I've heard that self-driving cars in simulations hit people on bicycles 25% of the time. That is... Not good. Until self-driving cars can deal with pedestrians and cyclists a hell of a lot better, I just don't see it.
Not sure I agree that transit is so locally-centered as you state. FRA, FTA, even FHWA grant programs drive a lot of local initiatives and federal money pays the lion's share of any construction, just as with highways. Day-to-day ops are more locally-centered, sure, but the feds have a huge role.
There was a plan to replace the highway bridge between Oregon & Washington that was going to be funded by FTA money! (Was going to include a light rail line; fell apart bc Washington couldn't appropriate its share). Additionally, DOT allocates "private activity bonds" that can be used for infrastructure projects at muni rates. These bonds are financing the Brightline FL and Vegas projects.
As a Pete skeptic in general (basically because he went to Harvard and somehow doesn't hate it) I like him for this gig. It could really use some technocracy, frankly. And speaks well of Biden to slot him into a good fit.
I lived in Vancouver, Canada for many years. Excellent public transportation, a combination of buses, light rail, and foot passenger ferries that are all part of the network. The same fare ticket will let you transfer among them as necessary. My sons and numerous friends live or have lived in the city without owning a vehicle. Car co-ops are available for those times you want or need a car 👌
After reading many research studies and conducting some of my own, the first issue of concern with low- and middle-income US residents who don’t live on the coasts is affordable housing. The second issue is transportation. While many low-income residents live in the cities, the jobs are in the suburbs and transportation to those jobs is only available to those who have a car. I believe that as the mayor of a Midwestern declining industrial city, Buttigieg will bring a problem-solving knowledge of this issue on a smaller scale, as well as a knowledge of the mass transit speed rail focus that those who live on the coasts think is the solution to all transportation problems.
I'm sort of disappointed about the speculation for the motives of the criticism of Buttigieg. If the criticism is right or wrong, it's right or wrong regardless of the motivation.
My hottest take is that it's probably more important that the Secretary of X be good at delegating and synthesizing feedback from the people under them than that they be a subject matter expert at X. Steve Chu was a perfectly forgettable Secretary of Energy with a Nobel Prize in Physics.
"Fresh faces who know how to be interesting while also knowing how to read public opinion surveys are exactly what the country needs."
Lol that was just mean. (David Frum called it "cleverly subversive." I thought it was more straightforward than that!)
Great read. Actually, I like the format. Lots of good thinking, but ditches the transitional phrases, etc. Efficient use of links. Who needs paragraphs?
I would add that if you see DoT as doing important work, it's useful if morale is great in that organization. I have to imagine that the employees at DoT are excited that -- for once -- they're going to be led by a superstar who will attract enormous attention.
Pete doesn't need to be a transportation expert. He just needs to understand and push the big goals, and create the internal and external energy that will allow the DoT experts to have an impact.
For me it's the scheduling issue -- I knew if I had missed the light rail but not the bus because there was no expected time at my stop. And because the train didn't have to travel in traffic, it was very reliable. I guess now there are apps that tell you where the buses are and if they are coming and so it would be less of an issue, but bus service is infrequent enough that it still feels like it would be hard to get to work on time consistently.
If by "people" we are talking about white "progressives," I think it's the association with poor people (and people of color). In the suburbs, there's the bus or there's your own car. In the city, there's the train, but the city is dominated by the wealthy, so it's OK; busses are for tourists.
As a person who grew up on busses and lives by trains today, I can tell you it's much nicer to see the outside world during a commute than it is to see the inside of a tunnel.
I think that point about the bus jostling is also an interesting one. My guess is that if you had a paved road that nothing other than the bus was on, and spent as much maintaining it as you *have* to do with steel rails (for safety reasons - derailment is very bad), then the bus would be just as smooth as the steel on steel. I think some of the metro trains in Montreal and Paris actually do run with rubber tires on concrete in their subway tunnels rather than steel tires on steel tracks, and you wouldn't know the difference from inside.
We really need to get going on solid-state batteries because China is investing heavily in this technology and the US needs to make sure we won't be beholden to them when the world starts to accept this technology as economically feasible.
I don’t think this is a bad pick, but I have a different thesis on why people hate him: aesthetics. I think people try to make up substantive reasons to hate him when in reality they are actually annoyed with his tendency to always talk in a kind of overly polished rhetorical style that seems self-aggrandizing.
My hunch is if he talked a little more like a normal person trying to do a job: “Wow I’m excited to figure out how to make transportation cheaper, we spend way more than other countries and I have been hoping for a chance to prove myself to fix something this big” rather than like the leader of some grand movement “There is no greater source in professional life than the chance to serve others. I felt it every time I laced up my boots in the military. I felt it every day serving my community as mayor. And I feel it now joining this historic team” (Actual tweet of his), people would be less annoyed.
I align with him a lot on most of his policy stuff but the way he talks is fucking annoying. Like, if you meet people who kind of talk about their work like that you’d roll your eyes.
I don’t know if that’s a generational thing and older people still get inspired by that, but I think our age cohort (I’m in my early 30s) kind of infers someone is full of themselves.
I don't find Hillary Clinton self-aggrandizing, but I find her manner of speech really irritating. (And no, not because she was always "screaming" or whatever.) She talks like a lawyer. A lawyer who is not a politician. Her attack-oriented written speeches were brilliant and brilliantly delivered, but anything even remotely unscripted was just ugh. Always hedging somehow. And would it kill her to throw in some "folks"? No wonder the campaigns to demonize her as having something to hide were so successful (putting aside pure sexism).
Wonderful. Esp clarity re Dems (stuck-ish v clueless). From someone who's parents are one, and college aged kids the other, and living in the middle. Thank you.
I hope this is obvious to everyone, but it just can’t be stressed heavily enough that social media performative Pete-hatred does not actually mean that the left hates Pete. Twitter is not the real world. When you walk around on the street and have (outside, socially distant) dinner with your friends, the conversations around politics bear almost no resemblance to the conversations around politics on twitter and reddit. Those forums are a good place to try out snarky comments and engage in vigorous internet debate with strangers, but aren't at all a reliable indicator of the political winds.
It's definitely true that Twitter hate for Pete doesn't translate to widespread hate for Pete. But when the question is whether or not "the left" hates Pete, then there's a real question about what one means by "the left". I think there's a good case that the Twitter group can make to represent "the left" more than the broad group of liberals that like Democrats and hate Republicans (though it's certainly not an open and shut case).
Agreed wholeheartedly. I tried to be on Twitter 3 times since 2009. I lasted about two months each time before I bailed. I'm out permanently. The right may have its pissed off old white guys, but the left has its share of "Know-it-all Bros." Can't take either one. Never joined FaceBook and Instagram, because Zuckerberg. This forum gives me a chance to read posts from (mostly) thoughtful people connected to Matt's blogs on specific topics. For me, a much better choice.
I've heard that self-driving cars in simulations hit people on bicycles 25% of the time. That is... Not good. Until self-driving cars can deal with pedestrians and cyclists a hell of a lot better, I just don't see it.
Not sure I agree that transit is so locally-centered as you state. FRA, FTA, even FHWA grant programs drive a lot of local initiatives and federal money pays the lion's share of any construction, just as with highways. Day-to-day ops are more locally-centered, sure, but the feds have a huge role.
There was a plan to replace the highway bridge between Oregon & Washington that was going to be funded by FTA money! (Was going to include a light rail line; fell apart bc Washington couldn't appropriate its share). Additionally, DOT allocates "private activity bonds" that can be used for infrastructure projects at muni rates. These bonds are financing the Brightline FL and Vegas projects.
As a Pete skeptic in general (basically because he went to Harvard and somehow doesn't hate it) I like him for this gig. It could really use some technocracy, frankly. And speaks well of Biden to slot him into a good fit.
I lived in Vancouver, Canada for many years. Excellent public transportation, a combination of buses, light rail, and foot passenger ferries that are all part of the network. The same fare ticket will let you transfer among them as necessary. My sons and numerous friends live or have lived in the city without owning a vehicle. Car co-ops are available for those times you want or need a car 👌
After reading many research studies and conducting some of my own, the first issue of concern with low- and middle-income US residents who don’t live on the coasts is affordable housing. The second issue is transportation. While many low-income residents live in the cities, the jobs are in the suburbs and transportation to those jobs is only available to those who have a car. I believe that as the mayor of a Midwestern declining industrial city, Buttigieg will bring a problem-solving knowledge of this issue on a smaller scale, as well as a knowledge of the mass transit speed rail focus that those who live on the coasts think is the solution to all transportation problems.
I'm sort of disappointed about the speculation for the motives of the criticism of Buttigieg. If the criticism is right or wrong, it's right or wrong regardless of the motivation.
My hottest take is that it's probably more important that the Secretary of X be good at delegating and synthesizing feedback from the people under them than that they be a subject matter expert at X. Steve Chu was a perfectly forgettable Secretary of Energy with a Nobel Prize in Physics.
"Fresh faces who know how to be interesting while also knowing how to read public opinion surveys are exactly what the country needs."
Lol that was just mean. (David Frum called it "cleverly subversive." I thought it was more straightforward than that!)
Great read. Actually, I like the format. Lots of good thinking, but ditches the transitional phrases, etc. Efficient use of links. Who needs paragraphs?
I would add that if you see DoT as doing important work, it's useful if morale is great in that organization. I have to imagine that the employees at DoT are excited that -- for once -- they're going to be led by a superstar who will attract enormous attention.
Pete doesn't need to be a transportation expert. He just needs to understand and push the big goals, and create the internal and external energy that will allow the DoT experts to have an impact.
are there any transit dorks who have a theory of why a lot of people don't like buses but do like subways?
some would say:
- classism -- buses perceived as being for poor people.
- scheduling, unreliability
- slowed down by car traffic
- having to wait in bad weather vs. underground stations
I think all of these can sometimes apply to subways too, though, and people still seem to prefer subways.
My own theory is that a bus jostles you around more and makes you very slightly carsick, and people dislike this even if it's not conscious.
For me it's the scheduling issue -- I knew if I had missed the light rail but not the bus because there was no expected time at my stop. And because the train didn't have to travel in traffic, it was very reliable. I guess now there are apps that tell you where the buses are and if they are coming and so it would be less of an issue, but bus service is infrequent enough that it still feels like it would be hard to get to work on time consistently.
If by "people" we are talking about white "progressives," I think it's the association with poor people (and people of color). In the suburbs, there's the bus or there's your own car. In the city, there's the train, but the city is dominated by the wealthy, so it's OK; busses are for tourists.
As a person who grew up on busses and lives by trains today, I can tell you it's much nicer to see the outside world during a commute than it is to see the inside of a tunnel.
I think that point about the bus jostling is also an interesting one. My guess is that if you had a paved road that nothing other than the bus was on, and spent as much maintaining it as you *have* to do with steel rails (for safety reasons - derailment is very bad), then the bus would be just as smooth as the steel on steel. I think some of the metro trains in Montreal and Paris actually do run with rubber tires on concrete in their subway tunnels rather than steel tires on steel tracks, and you wouldn't know the difference from inside.
In any case, Jarrett Walker writes a lot about this modal preference people often seem to have: https://humantransit.org/2011/03/rail-bus-differences-contd.html
We really need to get going on solid-state batteries because China is investing heavily in this technology and the US needs to make sure we won't be beholden to them when the world starts to accept this technology as economically feasible.
Ray LaHood, not Roy.
I don’t think this is a bad pick, but I have a different thesis on why people hate him: aesthetics. I think people try to make up substantive reasons to hate him when in reality they are actually annoyed with his tendency to always talk in a kind of overly polished rhetorical style that seems self-aggrandizing.
My hunch is if he talked a little more like a normal person trying to do a job: “Wow I’m excited to figure out how to make transportation cheaper, we spend way more than other countries and I have been hoping for a chance to prove myself to fix something this big” rather than like the leader of some grand movement “There is no greater source in professional life than the chance to serve others. I felt it every time I laced up my boots in the military. I felt it every day serving my community as mayor. And I feel it now joining this historic team” (Actual tweet of his), people would be less annoyed.
I align with him a lot on most of his policy stuff but the way he talks is fucking annoying. Like, if you meet people who kind of talk about their work like that you’d roll your eyes.
I don’t know if that’s a generational thing and older people still get inspired by that, but I think our age cohort (I’m in my early 30s) kind of infers someone is full of themselves.
I don't find Hillary Clinton self-aggrandizing, but I find her manner of speech really irritating. (And no, not because she was always "screaming" or whatever.) She talks like a lawyer. A lawyer who is not a politician. Her attack-oriented written speeches were brilliant and brilliantly delivered, but anything even remotely unscripted was just ugh. Always hedging somehow. And would it kill her to throw in some "folks"? No wonder the campaigns to demonize her as having something to hide were so successful (putting aside pure sexism).
Wonderful. Esp clarity re Dems (stuck-ish v clueless). From someone who's parents are one, and college aged kids the other, and living in the middle. Thank you.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-deciding-decade-with-pete-buttigieg/id1525423535?i=1000502554240
Interesting convo between Hillary and Pete where they get a bit in the weeds on federal transportation policy
"group of young, dynamic leftists who are wildly out of touch with political reality. "
ouch. sub-blogging AOC
Yeah I winced at that too. With a smile though.
I hope this is obvious to everyone, but it just can’t be stressed heavily enough that social media performative Pete-hatred does not actually mean that the left hates Pete. Twitter is not the real world. When you walk around on the street and have (outside, socially distant) dinner with your friends, the conversations around politics bear almost no resemblance to the conversations around politics on twitter and reddit. Those forums are a good place to try out snarky comments and engage in vigorous internet debate with strangers, but aren't at all a reliable indicator of the political winds.
Isn't this how Biden won the primary? By realizing that Twitter isn't real life?
It's definitely true that Twitter hate for Pete doesn't translate to widespread hate for Pete. But when the question is whether or not "the left" hates Pete, then there's a real question about what one means by "the left". I think there's a good case that the Twitter group can make to represent "the left" more than the broad group of liberals that like Democrats and hate Republicans (though it's certainly not an open and shut case).
Agreed wholeheartedly. I tried to be on Twitter 3 times since 2009. I lasted about two months each time before I bailed. I'm out permanently. The right may have its pissed off old white guys, but the left has its share of "Know-it-all Bros." Can't take either one. Never joined FaceBook and Instagram, because Zuckerberg. This forum gives me a chance to read posts from (mostly) thoughtful people connected to Matt's blogs on specific topics. For me, a much better choice.