longer and allow freight to move faster and more efficiently.



    Defensive engineering. Courts are not experts, when an engineer is sued for liability due to a design decision, courts will go to standards as basic expertise. The result is that it is safer for engineers to follow an erroneous standard than it is to try an alternative design that makes more sense.

    Liability cases are one of the rare cases where “but… everyone was doing it!” is actually a defense.