Drinking Your Milkshake

Snotty legislators get theirs. Gotta play the clip.

And Now for Something Completely Different...

Unbeknownst to Virginia Beach city leaders, two republican state legislators from Virginia have introduced a bill that would extend the under construction light rail from Norfolk to the beach. It's another case of taking folks into the 21st Century, kicking and screaming.

“It’s time for this to happen, whether they favor it or not,” Tata said Tuesday....“You’d be foolish to drive in,” he said. “I-264 right now is sort of like a race track , it’s so dangerous. Why fight that kind of battle? You could train in and save on parking fees.”

Fuelish indeed.

Property Rights, Transit , and Urban Design

Property rights activists in Denver are fighting hard to curtail the eminent domain abilities of the Regional Transit District. While I do personally believe that the government shouldn't be able to just take your property and redevelop it at random, I also believe that there are certain urban design considerations that should be allowed when land must be taken for transit. At issue here is what happens after RTD takes land and builds a parking garage which is an allowed transit use. The second part is the ability to wrap that parking garage with retail which is what property owners do not want their land taken for, what they call economic development. This taking for economic development was the subject of the recent supreme court case Kelo vs City of New London.

Now this is a very thin line drawn in the sand, but what is the difference between pure economic development and good urban design? I don't think RTD is trying to take the property to build a casino or shopping mall. I do think they should be able to do as much with the land as they can to make it pedestrian friendly and a part of the surrounding neighborhood. No one wants a hulking parking garage on their street face or as a next door neighbor and RTD should be doing as much as it can to get a return on their investment, which in transit is ridership and revenue.
In order to get a return on investment, they need to create an environment that supports transit usage from modes other than the automobile and trip reductions.

In my dream world I wish that transit authorities had real estate departments that could buy up key pieces of land at fair market price (not through eminent domain) and lease them after the line is built when value has been created. I've actually wondered at times if a non-profit entity could be set up that raises money for the transit agency's capital projects. At one time the way streetcar companies made money off of land was by building lines to it. In Hong Kong and Japan, the rail lines make money off of developing property more than operating the trains, but they operate in a symbiotic way generating ridership and demand as well as an efficient means of transport.

I'm not sure how this is going to end up, and I'm not sure how you can legislate the difference between economic development and proper urban design issues, but there must be some way to strike a balance between ugly and nothing.

Dear Secretary Peters, You Are Wrong.

I've been following this story since Streetsblog picked it up. Since Secretary Peters doesn't think that biking and walking is transportation, then what is? In her mind, and the mind of the Oil Industrial Complex, anything that doesn't serve cars is worthless to them. Salon had an article recently discussing the issue and seems to support the cycling community.

So why is Peters suddenly taking on bikes and pedestrians? Her comments are especially odd since she sang the praises of bikes as transportation in a speech at the National Bike Summit in Washington, in March 2002. Has she simply forgotten the glory of two wheels? One theory: Peters is on a campaign to quash the idea of raising the gas tax, as she editorialized recently in the Washington Post. A key proponent of raising the gas tax to fund bridge restorations in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse is Democratic Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, who has advocated for bike and pedestrian paths in his district. By putting a culture-war spin on the bridge collapse, Peters is hoping to run his gas tax proposal off the road.

So once again its about money and the conservatives are going to their old fall back of fiscal responsibility which is a laudable goal, but recently has been used to block programs they don't like. Raise it up 5 cents Mr. Oberstar. Even Mr. Greenspan agrees because as he says in this New York Times article from 2006:

Until now. In late September, as he spoke to a group of business executives in Massachusetts, a question was posed as to whether he’d like to see an increase in the federal gasoline tax, which has stood at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993. “Yes, I would,” Mr. Greenspan responded with atypical clarity. “That’s the way to get consumption down. It’s a national security issue.”

A national security issue. Seems like cyclists are doing their part, so why are they so maligned by Peters and the other road warriors? Well because like they said, walking and biking aren't transportation, and in their mind, transit isn't either. It just takes money away from their dream of a concrete covered wasteland.

Note: As I was typing in the tags for this I was about to use the term alternative transportation. However this seems to me like a negative frame that gives biking, walking, and transit second class status. So what do you all think, should we change it to primary transportation? Since walking is the first thing we do, even to get to our cars, our bikes, and our trains and buses?

Action Results: Dodd/Shelby Amendment Put In Bill

I've heard that Senators Dodd and Shelby passed an amendment that stipulates no funds go towards the implementation of the proposed new rules discussed in the posts below pertaining to HOT lanes and the dreaded cost-effectiveness index. If you get a chance, please send some E-Love to your Senate member on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee to let them know this needs to stay in the bill. Looks good so far, but it's not over till Bush signs the thing.

Is the DOT Lobbying for the Auto Industry?

Sources and Representative Henry Waxman say yes. Apparently one of the aids at the transportation department was calling representatives asking them to stop global warming initiatives because it would hurt the auto industry. The thing about this is that the auto industry has been babied for two long and now they are losing jobs and getting their butts kicked by the foreign auto makers. Even if they get off on some sort of technicality, someone needs to cut the umbilical cord on these guys.

H/T Think Progress and TPM

Steny Hoyer: Transit and Energy

Today house majority leader Steny Hoyer wrote an article for The Hill which set forth a new program for transit and energy independence. My reaction: it's a start but it isn't worth anything really. I like the fact that there will be $2 billion dollars for transit. But its just a one time infusion. It should be an annual infusion, not just a one time push. We aren't going to be able to turn the tide on over 50 years in billion dollar highway investments with just one little measly $2 billion dollars. There needs to be a fundamental shift to allow regions to build meaningful transit systems or expand existing systems. I'm amazed at the transit space race right now at how aggressive cities like Denver, Portland and Seattle are at building out their networks. The larger the network, the more people will ride. But it's not just people riding, it's connecting these investments to land use. That is also a place where the federal government can step in.

From the Hill...

On this point, let me be specific: We must find ways to encourage Americans to park their automobiles and take advantage of public transportation, where possible and when feasible. That’s why the PROGRESS Act adds a special, one-time $2 billion stimulus grant for the expansion of public transit services through the existing urban grant program.

In addition, the bill includes an incentive for commuters to choose transit by boosting the current transit benefit to match the federal parking benefit exclusion, which is currently $205. Furthermore, it supports the growth of commuter rail by including a process for resolving rail use agreements when access to rail lines becomes an impediment to establishing local commuter rail systems or routes.

And finally, on the issue of public transportation, the PROGRESS Act promotes the development of new and expanded intercity rail passenger service through the use of guaranteed loans and rail bonds to help state and local governments that want to expand rail service as an alternative to vehicle travel.

Public transit must play a central role if America is going to declare its energy independence. Increasingly, we are seeing more Americans relying on the public transportation options that help them to work, play and participate fully in the American experience.