With Governer Diamond Jim Doyle, the Democrats and President Barack Obama pushing hard for more and more mass transit these days, it is surprising that it has taken the media until today to even mention the risks involved with diseases spreading through trains and subways.
It’s logical though, we spend all day at work with one group of people and share air/diseases, if we were to all ride to work together in high speed trains and live together in high rises, we are far more susceptible to diseases that spread like Swine Flu. Now, you never heard that from people like President Barack Obama or Governor Doyle, but it certainly holds true. It took a gaffe from the oft-ridiculed VP Joe Biden to bring it to light when he made this statement about the risks involved:
“Vice president Joe Biden said today he would tell his family members not to use subways in the U.S. and implied schools should be shuttered as the swine flu outbreak spread to 11 states. His remarks quickly caused a stir, leading his own office to issue a clarifying statement and drawing a rebuke from New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.”
I am not saying that in some cases mass transit isn’t a necessary and positive thing, there are just risks involved and, in order to mitigate these risks, we should never desert or cease funding our road and highway infrastructure in favor of mass transit (like Seattle has done by not significantly increasing road or highway capacity in recent years).
Last 5 posts by Brandon- The Graphic Effect of High Taxes and Spending, Move on out! - June 16th, 2010
- Live from the 2010 Wisconsin GOP Convention - May 22nd, 2010
- Republican Party of Wisconsin State Convention 2010 - May 21st, 2010
- Charts: Artificial American Recovery? - April 15th, 2010
- Liberal Professor to Teach FUELMilwaukee "Government 101" - April 14th, 2010
Tags: Governor Doyle, highways, mass transit, roads, swine flu
You cannot be serious.
The same is true for any place where people congregate in close proximity–planes, concerts, sporting events, and church. Let’s all just stay home, watch tv, and buy things off the internet. Then we’ll be safe.
In times like these, they are closing schools and sporting events in some areas. All I am doing is exposing the risks that our train-obsessed leaders will not. We need strong strategies for all types of transportation.
In todays Sanitized society, there is no doubt that disease will be a problem… no one is immune to anything anymore.
Not seeing where your argument is… High Speed rail is much cheaper than highways and much faster (for $2 billion that Gov Doyle is spending on I-94 from Milw to Illinois, high speed rail could be built between Chicago and the Twin Cities with money to spare). Although GOP3 has in the past written unsupportive articles to mass transit, its important to pursue mass transit yet not restrict people’s freedoms of choice of transportation. People will always pick the fastest easiest route…
Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States — one death every 13 minutes.
SPET3R,
I definitely respect a good cost argument, especially from a frequent commenter and a friend like you however, I disagree with your cost statements. Here is some solid research on the topic:
“The Cost of Rail
“As America’s largest city without rail transit, some people want San Antonio to “keep up” by building light rail. You need to know only one thing: Light rail is really expensive.
I mean, really, really expensive. The average mile of light-rail line costs two to five times as much as an urban freeway lane-mile. Yet in 2007 the average light-rail line carried less than one-seventh as many people as the average freeway lane-mile in cities with light rail.
Do the math: Light rail costs 14 to 35 times as much to move people as highways.
…
How successful is light rail? In 1980, before Portland began building light rail, 9.8 percent of the region’s commuters took transit to work. Today, it is 7.6 percent.
Since 1980, Portland has spent more than $2.3 billion, half the region’s transportation capital funds, building light rail. Yet light rail carries less than 1 percent of Portland-area travel. That’s a success?
…
Is light rail good for the environment? Hardly. Dallas and Denver light-rail lines consume about as much energy and emit about as much greenhouse gases per passenger mile as the average SUV.
…
Taxpayers lose because their money is wasted on rail when buses could do the same thing for less. Transit riders lose when transit agencies cut bus service to pay for rail. Commuters lose when money spent on rail, which does nothing to relieve congestion, delays projects that actually can reduce congestion.”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9958
Ian,
Yes, there are alot of car accidents, why? Because alot of people drive cars. Mass transit trips account for less than 10% of total trips taken in the US, hence, car travel accidents account for 90% of total accidents. It is not enough to just quote car accident statistics, more is needed.
Thanks for your readership!
Brandon
The reason Portland’s commuter rail system isn’t successful is because it doesn’t go anywhere people want to go and there probably isn’t any demand for it in a city like Portland. They are so liberal there they probably couldn’t reason it. They probably have Green Tree emblems on the side of their cars and locomotives… Its Oregon, they couldn’t keep NIKE an all American Company because they’re so liberal.
Now… back on track… The cost to lay new rail, ties, and grade road bed is about $1.5 million a mile… thats if no road bed or track currently exists. That will build a route that is good for 110 mph. Between Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, and the Twin Cities there are hundreds of miles of existing right away so the cost will decrease (not to mention 60 years ago some railroads ran at 110mph on track you see now… maintained of course).
To rebuild I-94 for only 60 miles its $2 billion… For $2 billion, a high speed rail line can be built between Chicago and the Twin Cities with money left over (spread $2,000,000 a mile— lets build really good track— over roughly 400 miles that would be $800,000,000)
Stations, equipment, and compensation to get it started that would be about another $500,000,000– Turbo Diesel locomotives, lets say $4 million each– lets buy a two dozen $86 million…. passenger cars run around $500,000–12 cars per set would be $6million, Stations depending on size average between $10-20mil for larger stations, under a million for smaller stations)– eh, lets say it will be $200,000,000 for the structures.
I figure less than $2 billion for 110mph, and it would be possible to get from Chicago to the Twin Cities in under 400 minutes by just hopping on a train. Increase the speed by adding cantilever electrical line down the road– now we can go up to 250 mph. That would be progress and put I-94 and regional air service between those cities out of business.