Is Obama's DOT Team Just Setting Up for Wall Street?

It's an interesting question and I really don't know enough about these folks or their backgrounds to make a judgment. I do know that none of these people have been at the forefront of the push for greater transit or livable streets. Perhaps they have mentioned it in passing but they likely don't see it as most important. Most DOT types only care about a question that shouldn't be at the top of the list. Congestion. And usually the only answer to them is road capacity. But the problem is that its kind of like the War on Terror, there is no specific end and no one really knows what congestion eradication means. If we were to eradicate congestion, it just means we're probably wasting space or have too much capacity that is only used in peak hours.

H/T Anonymous poster that I can't credit because they posted anonymously.

Crazy Pills All Around!

We have nothing to show for tossing bones to the R's. They got concessions but we know the bill got watered down because of it. Now the auto industry is going to be using our money to be dinosaurs. What did we vote for in November. I forgot.

At least more funding got into the package. And Mr. Dukakis assures us that the future will be good.

Wired.com: The Obama administration has promised more rail and transit funding. Are we going to see things start to happen?

Dukakis: No question about it. This economic mess we're in has actually turned out to be a huge opportunity to invest in transit projects. Despite the concerns out there, I think this is a huge opportunity.

Wired.com: What concerns?

Dukakis: There's worry that the states just aren't ready to move on stuff. They haven't done the planning and the engineering they need to jump into major projects when the funding is there. We have a major construction-management problem in this country. In Massachusetts, the governor wants to build a four-mile light-rail extension using existing right of way [tracks and property that are already in place], and it's going to take six years to complete. How can that be? Chinese and Irish immigrants were laying four miles of track a day on the transcontinental railroad, and that was in the 1860s.

Was there any money for engineering in the bill? I agree that it shouldn't take six years to build the green line. It should have been done yesterday. But unless there is some sort of signal from the administration that engineering should begin and go faster on more of these lines because the money will start flowing, there's no reason for transit agencies to push harder for it. That just means that the cycle continues as to whether it should be done at all. This is why the next transportation bill is so important. Let's get it right.

When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Larry?

A number of recent blog posts as well as Peter DeFazio in an interview with Rachel Maddow have pointed blame for the reduction in rail funding in the stimulus package at the Obama folks and more directly at former treasury secretary and Obama advisor Larry Summers. It's not surprising that he is in favor of tax cuts given his plea for them even before the economic slowdown in 2007. Recently he's become a convert to infrastructure in words alone, but it doesn't seem like the actions are following through. Instead they've put in tax cuts as funding for infrastructure, particularly rail was junked. But as Tom states at Angry Bear:

The underlying problem is that helicoptering money to "consumers" by way of tax cuts or lump-sum grants a la last year's stimulus payments does little or nothing to help satisfy demands that are latent due to incomplete markets. Give me $100 and I can drive to Chicago for the day, not insignificantly because past public infrastructure spending built the roads from here to there. Give everyone in Madison $100 and it still does sod all for extending the Amtrak Hiawatha service, seeing as the city was cut off from such passenger rail network as still exists in the upper Midwest and reconnecting it requires a substantial investment. Maybe in libertarian fantasyland, there are no such things as collective action problems, but elsewhere overcoming them may be considered to be a useful function of government.

As opponents like to say, 90% of people drive, well then we should spend 90% on roads. But its a cycle of spending that causes this to happen. As we've seen in places like Copenhagen, if you build infrastructure to support other modes such as cycling and transit, you will get more and more riders and shift the policies. This is what we did in the 50's in support of the automobile. It was a collective push to increase funding and regulations for that mode that led to its rise. At the time, many felt it was the way of the future, but looking back we know that was completely wrong.

But the issue with the stimulus that continues is the fact that we aren't doing enough and a lot of people don't seem to understand what is "enough". Calling $3 billion adequate is kind of lame, especially given the $250 billion in new projects that are in que as well as the thought that California's high speed rail line would be $40 itself. There is a want for a national high speed rail network, or at least start of work on the key city to city lines that would increase productivity and connectivity. And the excuse that it won't be started fast enough is based on existing FTA and DOT timelines in which transit is suffocated based on underfunding. Another excuse is that we should wait for the next transportation bill. But if we are able to make investments now and write a bill that can fold some of them in, why not do it?

While many will point to the New Deal as a major part of what got us out of the depression, the cap was World War II in which we turned auto plants into tank and plane manufacturers and people saved instead of continuing thier spending. No extra rubber around for new cars, only for the war effort. In fact, this poster reminds us of the lengths people took to save energy and resources. Imagine if in this time period of hardship people were asked to save a little more and come together to build or invest in more of what is needed such as education and technology.


If I were in charge, perhaps I would have an office of infrastructure reconciliation. This means bringing our rail infrastructure up to a current standard and increasing output dramatically, much like China. We'll have to also wait and see on the idea of an infrastructure bank but this is no time to comprimise or seek middle ground as Mr. Summers stated Obama will do. Tax cuts are an idea of the Republicans, thier solution to EVERYTHING over the last 30 years. After a while, there's not much left to cut. Look where that has gotten us. Seems like this is a time to strike forward with big thoughts and ideas.

Books on Rail Policy

Ryan asks what some good books are on Rail Policy. I'm not sure if this is what he was looking for, but I think Stephen Goddard's Getting There is a good read.

Voltron of Transportation

My good friend Mike who blogs now over at Transit Miami sent me this link about Boston looking to combine all of their transportation agencies into one super agency. I'll leave it to Bill to say whether this is a good idea or not but I don't think super agencies feel like they have to serve the needs of the transit constituency.

Now the only meaningful question is who gets to be the black lion...

Top of the Charts

This link to Change.gov has been around the internets so I figured I'd add it on as well. Seems like lots of people agree with the idea that we need high speed rail and local light rail. So much so that perhaps the Obama folks will start mentioning it more.

Inertia Continued

A serious (R) blogger at the Oregonian believes that automobiles are tied to our DNA.

Now, I'm not trying to dismiss Maus' opinion (he's a good guy and certainly knows his stuff when it comes to bike issues), but we still live in an auto-centric society. Car ownership is part of America's DNA. In most places across the country, bicycling as a primary mode of transportation is indeed, I hate to say it, considered a fringe movement.

I think we need some gene therapy. Of course when people write these types of things, it's just continuing the self fulfilling prophecy. Of course people will continue to be auto-centric if they aren't given an alternative. It's just like those people that say, no one takes transit, so why build it so they can?

And it looks like we have our new Ma "Bike's Aren't Transport" Peters in Minority Leader John Boehner. He stated that he saw bike paths as not stimulus. Some will say he means recreational trails, but we know these guys think any bike infrastructure is just for recreation. These guys are just out of touch.

Youth Vote? Gone. We ask for nothing from these idealistic voters, we offer little except chastisement of their lifestyle choices and denial of global warming, and we are woefully behind the Democrats in learning how to connect with them.

Lifestyle choices such as biking, transit and urbanism. Keep chipping away John.

Transit Not Roads

Lots of editorials coming out discussing the issue of roads and transit in the stimulus package. Take a look at a few on each side. It doesn't surprise me Atlanta is so far behind, and falling faster. They have editorial page people like this guy. But there are folks that get it. Such as local writers from PIRG and at the *Toronto Star* (updated: err Globe and Mail).

Signs of the Apocolypse

Well kinda. Click and Clack are pretty smart guys, but having the Car Talk guys advocate a 50 cent gas tax has to count for something right?

"I'm sick of people whining about a lousy 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline! I think its time has come, and I call on all non-wussy politicians to stand with me, because our country needs us."

Amen.

Action! How Is Your State Going to Spend?

This weekend on the hill there is work on the Stimulus package going on. We need to push hard to keep the State DOT's from throwing in all the road projects they can find and make it as Green as possible. You can learn more from the T4 blog. Check the lists in your region. If there is a bent towards roads, let your representatives know it. Email them if you have to!

More LaHood Background Information

I've never seen the word "Really?" on as many blogs or news articles as I did today on this pick. So I did a bit of digging and read a few emails, here's some more background on the nominated Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Yonah covers in detail (as usual) a few of his past transportation details. He covers some Amtrak in LaHood's home town, making a rail ROW into a trail instead of preserving it for future service, and funding for a local road project.

Modemocrat at DailyKos has a bit of background on LaHood from a bit of a political angle for the pick. He discusses why this might be a savvy political move and how his ability to work with republicans could possibly be a boon for big infrastructure projects due to his knowledge of the appropriations process.

In the same vein at the Prospect, Dana Goldstien makes the argument that this appointment could possibly neutralize transit as an urban snob issue.

In my opinion, his appropriations knowledge and closeness to congress might be a strike against him as he is too familiar with the process and could be slow to change it (we know it needs to get deep sixed), or understand the changes that need to be made in say the New Starts program. There are a lot of little details that need changing. Will he know as Robert notes, "...the FRA's weight rules? Does he support 80/20 funding for mass transit?" Things of that nature.

Austin Bike Blog notes that LaHood is a member of the congressional bike caucus. It's quite the long list but he was supportive of Congressman Blumenaur's commuter benefits package. Looking through some back news, he was one of two Republicans that voted in committee to keep funding for bike improvements in the 2003 transportation appropriations bill. It was initially ripped out by Rep. Istook of OK. LaHood even testified on the house floor for the bike and ped enhancements.

He's not without his bad connections as well. He tried along with Rep Culbertson of Houston (who was the target of one of my first posts ever) to keep Rep Chris Bell from filing ethics complaints against Tom Delay. He also praised a member of his constituency on the floor in 1997 who was appointed VP to the Petroleum Marketers Association of America. Though he was in the Pig Book for earmarking green building tech, his environmental record is pretty shoddy.

He also supported (H/T AK) an Interstate connection to Chicago but later pulled back on that, working to fund local freeways instead.

The largest employer in his district is Caterpillar, a heavy machinery company that makes earthmovers and backhoes. He's also earmarked funds for CAT. Yes CAT machinery is used to build roads. Perhaps they should start into the rail machinery now.

A few of the related bills good or bad that he has co-sponsored recently (with a lot of other people):

Commuter Act of 2008 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers a refundable credit against income tax for 50 percent of the employer's cost of providing tax-free transit passes to employees.

Recognizing Importance of Bicycling as Transportation and Recreation Res

Bicycle Fringe Benefit - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters.

As for regular transit, after his Amtrak talk and possible anti-HSR stance, there is nothing about buses or light rail anywhere, at least that I could find. I'll keep looking for more information tomorrow.

LaHood-Winked?

Maybe, Maybe Not. I haven't done my due diligence but my first reaction was anger, then sadness. It's official. This is the guy. Who nobody seems to know about in a transportation light. He doesn't run a transportation agency of any type and so far as I can tell he's pro Amtrak and anti-privatization of it. Obama and LaHood were linked in a Light Rail Now! article in 2005, what foresight.

Newly elected U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D) noted, "Every year they make the same proposal and some of it is just ideological.... It strikes me that we should make a greater investment in upgrading our rail system rather than eliminating the subsidies that already exist. "If you look at the amount of subsidies that we provide the highways relative to the subsidies that we provide rail transportation, it pales in comparison." Obama echoed a comment many Amtrak supporters have made for years saying, "We're the only developing country in the world that doesn't make a significant commitment to our rail transportation system."

U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Peoria, also rejected the Bush rail plan. He said he favors maintaining the current Amtrak system but didn't rule out small changes to make the railroad more efficient. "We've got a good Amtrak system in illinois and I don't think we want to destroy it by talking about privatization," LaHood said in a telephone interview with the Peoria Journal Star. "The subsidies need to continue. These subsidies are the lifeblood of Amtrak continuing the kind of service they have to the college towns and the small communities in illinois and around the country. I don't see us really tinkering with that."

I'll be deep in the Googles later tonight looking for dirt, good or bad. I'll post what I find.

Transit Energy Efficiency & Lifecycle Costs

We've seen any number of calculations of energy efficiency and green house gases in transit modes. Some a bit out there because of crazy assumptions for autos. Even our favorite libertarian O'Toole played the game. The problem with all of these is that they don't consider the whole picture, or what happens when buildings are built closer together and transportation makes it easier for people to walk. But I digress.

At Rail~Volution I saw a presentation by Tina Hodges at the FTA that had some cool charts and comparisons of modes. The one I've seen before is the increase in VMT versus what CAFE standards will do. Now we've seen that there is a bit of a drop recently due to the economy but with gas prices as they are and no change in habits, I still believe this will happen.


Then here is the difference between current occupancies vs. all of the vehicles full and over the lifecycle of the vehicle in the second chart. These are based on a UC Berkeley study by Mikhail Chester that considered vehicle construction, guidway construction etc. The list of items lifecycled are at the link. Apparently buses off peak are the worst and peak are the best, even better than rail lines. Yet rail lasts longer and attracts more passengers overall so on average is better. I didn't really have time to read the 332 page tome, but if you're interested go for it.


But the most interesting in the presentation to me was the difference between the Heavy Rail modes. BART is the most efficient while Cleveland is almost as bad as a single occupancy vehicle. The relative inefficiency of the EL was surprising to me as well.

Thought this would be of interest to folks. I have to say again that its necessary to not just measure the lifecycle and modes but rather the land uses and transportation, but its interesting to learn that this work is being done.

Perhaps I Have Had Too Much Hope

This language is not change we can believe in. I can't keep giving the benefit of the doubt with language like this alone from Obama:

ROADS AND BRIDGES: “[W]e will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

No wonder we're so far behind the rest of the world. If your smart leaders don't understand and articulate the real problems, then how are we supposed to fix them? Commenters on liberal blogs such as Daily Kos this morning echoed my thoughts:

Roads and bridges, roads and bridges, roads and bridges...as if that's all we need and everything will be alright. Yes, I know Obama has mentioned rail and I hear it more frequently now, but how about saying "rail, transit, roads and bridges" for once?

And on America Blog:

Rehabbing the infrastructure and the highway system is an excellent idea. I would like to see nation-wide pubic transportation on that list as well but . . . somehow, sensible bus and train and even plane connections are beyond us.

In fact there was a sentiment throughout the whole comment thread of this post that there has been little mention of transit. I didn't even see any mention of bike or pedestrian improvements which is a part of this as well. Yes I understand this is for immediate job creation, but there is a lot more that can be done if transit agencies would get their act together and ask for it, prove they need those funds. They are always complaining about being underfunded, I know there is a case to be made. It seems like politicians are afraid but like others have said, its a time to be bold. These are not times for the timid.

Shaking in Policy Boots

The opposition is getting worried and you can tell when their rhetoric starts to sound like this:

At the same time, many environmental groups, labor unions, consultants, and construction companies are urging the federal government to redirect federal transportation policy toward 19th century transportation options by shifting federal resources from highways and autos to transit and trains, as well as hiking and biking, in the belief that these latter modes--while slower and more costly--are more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. With an opportunity to receive greater subsidies, the transit and train lobbies have moved aggressively to influence Congress and the media, and many in Congress are already promising to push for these changes.

In other words, watch out for BIG RAIL and SUPERTRAINS! Turns out, Obama doesn't listen to these dudes. We're looking at transit stimulus rather than Iran War Games at Heritage. The rest of the Heritage article is the usual shpiel about ridership share and all the other BS you come to expect from the sprawlistas.

This brings up another issue that Yglesias talked about today as well. With the auto industry, these guys (Cox and Utt) have been pushing hard in parrallel with the auto industry for standards that deny many people a lifestyle they would like to have and independence from an expensive habit.

The auto industry has provided a decent living to a large number of Americans for many decades. But it’s also been a very pernicious force on our public policy. If car companies expect progressives to deliver them a financial rescue, then it only seems fair to me that progressives will want the companies to stop blocking key elements of the progressive political agenda. That means dropping lawsuits like the one aimed at forcing California to lower its fuel efficiency standards, it means stopping involvement in whatever anti-green climate change front groups these firms are involved with, it means seeing members of congress from Michigan and other rust belt areas offering assurances to colleagues that they won’t stand in the way of serious climate legislation, etc.
...
These firms will be okay. Giving federal subsidies that are then used to lobby for pro-pollution public policy is not okay.

If only we could stop junk planning theory as well.

Lots of Stim

Treehugger runs over three different transit based new deal programs. The Apollo Alliance seems to have the most aggressive:

Transit plays a prominent role in the Alliance's 10-year, $500 billion plan to create 5 million new jobs. Among their proposals: bringing government investment in mass transit at least up to par with investments in highways, increasing the government's share of funding for transit and infrastructure projects and prioritizing repair and maintenance of infrastructure over new highways.

Pay No Attention to the GHGs Behind the Curtain

Is it just me, or is it really short sighted to use stimulus money on expanding roads?

GMing the System

For years the auto industry hid behind Jon Dingell as they constantly lobbied against requirements to raise fuel efficiency. No more hiding behind those coat tails. Waxman is in charge. Now let's not forget what Waxman has done in the past. His own constituent pandering led to a ban on federal funds being used for a Westside Subway, one that would have been much cheaper than it is now. That's not to say that prudence wasn't necessary after the explosion, but once it was deemed safe to tunnel it shouldn't have stayed a ban.

He recently redeemed himself when he helped to lift the ban, but let's hope there aren't any more of these types of issues. To be fair, I don't see any of these problems arising and I see a new generation shift. We're looking at the environment, energy and transportation different than before. And the vote today shows that shift happening.

Sources inside the Democratic House Caucus say the vote against outgoing Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. John Dingell turned partly along generational lines - with young turks lining up against the old - and partly because of Dingell's record on environmental issues.

They would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those pesky kids.

Friday Night Linkage

Time to figure out which route is best for the Southwest Corridor in Minneapolis.
~~~
Pelosi for HSR. Major firepower will make sure that this project gets its federal funding in the next congress.
~~~
A Streetcar for Middletown Connecticut?
~~~
Is a DDOT Streetcar ever going to get built?
~~~
More on Denver's property increases near light rail:

As I've mentioned previously, many of the people that I've talked with on my trip have mentioned that transit is not good where they are, and it's a deciding factor not just in what neighborhood they move to, but what city they move to. We don't have any data yet on the West Corridor, but anecdotally, I have seen a lot of competition for properties on the west corridor. We lost a bid on a property that was listed for around $100,000, even though we bid $25,000 over the list price.

China Rail Stimulus Package: $445 Billion

Update: I should note that this is $445 Billion Australian or $272 Billion. That is still a lot of money.

Reuters is reporting that with factory workers in China losing jobs, the government will pump $445 Billion dollars into their rail system and economy.

CHINA will invest nearly $A445 billion in its overburdened rail system as a stimulus measure aimed at blunting the impact of the global financial crisis. The investment is part of plans to extend the country's railway network from the current roughly 125,502km to nearly 160,900km by 2010, Shanghai's Oriental Morning Post reported. The Beijing News quoted a rail official as saying that, while the network needed extending, the massive investment was also intended to help lift the nation's economy as it suffers amid the global woes.

I don't know about you all, but I can't even imagine a scenario where we pump that much money into freight and passenger rail lines because our politics would get in the way. That is almost double the demand that exists in the United States for new transit lines and certainly an investment like that in the United States would be an enormous benefit for our future ancestors. Are we going to see the light? Or fall further behind?

HT ASD