Showing posts with label transportation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transportation. Show all posts

Monday, June 1, 2015

Taxpayers fly coach ~ Politicians fly style

From the files of Michael Shannon at the Whole Shebang (mostly)

Finally "bi–partisan" legislation that's not a sellout to leftist extremists by collaborationist GOP leadership!

Republican Paul Gosar is and Democrat Raul Ruiz have introduced legislation in the House to prohibit congressmen and senators from flying first class on the taxpayer's dime.

Instead, if the potentates want to be in first they will foot the bill themselves, an entirely alien concept to most of the members.

Of course the legislation has no chance of passage, but it makes a great question to ask at the next town meeting your representative and senators hold.

Read the complete details in the Shannon column at Newsmax.
_____________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now


Sunday, March 8, 2015

Keolis agreed to high not impossible standards

From the Files of Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe

The MBTA's commuter rail service was all but paralyzed by the record-busting snowstorms
that his Greater Boston in January and February. Here, a commuter rail train on the
Newburyport line travels through Ipswich in February
.

When the French transit company Keolis landed an eight-year contract in January 2014 to operate commuter rail for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the deal was hailed by "T" general manager Beverly Scott for its stringent "no-excuses expectation that the operator will run the trains on time."

"No excuses" promptly became a catchphrase, invoked repeatedly over the past year whenever Keolis and its performance have been in the spotlight. A Nexis search yields dozens of news stories referring to the "no-excuses contract" the company signed.

As commuter service all but collapsed under the crippling snowstorms that hit Greater Boston this winter, the state's new transportation secretary, Stephanie Pollack, bluntly insisted Keolis would be held to its tough performance benchmarks, despite the snowfall's historic proportions.

"While we understand the challenges that our operator, Keolis, faces in operating the system," she said at one press briefing, "they signed on to a no-excuses contract."

So the news that Keolis, citing the severe weather, has asked the MBTA to waive nearly $435,000 in penalties imposed on it for late or cancelled trains last month was greeted with predictable scorn — and chilly reminders of that "no-excuses" standard of service that the company had committed to deliver.

Governor Charlie Baker, who in mid-February snapped that he was "sort of done with excuses, OK?," said last week through a spokesman that Keolis should "focus its energy on restoring full service to the commuter rail," not on trying to avoid fines.

A statement from the MBTA was equally dismissive of the no-fine plea, advising Keolis to get the trains moving, and to put off worrying about "technical matters" — like being hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties — for a "more appropriate time."

In an editorial, the Boston Herald pronounced it "mind-boggling" that Keolis would ask for relief while commuters were still fuming over February's miseries, when only 35 percent of the trains were on time.

Wrong. Keolis is getting a bum rap.

The commuter rail contract truly is demanding, and Keolis — which took over the service just eight months ago — has already forked over $3.2 million in penalties to the "T" for falling short. It has dutifully taken its punishment for late-arriving trains, staffing shortages and maintenance and cleanliness issues — as its contract stipulates.

Unlike the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Company — the politically-wired corporation that used to have the commuter-rail contract — Keolis doesn't collect lavish bonuses for trains that arrive on time. It also faces much stiffer penalties for poor service — as much as $12 million annually, a fourfold increase over its predecessor.

But it did not enter into a categorical no-excuses deal, even if transportation officials have implied otherwise. The contract explicitly provides that Keolis "shall be excused … for failure or delay in performing its obligations" if "an act of God, lightning, severe weather, explosion, flood, landslide, or earthquake" causes commuter rail equipment "to be unusable or substantially unusable." That is precisely what happened over the six weeks beginning Jan. 26, when the region was walloped with a record-busting accumulation of snow that paralyzed an aging rail system already prone to breakdowns.

Keolis has taken plenty of lumps for its missteps this winter. It has responded with a management shakeup and public apologies, including one in the form of a full-page newspaper ad acknowledging riders' anger.

Keolis agreed to a contract with demanding standards, but it can't be blamed for acts of God.

But Keolis can't be blamed for blizzards, and it can't be blamed for invoking the "force majeure" clause in its contract that says so. Nor is the company behaving with unseemly haste in promptly raising the matter with the MBTA.

That, too, is specified in its contract: In the event of a blizzard or other such act of God, Keolis is required to notify the MBTA within two days that it will be unable to provide full service for reasons beyond its control. To snipe at the company for not waiting until a "more appropriate time" to trigger the act-of-God exemption is to snipe at it for following the rules demanded by the state.

Irritated passengers, sick of all the delays and inconvenience, may find it irresistible to lash out at the commuter rail operator, especially when they keep hearing that there was a "no-excuses" agreement.

But public officials should know better than to encourage the scapegoating. By all means, hold Keolis to the high standards it signed on to — not to standards that no one could have met.
______________________________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Monday, December 29, 2014

Be less romantic about the past

Be less romantic about the past from the files of Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe

Read Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe
For many people, Christmas and New Year's feel like anything but the most wonderful time of the year. Some find the long winter nights depressing. Others can't muster much merriment in the face of what can seem like an endless procession of bleak headlines.

Still others yearn for the sweetness of auld lang syne, when life moved at a more humane pace, and concerns that generate such angst today — global warming, identity theft, Islamist terror, campaign finance — troubled no one's sleep.

Well, for anyone who could do with some extra cheer, a book published 40 years ago — "The Good Old Days — They Were Terrible!" — brims with reminders of all the blessings we have to count.

Its author was Otto L. Bettmann, a refugee from Nazi Germany who created the Bettmann Archive, one of the world's most important and extensive collections of historical images. In 1974 he set out to dispel the notion that life in America two or three generations earlier had been an idyll of freshness and simplicity, the benign and picturesque era of Currier & Ives prints and classic Christmas carols.

Bettmann acknowledged that his famous archive had helped create that impression of a lost golden age. Many of its most popular pictures "do indeed exude an aura of charm and well-being," he wrote. But there were countless others, less sought-after, that told a far more realistic tale.

It was dangerous to romanticize the past, Bettmann argued. For one thing, it was an assault on the truth: Living conditions in America on the eve of the 20th century were frequently poor, nasty, and brutish. Bettmann filled his book with images refuting the idea that the "good old days" were a paradise from which we have sadly fallen.

Like its title, "The Good Old Days — They Were Terrible!" is unflinching yet confident. To read it is to be liberated from unhealthy nostalgia, and to be buoyed by a powerful reminder of our potential for human progress.

We are endlessly hectored these days about the evils of the automobile and "carbon pollution," to take a single example of a contemporary boon all too often condemned by those nostalgic for an illusory past. Bettmann supplies invaluable perspective, recalling how befouled American streets and cities were before the "timely arrival" of the internal-combustion engine.

At the turn of the last century, he recounts, transportation in US cities required about 3 million horses, each producing 20 to 25 pounds of manure per day. "These dumplings were numerous on every street, attracting swarms of flies and radiating a powerful stench.

The ambiance was further debased by the presence on almost every block of stables with urine-saturated hay." In one modest-sized city — Rochester, NY — 15,000 horses "produced enough manure in 1900 to cover an acre of ground with a layer 175 feet high."

The ubiquitous pollution didn't come only from horses. All the "wastes of daily life, including kitchen slops, cinders, coal dust, horse manure, broken cobblestones, and dumped merchandise, were piled high on the sidewalks. There was hardly a block in downtown Manhattan that a pedestrian could negotiate without climbing over a heap of trash or, in rain, wading through a bed of slime."

Parking hassles in our era can be maddening, but who wouldn't prefer them to the foul congestion of the Gilded Age? Bettmann describes "sidewalks . . . lined with unharnessed trucks, beneath and between which dirtier citizens threw their filth."

At times New York reeked like a vast stable, one visitor commented — and what was true of the nation's largest municipality was true of smaller cities as well: "Pioneers trekked westward to breathe what they expected would be the fresh air of small frontier towns. What they often encountered was air like that of a malarial swamp."

A photograph of Helena, Mont., illustrates the point, depicting a busy street clogged with wagons, where hitching places for horses regularly turned into cesspools.

When You Say "Good Old Days" Do You Mean Wading
Through Horse Manure?
But at least roads were safer before the advent of car accidents, right? Wrong. Runaway horses were a serious danger, creating "havoc [that] killed thousands of people," Bettmann writes. "According to the National Safety Council, the horse-associated fatality rate was 10 times the car-associated rate of modern times."

From housing to education, street crime to medical care, urban sweatshops to rural despair — on topic after topic, Bettmann's pictorial history strips away the idealized sheen of wholesomeness from America's "good old days."

Neither paean to laissez-faire capitalism nor endorsement of vigorous government regulation, it is instead a frank reality check into the past that makes clear how blessed we are to be alive in the present.

The cynic's definition of optimist is a man who never had much experience. Bettmann knew better, and was happier for it. He relished being "a man of experience who remains a confirmed optimist."

Forty years on, his book is still in print — and more than ever an antidote to the blues, holiday or otherwise.
____________________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Saturday, November 22, 2014

The train that got derailed

Obama is Not the Only Democrat Hearing Voices from Michael Shannon at Newsmax.com

Read Michael Shannon Online

He may not even be the first. Earlier this year the Democrat elite that runs Arlington County, VA (a DC suburb) heard the voices of all the voters too lazy to participate in a special election for the board.

So they refused to consider canceling their latest plan to use tax dollars to prop up a boutique transportation system from the past, even thought the anti candidate beat the establishment stooge.

Then came the November election where Swami Obama channeled the voices of non–voters and came to the conclusion all those Republicans were elected to work with him to pass legislation.

But in Arlington something amazing for democracy and taxpayers happened.

Read all about it in the Shannon Newsmax Insider column.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Friday, September 5, 2014

A Right to Recline?

A 'right' to recline on an airplane? from the files of Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe

YOU MAY not be 100 percent sure what you think about Vladimir Putin's maneuvers in Ukraine, Burger King's tax inversion, the indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry, or Scotland's independence referendum.

But you know exactly where you come down on the Great Airline Reclining Seat Controversy, don't you?

Read Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe
Everyone has an opinion on the passenger in Row 12 who caused an uproar on a United flight from Newark to Denver when he used a plastic bracket called the "Knee Defender" to block the woman in front of him from reclining her seat. When a flight attendant told the man to remove the gadget — which United, like most airlines, prohibits — he refused. The infuriated woman in Row 11, reported the Associated Press, "then stood up, turned around, and threw a cup of water at him." Whereupon the plane was diverted to Chicago, and the two passengers were ejected.

Three days later, another passenger was booted from another flight because of another struggle over legroom. American Airlines diverted a Miami-to-Paris flight to Boston, where Edmond Alexandre was arrested on charges of "interfering with a flight crew" after fighting when the seat in front him was reclined.

Small wonder these stories have struck a nerve. You don't have to be a frequent flyer to know how cramped air travel has become, or how maddening — not to mention kneecap- and laptop-endangering — it can be when the already minuscule space between you and the seat-back in front of you suddenly shrinks further because a passenger one row up leans back without warning. Nor is it hard to understand the frustration of a passenger with an aching back or a need to sleep who presses the recline button, only to discover that the seat has been deliberately immobilized by a fellow traveler.

But how did the battle between knee defenders and recliners turn into an all-or-nothing clash of rights?

"I own the right to recline, and if my reclining bothers you, you can pay me to stop," asserts economics reporter Josh Barro in The Upshot, a New York Times politics and policy website. "If sitting behind my reclined seat was such misery . . . someone would have opened his wallet and paid me by now."

Conversely, the Times's international business editor, Damon Darlin, is just as adamant in defense of his right — not his wish or preference, mind you, but his right — to attach a disabling clamp to the seat in front of him.

"The real problem is undefined property rights over the same four or five inches of space," Darlin maintains. "The person with the recliner button holds an advantage. The Knee Defender reallocates the rights."

Au contraire, argues the Financial Times in an editorial. An airplane ticket "is a contract that guarantees very few things, but the right to recline your seat at cruising altitude is one of them."

A plane ticket, of course, guarantees no such thing. Just as a concert ticket doesn't guarantee the right to view the stage unobstructed by a tall person right in front of you. Just as a hotel room reservation doesn't guarantee the right not to be disturbed by sounds from guests in the adjacent room or the corridor.

Not every conflict can be resolved to the satisfaction of all. But courtesy and self-restraint will usually help. (Photo: Getty images)

Not every conflict can be resolved to
the satisfaction of all. But courtesy and
self-restraint will usually help
You can't always get what you want, to coin a phrase. That's routinely true of public accommodations, where our experiences — travel, dining, lodging, entertainment — must be shared with other human beings, in all their not-always-congenial variety. It makes life worse for all of us when people become so obsessed with their own satisfaction that they convince themselves they have a guaranteed right to it. Common courtesy and self-control used to be esteemed as indispensable to a healthy society. But the more we rely on law and regulation to maintain social order, the less we seem to emphasize good character and values.

Most air travelers, most of the time, don't descend into rudeness and selfishness. But as the obnoxious "I-have-a-right" mindset grows ever more entrenched, clashes like the one involving the Knee Defender are apt to proliferate. Barro wants to be paid not to recline into the lap of Darlin, sitting behind him. Darlin claims the freedom to "reallocate" Barro's ability to move his seat. Compromise? Consideration? Thoughtfulness? Nothing doing. For some people, the right to be a jerk trumps all.