Parity for Mass Transit

\ 1 Comment \ by

The buzz on gas prices has people rethinking the way they travel. USA Today recently reported record breaking public transit ridership based on a study by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). For the months of January through March 2008 ridership increased 10% when compared to the same months in 2007. And while many riders are making the switch due to rising fuel prices, many of them stick to public transit for its “service and convenience,” according to Linda Robson of Seattle’s Sound Transit. For riders fortunate enough to live and work near major bus and rail lines, the shift makes a lot of sense.

But how many people really have this good fortune? According to the 2006 US census, only about 1 in 5 households. The logical solution: Make bus and rail lines more extensive. The bleak reality: No one wants to pay for it.

Enviroblog, “Public funds for public transport,” Jorg Etilico, July 3, 2008

Here’s a remarkable fact, from the The Northeast-Midwest Institute: “Highways get approximately $30 billion from the federal government in the Highway Trust Fund alone, while railway funding at best is $1 billion from all sources, for all purposes.”

Now try to image if we could insist on parity– if we spend $30 billion on highways and bridges, then we must also spend $30 billion on mass transit, including Amtrak. We need the jobs, we need the bridges fixed, and we need to change how we use energy. It seems like a no-brainer.

Actually, more personally, I am sick of dealing with airports whenever I want to travel to Louisiana and Texas to see my family. I would be happy to spend a day and a half on a train each way, twice a year, especially if there was a sleeper car and wireless access.

[This note comes from Amanda, at Enviroblog: “One thing — the post’s photo was by Jorg Elitico. The post itself was by our intern Sameem. Sorry for the confusion!”

Thanks! — Ray]

Posted in: Autobiographical, Economics, Writing

HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst

\ Leave a Comment \ by

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst, Robert S. McElvaine, April 1, 2008

This is old news by internet standards, but I am fascinated as much by the argument– which is specific and detailed and, finally, persuasive– as by the comments. The article is worth reading because it suggests the outlines of how reason might be returned to the public debate over politics.

I included the above comment from one of the surveyed historians because it neatly summarizes the criteria that underlies the assessment. An effective president should mute if not nullify capital, encourage rationality and scientific inquiry, and build the economic base.

I did not check all of the comments, but I doubt there is anyone willing to argue that the Bush administration fought for labor, nurtured the growth of knowledge, and created a thriving economy. At best, the argument is that he “did what he had to do” to fight terrorism.

The comments are interesting because the arguments against the survey’s conclusions reflect exactly the distorted political culture cultivated by the Bush administration. The goal of the anti-survey comments, in other words, is to shift the argument away from the criteria and towards the historians.

Ironically, these arguments reflect exactly the worst sort of bad-faith partisan arguments that the right wing so often attributes to academia. I think this “duck the issue” rhetoric is the best indication that the historians are on the right track. I doubt Bush will look any better in 50 years.

Posted in: Economics, Language, Online Places, Professional, War, Writing

Class and Broadband

\ Leave a Comment \ by

While most schools in the United States (in fact, 98 percent) have basic Internet access, for many that access is cripplingly slow–too slow to accommodate technology-driven educational initiatives–according to a new report from the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA). The group is recommending certain baseline figures for adequate bandwidth for schools and proposing policy changes to effect upgrades over the next five to seven years.

SETDA, an education technology advocacy group based in Maryland, released its report, High-Speed Broadband Access for All Kids: Breaking Through the Barriers, to call attention to the “critical” issue of broadband access in schools and to get stakeholders prepared to achieve growth in the quality of broadband that schools need in order to take technology-based learning to the next level.

Dave Nagel, Tech Association Calls for Greater Broadband Access for Schools, the Journal, June 2008

This is a report that I wanted to note even though I don’t have much to add. It seems like more of the same. I think, though, that we can’t be reminded often enough that whenever we hear about a problem, say, the lack of funding for public schools, the impact is always shaped by class.

I am reminded of this each time I read a piece celebrating Web 2.0. There was a nice reflection on talking with students about these sorts of issues earlier this month at the Education and Class blog. I liked the excerpt from Borderland, as well as the comment from Urban Scientist.

Posted in: Composition, Economics, Language, Writing