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.

OT: BCS - Better Check the Scoreboard

I could type a lot of stuff here. But as a Texas fan and alum, it's disappointing to see two teams you've already beaten play in the Big 12 Championship, one of which you had the same record as and beat, the other which has a worse record than three teams in the other division. It's also annoying to watch football games of teams you don't like and have to root for one because of football politics. For all those who think the BCS is a good idea, you're not in it for the right reasons and if the only reason you can make is money, you need to put your greed in check.

This is one reason I liked running track than playing other sports. The stopwatch doesn't lie.

And to keep this a little transit related, you'll be able to take Light Rail to the Texas - OU game next year in Dallas.

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.

The Green House Gas War

Here's an interesting article in Slate that talks up the difference between driving and transit and airplanes and GHG emissions. It's nothing you don't already know but a nice read complete with links to the Reason Foundation and the Center for Neighborhood Technology. Here's an interesting clip:

Secondly, you can't discuss the environmental impact of getting around without considering the infrastructure that makes travel possible. We have a tendency to focus on the environmental impact of the things that move—the cars, trains, and planes we see getting from point A to point B. But Chester and Horvath found that in some cases, construction is the biggest polluter. Roads were responsible for more particulate matter than tailpipes, for example. For rail travel, operating the trains actually accounts for less than half of a system's greenhouse-gas emissions. The implication: Making concrete and asphalt in a more environmentally friendly way can be just as important as getting vehicles to run more efficiently. In other words, it's not just the road you take, but what it's made out of, too.

H/T Public Transit in Ottawa

Protect Traditional Sidewalk Values

Keep those freshman off the sidewalk!

H/T Americablog

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.

Drinking Your Milkshake

Snotty legislators get theirs. Gotta play the clip.

The Liberal Light Rail Agenda

I really wish they would cut this out. So what if we want a different lifestyle?

When in Doubt...

make stuff up. Don't let those silly facts get in the way.

Transportation Secretary Short List

I'm not sure how accurate these are but it apparently was reported in Congressional Quarterly (Original here. Thanks Morgan):

McCain
- Ma Peters
- Bill Graves, president of the American Trucking Associations
- Pete K. Rahn, Missouri Department of Transportation director

Obama
- Governor Edward G. Rendell (D-PA), chair of National Govenors Association
- Jane F. Garvey, executive vice president, APCO Worldwide
- Steve Heminger, executive director of the San Francisco Bay area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Ma Peters. We know all about her. Someone from the American Trucking Association? Serious? Or hows about Pete Rahn, the president of the Highway Lobby! This is stark. YGBFKM!

On the Blue team, it looks much better. Governor Rendell is big on transit in Philadelphia and understands transportation is multi-modal. I'm not so sure how good Jane Garvey would be as she was a former FAA administrator and Deputy Administrator at the Federal Highway Administration (booo!!).

I'm not so sure what I think of Steve Heminger either. His MTC has already been reprimanded by Jerry Brown for keeping roads we know the region doesn't need (Read Eric's post) and he got into trouble by taking a paragraph out of the recent National Transportation Commission Study Report about electric transit that Conservative Paul Weyrich had inserted. He's recently been a HOT lane enthusiast as well.

On the other hand, he understands multi-modal transportation systems, though the Bay Area's hodge podge of 26 agencies makes it a little hard to coordinate. They also have very aggressive performance measures for TOD that only spend money on new projects if the area is willing to accept a certain amount of density. I will say he and Gov. Rendell would be light years better than any of these other highway clowns. The McCain picks are telling, and if you were thinking he would address global warming and go against the auto-oil industrial complex, you might have just gotten smacked in the face.

Walking and Biking is Wacky

h/t Treehugger

FTA Shuttle Rule Thoughts

I wonder if they considered private shuttles...

Killing the Opposition's Density Meme

Chicken and Egg again. I'm not saying that the move not to go into Scott County isn' t the right one in the Twin Cities Region. Being fairly far outside of the core, it's not likely to get a rail link to downtown any time soon.

But for Peter Bell, the head of the Metropolitan Council to claim that there will only be two more light rail lines in the region because of population density shows that people still don't get it, the people that are supposed to. They still don't understand that transportation is an investment made in part to decide later land use. I can think of three light rail corridors in the Twin Cities that are in planning. Does this mean that only two get rail because the other one has no chance to regenerate?

"There will only be one or two additional light rail lines in this region," council chair Peter Bell warned. "We just simply don't have the population density, and we won't get the federal matching dollars.

These are unfortunate comments from someone who should know better than to reinforce the auto-centric density meme. This is one of these things that everyone should be on message about. We really need to hammer our leaders on this issue because we'll never get anything done if people are repeating what the opposition wants the message to be, especially when false. Was Arlington County dense enough to get a Metro Subway? Was the Pearl District dense enough to get a streetcar?

This meme needs to stop, and you know who has been aiding and abetting? From Peter Bell's quote, it's our favorite Mary Peters and her FTA. They don't believe in land use or transit changing land use patterns. In fact, they encourage under investment in transit by telling cities they can't build light rail lines unless they have a cost-effectiveness measure that matches current conditions, not future. Again, transit investment is about shaping future growth patterns. We know this because we have seen what transportation investment has done to our growth over the last 60 years.

Merry Peters! Houston Edition

Instead of Merry Christmas or Happy Birthday, It's Merry Peters! In this edition, Houston was really excited to have her come down this morning to give a major speech. My assumption as perhaps was others is that she was going to fund the two light rail lines now in preliminary engineering or perhaps move them to final design. From the Houston Chronicle two days ago:

"We wouldn't be coming there to announce bad news," said the spokeswoman, declining to elaborate.

The site of Peters' announcement will be the northern end of the Metropolitan Transit Authority's Red Line light rail tracks. Metro's planned North Line would link to them and continue to Northline Mall. Metro is seeking federal funding for half the cost of the North Line and the planned Southeast Line, which would cross the Red Line at Main and continue through southeast Houston to Palm Center.

Metro also wants federal funding for an Intermodal Terminal just north of UH-Downtown where buses, light rail and commuter rail trains would converge. Metro spokeswoman Raequel Roberts said she she does not know what Peters will announce.

Well those hopes were unfounded as Secretary Peters came to hock her hopes for a privatization heavy transportation policy. Touting her metro mobility program, she stated that new systems like Houston's Light Rail could be funded through her new program. But with the funds somewhat open ended, many feel like its a back door gift for road builders and could be a blow to the livability movement in regions where DOTs are basically highway departments.

But yet again she doesn't tell the truth about what is really happening in Washington, with the DOT trying to steal from the transit fund to pay for roads and last year trying to allow HOT lanes to be funded by the New Starts transit program. Here's her most recent tall tale:

"The bottom line is that our current approach to transportation discourages, actively discourages instead of encourages the type of innovative approaches to financing and building like the north transit corridor that Houston needs to keep its residents moving," said Peters earlier today.

The current approach to transportation is YOUR approach Ms Peters. You're in control of how things work, yet you keep pushing towards faux BRT and more privately funded roads. You wanted to make it harder to build beneficial rail projects because you don't understand the benefits to cities. The benefits to people, not cars. Don't give us this crap about who discourages innovative transport when its you. You're in the way. Portland is looking at innovative ways to fund the east side streetcar with developers but you won't allow it to complete the process.

Forbes actually described it correctly with their headline. "Bush administration pushing new roads." It has a money quote from the Secretary as well that shows her true intentions, as she mentioned earlier this year. Bikes and alternative transport are not transportation:

"Under our approach, communities will no longer have to slice and dice every federal dollar to qualify for niche programs that do little to improve their communities or commutes," Peters said. "Instead, projects that make sense for commuters get funded, while projects designed only to help politicians won't."

Niche programs like the New Starts Program? Niche Program like safe routes to school? How about programs that promote cycling? The problem with this is the sole focus on the commute. Improving communities does not mean speeding up traffic on roads or creating new concrete for cars that are the main part of our national energy addiction. I'm so tired of this BS. Just say what you really mean Mary. Tell us how you really feel. You and your friends hate cities. Speeding up the commute is just code for building freeways through them. I can't wait for November.

Getting Slim? Eat More Food

Martin hits the nail on the head. Why are we begging for more highway money when the funding source is going down because people are driving less. Perhaps it's because there is an extreme want by the motoring and sprawling industries to keep pushing. Maybe this is what is needed to starve the sprawling beast.

Istook Is Right

Arcady and the Cap'n pointed out a comment Istook made in that crazy article yesterday.

Forcing people to use a particular mode of travel is not the American way.

Arcady said: "Damn right! Stop forcing me to drive!"

Agreed.

The Option of Urbanism: Subsidizing the Rich

Here is another view of it from the Option of Urbanism. We've been taking quotes for the last week from the book.

According to Myron Orfield's Metropolitics, the affluent outer-ring suburbs in the favored quarter "dominate regional economic growth and garner a disproportionate share of the region's new roads and other development infrastructure." Orfield also pointed out that much of the funding for this infrastructure is raised from the region as a whole. For example, all car-driving residents in the region pay gas taxes to partially support the building of highways, and taxpayers of the region as a whole pay the rest of the money through their income, property, and sales taxes.

So this happens for roads, but people yell and scream bloody murder when they are taxed for transit and "it doesn't help me directly". The worst part about this as well is that cities are slowly signing on to their own declines.

The unlikely consequence of this pattern of infrastructure development is that the whole region pays for infrastructure that tends to be placed in the favored quarter; the poor pay for the infrastructure of the rich. According to Orfield, the central cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, for example, pay $6 million a year to help move their middle class households and businesses to the edge of the region.

Part of the problem is the regional competition for jobs. Minneapolis has a tax base sharing program that might alleviate this a little, but most regions are not so lucky. And there is still exporting going on to places like Bloomington and Eden Prairie.

M1ek has discussed this before and James Rowen covered a similar issue for Milwaukee in talking about how much they give to the regional planning commission, and how little they get out of it. Perhaps this is something that needs to be put in mayor's and city council members faces. DC, for all its flaws has the right idea of trying to take care of its citizens instead of the folks who take advantage of their services during the day, but drive back out at night.