Obama at Hayward Field

ph.obama_00724_5-9-08.jpg
Originally uploaded by oregonianphoto

Man this is pretty cool for a track fan. Barack Obama at the Mecca of Track and Field in the United States. Hayward Field. Flotrack will have a video tomorrow I'll post up if I can get the code.

Express Your Displeasure for the Gas Tax Proposals

Greater Greater Washington has put together a site to express your displeasure at the dumb gas tax ideas put forth by Hillary Clinton and John McCain. It's formatted as a Nigerian scam letter. You know, the ones that try to get people to give their bank account numbers to wire a large sum of money, but then take yours instead.

We are top officials of the United States Senate Government who are interested in importation of oil into our country with funds that are presently trapped in the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND dedicated to improving transportation. We wish to send this money to overseas accounts in the MIDDLE EAST but cannot due to restrictions in Congress Transportation Equity Act requiring that this money must be spent to build roads, bridges and high speed trains.

If you accept we will deliver to your a sum of 30 DOLLARS in the summer 2008 in form of a "GAS TAX HOLIDAY". You will then deliver this money to accounts of our friends in Middle East by taking it to your nearby gasoline station where they have information to forward the money. Please supply your bank account, social security number, address and your vote in DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION.

Doesn't sound so far off does it?

Obama on HSR

Yesterday we talked about the dumb gas tax holiday. Also yesterday Obama was talking about real solutions including high speed rail. It didn't get a lot of airtime from the MSM probably because it had nothing to do with...i digress.

Grist has the money quote:

The irony is with the gas prices what they are, we should be expanding rail service. One of the things I have been talking bout for awhile is high speed rail connecting all of these Midwest cities -- Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis. They are not that far away from each other. Because of how big of a hassle airlines are now. There are a lot of people if they had the choice, it takes you just about as much time if you had high speed rail to go the airport, park, take your shoes off.

This is something that we should be talking about a lot more. We are going to be having a lot of conversations this summer about gas prices. And it is a perfect time to start talk about why we don't have better rail service. We are the only advanced country in the world that doesn't have high speed rail. We just don't have it. And it works on the Northeast corridor. They would rather go from New York to Washington by train than they would by plane. It is a lot more reliable and it is a good way for us to start reducing how much gas we are using. It is a good story to tell.

Holiday from Real

Why can't we have a real discussion about energy and alternatives in this country? As we continue to talk about worthless alternatives like gas tax holidays and price caps, real solutions to our energy problems get tossed aside. Today Thomas Friedman writes in the New York Times that the United States passed on giving tax breaks to alternative energy. Soon we will have tax credits for oil companies that are making record profits on the market while alternative energy credits run out. While this would not really help in the transportation sector that uses the most oil, it most certainly would have the effect of getting the ball rolling on ways to get us off the sippy cup. Even carbon taxes as Ezra Klein points out would help give us a push.

But there is another problem that plagues us now and long term. The Gizmo Green. This is the hope that technology alone and not also behavioral modifications will save us from ourselves. Barack Obama even has an ad out discussing what we can do including:

Raising fuel efficiency standards
Alternative fuel research
Middle class tax cut

Whew. Once we do that the problems will be solved! Not. That is all about cars. What about modes of electric transit? What about development patterns? Walkable, bike friendly communities? Anyone? Bueller?

Matt at track twenty-nine says it best:

Still, Mr. Obama's message leaves a little to be desired. He recently reiterated his support for Amtrak and for building a better high-speed rail network in this country, but he has not yet asked Americans to change modes, nor has he promised to significantly change the way we build transit in America.

In all of President Bush's States of the Union, he called for us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Not once did he ask Americans to try the bus. Not once did he promise a spending package that would start a wave of new transit construction across the nation. Instead, he called for new fuels (to be delivered sometime in the future) and a switch to biofuels (also to be delivered sometime in the future).

Asking Americans to switch to transit would produce an immediate reduction in oil usage, especially if it was coupled with subsidies to reduce fares and the construction of new lines.

Seems to me we did this with the Interstate Highway Act. Not to mention that more transit means more jobs in an ailing economy. Perhaps a new program is in order to change our possible transport and neighborhood choices, not just what powers our cars. Now when buying your first house, you can choose between suburbs. It's annoying to hear folks say that the market prefers suburbs when downtowns are so expensive because of the market for living in them. I wish those people that hated living here in dense ole San Francisco would move out because its dang expensive due that pesky market demand for a transit-oriented lifestyle people sure don't like.

Do Things Like This Hurt or Help?

Ugh...while we've been working hard to get the word out on transit and I wrote in an earlier post that electric rail as we know was actually created after the auto as we know it, we still get folks like Jon Stewart who should be a great help doing stuff like this. I know he's trying to be funny, but does this really help the cause? Perhaps you can tell me if I'm being too persnickety. The section is 47 seconds in.



Hat tip to reader Joe C.

A National Infrastructure Plan

Speaker Pelosi has issued a challenge. Let's rebuild and renew America. It's a really long article basically covering her speech to the awesome Regional Plan Association which has some of my favorite researchers working for them including the awesome Jeff Zupan and Bob Yaro. Here are a few highlights:

"Rebuilding America is a national security issue. 90% of our oil imports are used for transportation. With investments in public transportation, more efficient roadways, and a broadband backbone that removes commuters from roads, we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce its implications on our foreign policy.

"Rebuilding America is an economic issue. By improving our efficiency, we improve our competitiveness and create the next generation of good-paying jobs.

"Rebuilding America is an equality issue. Earlier this month, when I held an Infrastructure Forum in the Capitol, Darren Walker of the Rockefeller Foundation spoke eloquently to us about transportation as a matter of basic fairness. As he said, the civil rights movement in America was sparked by one brave woman, and one public bus. Transportation is the road to opportunity.

"Rebuilding America is an environmental issue. Making greener choices will bring us cleaner air and water, reduce sprawl and congestion, and cut greenhouse gases, to the benefit of the American people and our planet.

"Preserving our planet for future generations is our most urgent challenge.

...

"With the economy slowing down and job losses accelerating, we must also look for opportunities to take advantage of the stimulative effect of investing in infrastructure.

"In conversations with the White House, leaders in Congress have placed a number of proposals on the table, including funding for infrastructure projects - clean water, passenger rail, transit, highways - where dirt will fly and people will be put to work that simply lack the funds to begin now.

"We will explore these options in addition to all the regular order transportation and appropriations bills which give us built-in opportunities to be innovative and creative.

"Right now, both the House and Senate are at work on legislation that has the greatest potential to address climate change yet: a cap-and-trade system, which will not only limit emissions, but also generate revenue through the sale of greenhouse gas permits. Some of these revenues could be used for public transit or other infrastructure that further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"In order to renew and rebuild our nation, we need to engage the public in our 21st century vision.

"Once again, Congressman Blumenauer is leading the way, with legislation for a new national commission that would involve the public, members of Congress, and stakeholders all around the country to determine our priorities and look at all the dimensions of this challenge together.

Obama on Congestion Pricing

REPORTER: Later, in an exclusive interview with WNYC, Senator Obama said he supports congestion pricing.

OBAMA: I think Mayor Bloomberg's proposal for congestion pricing is a thoughtful and innovative approach to the problem.

REPORTER: Obama said congestion pricing should not replace federal funding of mass transit.

Obama just keeps getting better and better.

H/T Streetsblog

Obama on Transit

In today's Charlotte Observer, staff asked Barack Obama how he felt about federal support for mass transit:

His response:

I'm a strong supporter, as part of our broader energy strategy. You know, if we are designing cities, and urban communities and suburban communities around two-hour commutes, then we are destined to continue down the course of climate change. And mass transit not only is far more environmentally sound, but with oil prices sky high, and not likely to go down significantly, because of increased demand by China and India, it gives individuals much more of an incentive to look at trains and mass transit as an alternative.

Eh. I want to hear a more substantive discussion, but anything beats McCain, who has said he wants to kill Amtrak through privatization. I imagine Mary Peters will get to stick around too, and we already know her record.

Electric Transit Paragraphs Back in Report

As was reported last week, Paul Weyrich was really mad that his paragraphs on the importance of electric transit were taken out of the National Surface Transportation Report. Well this week Renew America reports that it was a misunderstanding and they will be put back in.

Both Weyrich and Commission Vice Chairman Jack Schenendorf — in discussions with us — agreed that a dispute (again see last week's column) over a last-minute deletion of a pro-rail transit section of the commission study was a "misunderstanding."

There seemed to be agreement among the majority commissioners, including Steve Heminger of San Francisco — whose role in the controversy was discussed also here last week — that the situation "wasn't handled right," and that the deletion "should not have been made." The Bay Area Metropolitan Commission executive director has now signed off on a revised draft of the deleted section which was crafted — with Weyrich's approval — primarily by Commissioner Frank McArdle, a contractor from New York. (Bear in mind, again, we are referring here to discussions among the pro-rail majority. Peters and Co. are out of this particular loop.) The wording changed in some emphases, but in the end still stipulated that "Public transportation, especially in the form of electric railways, must and will play a significantly larger role in Americans' mobility over the next 50 years and beyond."

He also went on to say that he wouldn't be voting for John McCain, in part because of his role in trying to kill Amtrak.

Weyrich knows that Senator McCain, throughout his career, has been very anti-rail, and in that respect "would be [even] worse than the present [Bush] administration," whose Transportation Secretary Mary Peters (a big highway booster) has fought tooth and nail (as commission chairman) to block the pro-rail efforts of Weyrich and others allied with his 9-to-3 commission majority.
...

The Arizonan has said shutting down Amtrak — he's if elected — would be "a non-negotiable issue" for him. Short-sighted, indeed.

I'm guessing thats a deal breaker.

Mary Peters Says...

Taking a look through the recent National Surface Transportation Policy Report, you can see what we are fighting in Washington when it comes to efficient electric transit. Mary Peters, Bush's Secretary of Transportation, (who said bikes aren't transportation on PBS) who was on the committee was on the dissenting side pushing the need to raise money from private companies through tolling and the usual Bush administration stances. But here is what stood out. Apparently, the opposition, including Mary Peters, say this about rail...

Some of the transit investments are not based on a strict benefit-cost analysis. The estimates for rail passenger investment needs ($7 - $9 billion per year, of which over $6 billion would be Federal grants) are similarly unrealistic. It is not clear that even our current investments in passenger rail yield benefits in excess of their costs; it is highly unlikely that $9 billion per year in cost-beneficial investment opportunities in passenger rail could be found.

She's right about one thing. Most transit investments aren't based on a benefit-cost analysis, today they are based on the Cost Effectiveness measure which does not measure many benefits of transit including economic development even though they have been asked many times by Congress to do so. It's funny that they don't ask any roads to go through such rigor. Is there a cost effectiveness measure for roads? No.

Unrealistic? I have a whole list of valuable projects here that could use funding. This shows how reality is lost on the current administration in terms of transportation investments and importance. I know that many of you would love to be able to compete for $6 Billion a year versus the current $1.6 B. Much of that money goes to larger cities as well such as New York (which i think should keep getting funding), but the new starts pipeline is said to be 50 years long. You can't tell me that the FTA couldn't use more funding for projects. In fact that is what people around the country have been asking for!

And in sure Bushy fashion, here is what they would do in writing if they had control (wait, right now they do). All highways all the time.

As is evident from the preceding observations, we would advocate a substantially different approach than that proposed by the Commission Report. Our approach would sustain current gasoline and diesel tax levels and refocus Federal efforts on

(a) maintaining the Interstate Highway System;
(b) alleviating freight-related bottlenecks that impede the flow of commerce and goods; and
(c) providing States with appropriate analysis, incentives, and flexibility regarding the adoption
of market-based reforms to their highway systems.

Tomorrow I'll talk about the majority recommendations in the report.

Covering the Transportation Peep from Candidates

We all know it should be a roar, but apparently telling people the truth about how much damage their driving habits do is a no no in the electioneering process. Grist discusses the little tiny mention Bill Richardson gave to rail systems and open spaces.

The remark was all but ignored by the Democratic front-runners, and was greeted by pundits with praise or disdain, depending upon their ideological stripe, before being once again set aside in favor of discussion on sexier issue areas.

But Richardson had hit upon a truly pressing matter, one which deserves the attention of federal policy makers. Transportation accounts for a third of all carbon dioxide emissions in this country. Moreover, concerns about gas prices, congestion, housing costs, and other related urban ills loom large in the lives of Americans, if not necessarily in political debates. We should be having a discussion about the way in which we build and grow our cities, the costs of our current approach, and what the federal government can do to fix what's broken.

Hmm choices don't seem so bad to people now...

And while commuters in New York and Chicago can shift (and have shifted, impressively) from driving to transit as gas prices rise, residents of autocentric towns in the south and west cannot, and are therefore forced to swallow high fuel costs. If the U.S. manages to adopt carbon limiting rules, as it should, long automobile commutes will become more expensive still; as such, the massive southward migration based on low-density development will make emission reductions more difficult and more painful. It may also make them less likely, since consumers will have a strong incentive to fight new costs they can't easily avoid.

Our government has sold out to Detroit, even John McCain is telling them to suck it up, because as we all know, after the car, the horse and buggy market just wasn't the same. Apparently, Alex Smith's hat reference has caught on. From the Times UK:

This gnarled truth-teller of Republican politics — who says that he is “as old as dirt, with more scars than Frankenstein” — refuses to join Mr Romney in promising to save every job. Time moves on, Mr McCain suggests, just as it did for those working in “buggy-whip factories and haberdashers when cars replaced carriages and men stopped wearing hats”.

Gore Takes the Subway...When There is a Choice

Last year for the Oscars I was annoyed that they closed the entrance to the Red Line Subway. It was a little ironic due to the fact that Al Gore won the Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth. But when given the chance, Al will make the right move. It's representative of course, of the choices that most Americans don't have...good transit.

Electric Transit Anyone?

Money is going to our buddies in Venezuela, Russia and Iran because of our addiction. Is anyone going to stand up now for good electric transit, solar panels, wave power and so on? Well, maybe next year.

In the United States, the rising bill for imported petroleum lowers already anemic consumer savings rates, adds to inflation, worsens the trade deficit, undermines the dollar and makes it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to balance its competing goals of fighting inflation and sustaining growth.

I've always wondered what would happen if the road builders just retooled for trolley buses and light rail and the car companies started pumping out streetcars. I know that would never happen but it would be interesting. Perhaps alternative energy competitions and innovations are in order.

Where the Dem Candidates Stand on Transport

This is the best review so far I've seen of where the democratic candidates stand on transportation issues. It's not completely correct since it says that Richardson introduced light rail in New Mexico even though it was commuter rail. If you scroll down past the CAFE standards info you'll get to the public transit and smart growth section. So go check out the link to Daily Kos.

My favorite quotes from some of the candidates...

Edwards

...will create incentives for states and regions to plan smart growth and transit-oriented development with benchmarks for reductions in vehicle miles traveled.

Richardson

Bike and walking trails. Support metro area governments that create useful, safe bike trail infrastructure and bike parking in appropriate regions of the country. Create tax incentives for companies, universities, and governments to encourage bicycle commuting. Smart growth planning.

Provide state-level planning grants to allow coordination of planning functions and policies encouraging energy and water conservation, transit-oriented development, and other commitments to planning that reduces energy demand.

Obama

Reform Federal Transportation Funding: As president, Barack Obama will re-evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account. Obama will build upon his efforts in the Senate to ensure that more Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies to incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of roads and sidewalks, and he will also re-commit federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country. Building more livable and sustainable communities will not only reduce the amount of time individuals spent commuting, but will also have significant benefits to air quality, public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Clinton

Link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage. Over the next 25 years, a large percentage of the buildings we live, work, and shop in will be rebuilt or newly built. This presents a significant opportunity for the federal government to encourage sensible residential and commercial development that are linked to, and encourage, public transit usage. Local areas seeking large federal investments in public transit are already required to have land-use plans and policies that make investing in a high-density transit system worthwhile. Today, these requirements are focused mainly on commercial developments and not enough on residential considerations. Hillary will encourage the sort of dense residential concentrations needed to support public transit systems by better linking public transit funding with residential land-use policies. This will help to discourage sprawl and fight congestion.

They talk a good game. I still wonder who will deliver.

Flying Drone & Obama's Enviro Tone

I can't seem to stay put in San Francisco. I feel like the airplane is my second home and my body doesn't know what time it is. Right now I'm in Charlotte so hopefully I'll be able to get some light rail pictures for folks, or at least some good TOD pictures. So I won't be getting to the Ringstrasse today.

There is some news that i'd like to share even if I can't cover it as adequately as i'd like. Obama let loose on his plan to take on climate change. Hill Heat covers it pretty well but here is my favorite part...

Sustainable communities

• Reform federal transportation funding to take into account smart growth considerations
• Require states to plan for energy conservation for the expenditure of federal transportation funds
• Reform the tax code to make benefits for driving and public transit or ridesharing equal

Carless in Seattle also has some of the scoop. I dunno what anyone else thinks, but this seems like a big deal. Here is some of the policy speech he gave.

Hillary for TOD?

Apparently Hillary Clinton has an infrastructure program and has pledged to raise the federal state for local and intercity rail by $2.5 billion. She also mentions the nexus between land use and transit and doesn't mention TOD by name but perhaps thats what she's thinking. I wonder though if she or her staff even know about the policy behind this or if someone told them it was a good idea. In any event i'm glad she's mentioning it. Hopefully some of the other candidates will follow suit. From her website:

Public Transit

Increase federal funding for public transit by $1.5 billion per year. Increased public transit usage is arguably the best strategy for ameliorating the energy and environmental costs of transportation. As energy costs rise, more people will rely on public transportation. Today, only 5% of Americans commute by public transit, but doubling that figure could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%. Public transit is also critically important to people who live in urban areas and rely on buses and trains for travel to work and school. Moreover, as the population ages, an increasing number of people will need public transit as their ability to drive diminishes. Hillary will increase federal investment in public transit by $1.5 billion per year to ensure needed capacity expansions and service level improvements.

Link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage. Over the next 25 years, a large percentage of the buildings we live, work, and shop in will be rebuilt or newly built. This presents a significant opportunity for the federal government to encourage sensible residential and commercial development that are linked to, and encourage, public transit usage. Local areas seeking large federal investments in public transit are already required to have land-use plans and policies that make investing in a high-density transit system worthwhile. Today, these requirements are focused mainly on commercial developments and not enough on residential considerations. Hillary will encourage the sort of dense residential concentrations needed to support public transit systems by better linking public transit funding with residential land-use policies. This will help to discourage sprawl and fight congestion.

Intercity Passenger Rail

Invest an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems. In the 21st Century, intercity passenger rail should be a viewed as a critical component of the nation’s transportation system. It is an environmentally efficient alternative to highway driving and short flights; it relieves congestion on roads and airports; reduces the emission of automotive pollutants; and it stimulates economic growth by linking metropolitan areas. States have been left to pursue intercity rail projects with only modest federal support. Hillary believes that greater federal involvement is needed to maximize the potential of this transportation mode. She will increase federal investment in intercity passenger rail by $1 billion over 5 years in order to help finance capital projects. These investments are in addition to those made in Amtrak.

A Visceral Response

Visceral in the dictionary means not intellectual or dealing with crude or elemental emotions. This is the response that often comes when you talk to people about their opinions on politics and in fact transit. Some folks hold some deep seeded feelings about roads and others about transit. Right now the road folks are winning in most parts of the country because thats all that people know. They go with whats in their gut and what they know, whether its right or wrong.

So for places like San Francisco and New York, it isn't a question of does transit work or not, its how much more should we invest in to make it better than it already is. On the other side of the pale are these road oriented communities which are fighting hard to get transit off the ground such as Charlotte and Milwaukee. The road folks know they have a slight chance to kill transit in these places so they are throwing the kitchen sink because they are the last front in the road wars. The Anti's fight hard but in order to beat them back like we have for the last few decades we must not back down from their constant barrage of misinformation and misdirection.

An article in Newsweek suggests that politics is as I mentioned before, a visceral decision that leaves behind rational thought and that progressive minded folks shouldn't back down from a good fight. I see this as an ideological fight and when we get the chance we should sock it to the opposition Karl Rove style. Frame the issues in the most passionate way possible and set up decision makers with the facts they need to beat back the opposition. A mix of options and a vision for how all modes will work together. Cars are not the answer to everything. This is how we win.

Candidates Part 2

The other day I looked at what the candidates were saying about transit. It looks like we got some more information about Bill Richardson over the last few days from the Northwest. The Northwest Progressive Institute is blogging about Mr. Richardson and his transit views which seem good. Someone should post these views on his website so more people can find out about them. From NWPI:

Richardson also pledged to keep Amtrak going and concluded by saying that he would be "a President with a national transportation policy: focused on light rail, bullet trains, more efficient transportation."

What the Candidates Say Or Don't Say

Wow. This is abhorrent. All this talk of Global Warming and energy savings etc and no talk of urban form or transit. It is worse than I thought it was. I mean I know it's not sexy to everyone, but man these guys could have me leaning their way with a comprehensive rail initiative, or even mentioning transit. I guess i expected too much.

Barack Obama discusses renewable energy, fuel economy standards, and cleaner coal. What a joke. I was starting to like him, this is too bad.

Hilary Clinton says we need alternative energy and apparently has an "Apollo Like" plan for energy independence. Anyone want to guess if it includes electric rail? She, like Obama also wants better fuel standards but come on you guys, better fuel standards still allows sprawl which is ridiculously inefficient. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

John Edwards believes in renewable energy, changing the auto industry yadda yadda yadda. Again he doesn't understand the effect of the built environment on energy usage.

Bill Richardson believes in the same as the above.

This is disturbing and made me go and immediately sign the petition to draft Al Gore. He gets it and is probably the only one who really understands what it will take to get this country back on the right track. I started out this post with the intention of looking at all the candidates but the Republicans were just too ridiculous to even link to in terms of what they were talking about. I guess it's telling when some of them still don't believe in evolution. I was also hoping for more from the Democratic candidates. With over a year to go perhaps some of them will get it but I'm not going to count on it.