HUD + FTA (Could =) FTHA

Ryan has a post up discussing the idea of reorganization or mission change at HUD. I completely agree with him that transportation and housing go together making people's lives more affordable to live and should be considered as the strategy for addressing affordability. But what would this combination look like? The silos in Washington are pretty strong unless they are pushed a little harder . In fact, the FTA and HUD had never worked together on a project until a report done in 2006-7 on affordable housing and transit strategies.

But perhaps a way to break down the silo is to combine the two organizations. A possible model for such a relationship can be seen in Charlotte. Unlike most other cities around the country, the county and city are the same entity and the transit agency is under their umbrella with city planning, housing etc. In many other cities, the transit agency is outside of the umbrella of all other organizations which makes agency coordination much harder. The rezoning. development, and construction of the south corridor light rail line shows the power of coordination It also helps that Mecklenburg County is so big that it encompasses a great portion of the region.

Another issue is kind of the elephant in the room called DOT. The FHWA builds highways and doesn't really coordinate land use, which is unfortunate because they are likely the largest driver of new housing placement with their locational building decisions. A way to address this could be to pull the DOT and HUD along with other related agencies into an Urbanism or livability working group. Or even more strength would be achieved through a cabinet position of Urbanism that dealt with transportation, land use, poverty and other related issues.

It's a thought but we really need to start considering how to get agencies that work against each other in policy decisions to work together to aid in the greater affordability of living in the United States. Location efficiency such as is available in major cities and downtowns shouldn't be limited because transportation options aren't available just like programs like hope IV shouldn't negate gains in affordablity by locating somewhere auto dependent.

If You Live in DC...

tell Mayor Fenty how you feel about hiring a progressive new transportation director, hopefully someone who doesn't look at level of service like its gods will. Check out Greater Greater Washington for more info and a tool for sending the Mayor your thoughts.

WSJ Article Treasure Trove of Bush Transportation Lunacy

The house has passed a bill to inject $8 billion dollars into the highway fund for projects from the general fund. It passed with a veto proof majority yet the President has threatened to veto it. As people conserve more gas by driving less and driving hybrids, they also cause the transportation fund used to pay for freeways and transit to dwindle.

Let's put aside for a second the fact that congress wants to spend more infrastructure money on roads instead of putting it towards sustainable transportation or alternative energy or railway electrification. The Decider's hooligans made me laugh then shake my head in embarrassment for this country when they made the following statements in the Wall Street Journal:

The White House called the bill "a gimmick and a dangerous precedent that shifts costs from users to taxpayers at large."

Since when did users pay for freeways anyway? I'm lost, isn't the usual argument for taking money from other pots to pay for roads that all taxpayers are users of the system in some form or fashion. But lets not take from taxpayers to help users when we could instead...

The administration has proposed covering the trust fund shortfall by shifting money out of a mass transit account.

Yeah, that's a great idea. In a time of great pressure on transit systems due to high gas prices, let's expand roads using transit funds! That will totally help us cut our dependence on foreign oil and to lower gas prices, lets increase demand for driving! I'm sorry, but what a bunch of *^&@*%$$ morons! Really?! And what's a good transportation article without saying that really tolls aren't taxes and the Republicans don't want to raise taxes:

But the administration and many Republicans oppose tax increases, instead favoring greater tolling and a heavier emphasis on private-sector investment.

Isn't relying on tolling still making people pay more money. Not that I'm against tolling in certain instances, but its still a tax. I wish someone would call them out on that. I wish someone would call them out on all of this.

Enlistment Bonus Goes to the Car

So many times I've heard that people are excited to get enlistment bonuses so that they can get a new car. And now I know the reason why, because army bases are notoriously inaccessible by transit. More from Imagine DC.

Having served four years in the United States Army, I can assure all of you that I find most military bases damn near impossible to get to and get around without a car. Absolutely horrible. Why do think so many bases are surrounded by car dealerships? Every soldier needs a car. And every base at which I've been stationed, sergeants and petty officers warn their troops about getting ripped off by said car salesmen. I was once in a battalion where I was required to attend a briefing specific to this matter!

VMT & Foreign Oil

So watching the Pickens commercial below gave me a thought. He was discussing dependence on foreign oil and showed some percentages of how much we import. So I went to the data. In terms of foreign oil I went to the Energy Information Administration and pulled an excel chart for historic crude oil imports and production. Since its monthly I averaged 1970,1990, and 2005. T Boone uses current 2008 to say 70% but the most recent transportation data is from 2005. So foreign crude imports went from 12% to 44% to 66% of the total U.S. supply.

Then I went to the BTS and found the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) charts and put the totals together. A word of caution from the last chart I put up. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but I thought this was interesting and more relative. If anything I hope it starts some discussion on how this oil dependence is related to our auto dependence.
Perhaps its also related to this: Spending on highways over transit from PIRG.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that our transportation policy has led us to this predicament. I believe we all knew this, but its always good to have charts right? Thoughts?

Gas Tax Holiday Talk Dead

Good. This was the dumbest idea ever! First the highway trust fund which funds transportation and transit projects is going into the red this year anyways. Second the transit fund could hold out for the next year but the administration proposed channeling money to the highway fund which would bankrupt the transit fund. A gas tax holiday would mean a lot less money from the highway fund which would almost guaranty the transit fund's death. Dumb idea proposed by people who aren't looking for solution but political expediency. I'm sure it thrilled Mary "Bikes Aren't Transportation" Peters to no end.

Oberstar Talks Process

Congressman Oberstar (D-MN) is the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House so it makes these comments promising given he'll more than likely be there when the next transportation bill gets moving.

"What is wrong with us? Are we a third world country?"
...
But the Dulles rail proponents are hitting a similar wall with rail to Dulles Airport and beyond. Oberstar said negotiations over the project – when it appeared as if the federal government might pull its funding – made it clear that the Bush administration was not supportive of the project.

As with light rail in Minneapolis, the federal administration has not used the appropriate criteria to measure and rate the project. He said they deliberately threw out factors like energy consumption and cost to the commuters when evaluating Dulles rail and other projects.

If those benefits could have been left in the financial analysis of the project, the cost effectiveness of the Dulles rail project – which has been criticized for its "medium low" rating – could be higher, said Oberstar.

Additional factors that should have been part of the Dulles rail project analysis may also have lead the federal government to conclude that tunnel option was cost effective. Currently, the federal, state and local governments are pursuing an "above ground" option because the tunnel option was deemed too expensive and would stall the project significantly.

This is what we have been talking about for the last year and a half. The measurements for cost effectiveness are all messed up and doesn't track the true benefits of rail construction. The federal formulas were created to compare transit to roads, and we know its apples and oranges. I'm glad that Sheriff Oberstar is on our side.

What's In the Water in Milwaukee?

Apparently something that draws conservative radio jockeys to that city like moths to a flame. Have you ever wondered about why a fairly dense city with good historic fabric has failed to do any fixed guideway transit planning and is slowly suffocating its bus system because the economy will be so good everyone will be driving cars?

Well Urban Milwaukee has the story and the lowdown on the local politics of transit. It might be similar to the situation in your city. Also if you're interested, check out James Rowen's Political Environment which covers a lot of transit, growth and development issues in the region as well. Great writing going on up there, just wish they could win a few political battles.

Senator Cardin the Man on Transit

More at Gristmill.

Grist: You authored the transit portion of the Climate Security Act. Clearly this is a priority issue for you. What role do you think transit policy should play in climate legislation?

Sen. Cardin: A huge part. [The transit portion called for] $171 billion over the life of the bill. That's big money. That can make a major impact. It can make a huge difference in the capacity for transit programs. We are in desperate need of significant transit improvements. We've got to have the facilities and we don't today, and then we need the fare-box and economic policies that reward people for taking public transportation. Some try to say that it should be "self-sufficient" or have a certain percentage return through the fare-box. We don't do that on our roads, and public transportation is much better for so many reasons -- not just the environment or the quality of life. We should be providing much stronger incentives for people to use public transportation, but first you need to have the facilities.