Most Read: Dam the Mediterranean

Yesterday's most popular article was one from City Metric that discussed a crazy 1920's idea to create a super continent by damning the Mediterranean Sea.  The purpose of which was to promote energy through hydro-electric power and peace through connectivity.

Of course this is an interesting look back at a time when refugees are clamoring to get into the EU from Syria and other nations. The connectivity is something that doesn't seem wanted by nations that feel they are more advanced than those who are producing refugees.  Each place has cultures and customs and even the EU which is very close together in terms of space has many varying looks at culture and norms.  It actually makes me think that the United States is pretty amazing given its vast geographic space.  Though we are mostly immigrants ourselves.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't discuss the huge amount of ecological damage this 1920 plan would have done.  At the time they thought it would make Northern Africa more habitable for European settlement but it would have also created a tangible connection that wasn't by boat.  

But what gets me really thinking about this is when I think about all the ideas to fill in San Francisco Bay.  While I marvel at our ability to move land and sea in ways that are amazing, it also makes me think that we're trying to fix something that's ever changing.  The Earth is a living, breathing thing and even our bridges and buildings will be forced out of place by moving plates and changing climates.  Best to design with nature, than against it.

Running Scared

The green movement is gaining influence and looking for 10% of the revenue for carbon credits. But this is scary to the highway movement as their influence and scare tactics wear thin.

According to Greg Cohen, president of the American Highway Users Alliance, the changing partisan guard in Washington has made highway groups wary of the focus on transit funds. “People are much more nervous about being on the chopping block,” he said. “It seems like the anti-highway crowd has much more influence than they had in the past.”

Anti highway? How about pro livable communities.

Get Off My Grass Track

John McCain hates transit. We would be living in an extended Bush nightmare if he were President today. It shows because it seems as if he knows absolutely nothing about how the Federal Transit Administration does competitive grants. I would somewhat understand the pork argument if he was targeting projects randomly inserted such as a bridge to nowhere, but many of the target projects actually have full funding grant agreements with the FTA after going through the highly competitive New Starts program. Much of this money seems to be for the annual allotment the FTA pays out for projects that sign their FFGA.

I would also say that many highway projects that are being built today wouldn't make it through this process so to call them pork shows the lack of understanding. The Mayor of Stamford who has a BRT project in final design even goes as far as to say McCain doesn't get it.

The SUT project will also be a model of livability and sustainability, optimizing the use of the SITC and its 225 commuter trains and hundred of buses a day, supporting the development of LEED-certified and green buildings for 12,000 new residents and highly-paid workers, and reducing vehicle miles traveled by 18,900,000 per year.

True colors coming through every day. 18 million VMT is a lot less foreign oil.

Two Types of Approval

There's a dustup in Seattle over a voter approved streetcar on First Hill. Candidate Mallahan thinks it's not so smart and would oppose it on the grounds of its expense. Of course he's showing his true colors faster than anyone expected but his even bigger mistake in my eyes is stating that the tunnel deal between the city, state, and county is more of a done deal because of the years it has taken to come to agreement. As if voter approval was just something for the plebes. While its nice that they came to agreement, it's not what voters even wanted and shows a disconnect between what voter approved means and what politician approved means.

"Secondly, when voters vote for something and fund it, as they have with the First Hill Street Car, we should build it. And Mr. Mallahan doesn't seemto think that's the case. But he also seems to think we should build a tunnel that 70 percent of Seattle voters oppose."
...
Mallahan's campaign shrugged off the attack and accused McGinn of inconsistency and hypocrisy because he wants to thwart the $4.3 billion Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel project that took years for the state, City and King County to agree on.

I don't quite understand the inconstancy, but this is coming from someone who believes unfunded backroom highway deals are more important than voter approved funded transit deals.

The Politics of Status Quo

Richard Layman covers all of the city races where transportation issues are downing candidates and opposition candidates are making hay of driver unrest and fear of breaking the status quo. Greg Nickels is taken out due to the tunnel and candidates in New York City are already saying Janette Sadik Kahn is out if they are elected. That would be a crime in itself but it shows the fear of change is real.

Governor Good Hair

Does this mean that we can give Governor Perry a hard time for all his contacts within the toll road community? I'm not sure he really wants to start this fight.

I Wear My Sunglasses At Night

Over at Politics and Place they're talking about the effect of train goggles with an excellent discussion on this issue that I mostly agree with. Yes I have them too. Apparently I'm a Choo Choo Head. I won't go into the dog whistle effect that the term choo choo has for rail transit opposition but it's there and it's strong. But as Paz states:

Munch on this for a second. If all of the sudden every streetcar and commuter train that ever ran was to suddenly reappear, would we still need buses? I would argue "absolutely, yes".

Ditto. As Bruce McF always says, buses and trains should be friends.

Transportation Bills & Gas Taxes

Looks like the T4 folks have been making some serious headway. They've got the highway lobby all riled up which is a good thing.

“If the bill starts looking more negative on highways, then users that have been supportive of fuel tax increases would turn their back on it,” said Greg Cohen, chief executive of the American Highway Users Alliance. “There is potential that the whole bill could be slowed down here.”

The major sticking point is funding. If more trust fund money is directed to transit projects, then trucking and highway groups will complain about the fairness of using their fees to pay for rail projects. They especially reject a unified transportation trust fund that would pay for all surface transportation out of the same pot of money.

Fairness? You want to talk about fairness? How fair is it to have your mode of transportation subsidized to an uneven degree over the last 60 years. I think Ryan nails it in his Streetsblog post.

In the first place, gas tax revenue comes nowhere near paying for roads. Federal gasoline tax revenues cover barely half of the annual budget of the Federal Highway Administration. Add in diesel tax revenues and you’re still short. And that’s just the federal budget picture.

I think this is an important point. All modes are subsidized, but to the extent that we can put transit on a more even footing we must. The trucking industry has gotten off too easily since the interstate highway system was completed. It was a major reason why rail shipping was killed to almost dead, since the railroads had to pay taxes on their ROW and trucks did not.

But I'm glad Secretary LaHood gets it. As least in words. And the fact that he has a somewhat more receptive president means that this is a totally different ball game. Though in some ways it's similar to that of the Bush and Clinton years that Norm Minetta was in town for:

We returned to the Oval Office, went through the presentation, and afterward President Bush said, "Norm, that's a tax increase. Get that out." So I then took all the unobligated surplus, left $1 billion in the highway trust fund, and used the balance to build a $267 billion surface transportation program that Congress finally passed in 2005. Not long after, the administration asked for an $8 billion infusion of general funds into the highway trust fund so it wouldn't be running a deficit by 2007.

Another Reason California is Messed Up

When someone litigates a transit vote that won by 62%. That is insane. A clear majority, 69%, in both counties voted for the SMART train. When the minority rules like it does here, things are really broken.

Former Novato councilman Dennis Fishwick - acting on his own behalf without an attorney - filed the lawsuit in Marin Superior Court against the district and SMART board, saying they stripped the right of Marin voters to reject the quarter-cent sales tax with a less than two-thirds approval. State law requires a tax increase to receive two-thirds approval from voters.

Measure Q received 73.5 percent approval in Sonoma County, but only 62.8 percent in Marin. That caused confusion among some Marin voters, who thought the measure had been defeated.

McGovern Calls for Transit Spending

Former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern is asking President Obama to think about halving the military budget and spending more of it on things like railways. Things are getting interesting out there.

Finally, I would like to see America build the fastest, safest and cleanest-powered railway system in the world. This nationwide system of passenger and freight rail service should be integrated with equally superior public transit facilities in our cities.

Very few Americans are in the market for a tank or aircraft carrier. There are many eager consumers for the world's best, fastest and safest rail and transit systems.

A recent study showed that public transit spending was much higher in returns on jobs than defense spending and other national priorities. I don't understand why we don't jump on this faster.

Trends Favor Core

Funny, that's not what the folks at Reason, most of New Geography, or Cato tell me.

Most demographic and market indicators suggest that growth and development across the country are moving away from the suburban and exurban fringe and toward center-cities and close-in suburbs.

But why?

What's behind this shift? Empty-nesters don't need the big house and don't want to mow the big lawn. High gas prices are making long commutes less practical. The urban renaissance in big cities ranging from New York to Portland, Ore. — and the revival of charming, vibrant downtowns in small cities like Missoula, Mont. — is making the bedroom suburb and the strip mall seem positively dull.

A Compelling Argument for Conservatives & Livability

After the passing of Paul Weyrich, I was wondering if there would be anyone to take up the mantle of conservatives and livable communities. While I'm not sure anyone would have the power or influence on the movement that Paul did, there are certain a few folks filling the void. This commentary by a former researcher at the Center for Neighborhood Technology tries to get at livable communities and their association to social conservatism. I think it puts together a lot of the things many of us in the movement believe in, whether on the left right or in the center. David Alpert expands the argument, and rightfully so to bikes as well. Check it out.

Sprawl Is Dead! Long Live Sprawl!

What does sprawl mean anymore to anyone? In one day President Obama discusses how important it is to build an interchange and how sprawl is dead. Are those two reconcilable? Only if we define what sprawl is and how it's created. Some on the other side consider streetcar suburbs from the end of the 19th century and early 20th century to be sprawl. They would consider the the Roman Empire to be sprawl.

But we seem to forget that those neighborhoods were made for walking, and recent studies have suggested that the interconnected road networks built by streetcars and before are safer than those built just for cars. This isn't just an issue of the environment, its an issue of public health and safety. But does that lead to a simple definition of the detrimental effects of sprawl?

So what is sprawl? Is it like Larry Flint's magazines? Do you know it when you see it? To my own understanding, sprawl is development that acts as a leach, taking tax base away from central cities and spending it sooner than it can be raised. It doesn't necessarily mean low density alone because that is a part of the market, just not 80% of it. The Fresno Bee also had a story about a study done on farmland preservation in California's central valley. We're losing land fast to endless unsustainable development. But how do we get to sustainable? What is the goal there? 0% net energy usage? Then there is this dependence on oil thing.

Sinn-Frei via Steven B.

But is it sprawl if your house is close to your job, even if you live out the suburbs? I've tried to think of what it is and what it isn't, but I can't seem to pin it down. So if we can't define it, how do we kill it?

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.

The Dark Side of the Stimulus Package

Here are some bunk stimulus links.

TPM Election Central 1 and 2: Transit Wars

Even the Environmental Defense Fund, considered a relatively centrist player in the phalanx of Washington green groups, had a bone to pick with the transit part of the stimulus plan. Fewer than half of the 50 states have publicly released their priority transportation projects, according to the EDF, making transparency from the nation's governors a crucial missing piece.

Wall Street Journal: Return of the Oberstar

Some members of the House transportation committee objected to the proposed level of investment during a Democratic caucus session Thursday, and several members later spoke out during a committee meeting. Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.) suggested the committee draft a letter or resolution to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi objecting to the transport section of the stimulus bill.

Open Left: Oberstar Strikes Back

Basically CBO got numbers from the Bush administration DOT that said it was not possible to spend money on these projects within 90 days, meaning they're not "shovel ready". Oberstar explains that's BS and it's ridiculous to be taking numbers from the Bush folks at DOT that are getting ready to high-tail it out of town.

Grist: Help Me Joe-B1 Kenobi

All this comes just as Barack Obama and "Amtrak" Joe Biden get ready for a railroad trip along said corridor. They'll be traveling from Philadelphia down to Washington, D.C. this weekend on their "Whistle Stop Train Tour." Maybe the trip will give them a few hours to think about transit funding.

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.

Smashing

People are mad. I'm not happy about it either. But why smash stuff that has nothing to do with what happened on that BART platform? Becks has posted another person's story about how things got out of hand, and hotter heads prevailed. It's unfortunate that a few need to be hooligans and vent anger that exists in this way. Here's a commentary I agree with to a certain extent.

No question that Oakland is a full-on bonfire, soaked in gasoline and just waiting for a match or two. Chronicle columnist Chip Johnson and reporter Henry Lee have provided readers a long running and deep image of a city off its moorings, from hapless (or absent or corrupt) government leaders to rampant homicide.

This has been boiling for a while. Oakland seemed a bit sleepy for a while but Dellums being the absent professor isn't helping and no one has really taken a leadership role in the city of late. I'm not afraid but rather sad. The city has such great potential but seems to have a bit of a complex. Always overshadowed by San Francisco, Oakland developed an identity related to the bad things that have happened. But it has great qualities. It has great bones.

Working downtown has given me some perspective, but I don't understand most of the dynamics. The underlying issues need attention. And I don't think anyone in the leadership of the city is paying enough attention to what is going on deep down to actually fix it. I don't know the answer, but hopefully someone will think outside the box on this. The shooting was just one event, but so was the killing of Franz Joseph. It's a powder keg in Oakland and we need a solution. Where's the leadership summit? Where are the bright minds and big hearts? This is a cycle that must be broken.

Likely Unlikely Ally

Folks in the steel industry are getting behind the idea of transit for the stimulus. Seems to me like there are other unlikely allies out there. Anyone have an unlikely ally that should be in the mix?

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.

Friday Night Linkfest: Stimulus & Transit

Folks in Atlanta are looking at a massive transit program to build out their system called Concept 3, but how are they going to get $40 billion dollars?
~~~
Congressman Oberstar has our back. He wants to spend more on transit, and if the highway junkies don't like it, tough.
~~~
Ahem. Advocates are not split Boston Globe. We want transit, walking, and biking projects. There is no dichotomy of we have to build roads because they will create jobs and the other projects won't. That is complete and utter bs.
~~~
Tunnel lovers just won't give up (I wish there was a tunnel). Shouldn't this project have been built years ago? Get it started already!
~~~
The Cinci NAACP is opposing a streetcar project complaining about potholes in neighborhoods. Seems to me like they should be opposing all those suburban road projects. This is exactly how the Madison streetcar died, except that time, it was police coverage. The trade off shouldn't be transit or streets or police.