Transportation Bill Downfall Parody

It was only time before this happened. Anyone else tired of waiting for a transpo bill?

If you haven't seen a downfall parody before, you can find some really good ones here. This one, Hitler finds out about the downfall parodies, is quite hilarious as well.

Caution, harsh language.

The Final Countdown!

Magic from jrk on Vimeo.

T4 has awesomely put the source code for their transportation bill countdown clock on their website for share. Folks who are interested should pull it down. This is something that shows how lax our government has been on actually doing something they are supposed to do every 6 years. Instead they just put it off. Oh we have too much to do or there is an election coming up are always the big excuses. This is what we pay you for!

Funnel Cloud

While these are nice pleasantries, I think the Obama administration needs to back up their words with action. Metro regions are the economic engines of this nation yet the stimulus is evidence that they are still not getting the attention they deserve from the administration. There's a great opportunity in the transportation bill to funnel money directly to cities, but the administration has decided just like the Bush administration to push it back, even though it could act as a second stimulus.

The Obama administration may funnel more federal aid directly to cities and bypass states, Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, said during a Chicago appearance with her former boss, Mayor Richard M. Daley.

I'll believe it when I see it happen.

A Shotgun Wedding?

Meteor Blades has a post on teh Orange Satan that goes more towards the middle of the cash for clunkers argument. He believes that even though our goal should be moving more towards better transportation systems and land use, we're still going to have automobiles until we get those systems in place. He then ties the idea of cash for clunkers with transit.

Money for the CARS program should have its own budget, not taken from spending for renewable energy projects. And every dollar spent should be legislatively tied to a matching dollar added to the federal mass transit appropriation in the following year. Funding for both these projects should come from increased taxes on gasoline.

While the cash for clunkers program that actually makes people double their mileage instead of letting them off the hook might move us towards more efficient vehicles, transit and land use is so far behind that I don't believe a 1:1 add to the fund won't really help much. It seems to me like keeping the status quo, because outside of that funding, 80% of federal monies still goes to cars, plus the other side of the 1:1 cash for clunkers, which is still subsidizing people to buy cars. I can appreciate that people are still going to drive cars. But we didn't get to be a single minded car driving society by the free market alone. There are a lot of subsidies that made it so and the pendulum swung too far, and we're still pushing to that side, when we should be aiding a swing back to the center on both transportation and land use.

$eeking A Green Funding Scheme

Congress is looking hard for a funding source for all things transportation. With the gas tax woefully inadequate, they are looking for other sources. One that continues to come up is the VMT tax. While this is a promising idea, no one likes to think further or beyond the box. I was actually surprised when people immediately let an idea like DeFazio's oil futures tax even sit for a while. But for the most part, congress is boring. It's like people are stuck going in circles.

But in the Streetsblog article there are some ideas that have floated before, in other forms that might be a bit innovative. For example the tax break idea has been floated before and discussed here, albeit for a somewhat different cause. Alan Drake has been proposing for a long time that we use property tax breaks to electrify the main freight lines across the country. This is just an addition.

Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) touted his bill to provide tax credits for companies that build new freight tracks or terminals. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) suggested levying a freight fee of 0.075 percent per shipment, with a maximum of $500, on goods that arrive at the nation's ports.

But what about other ways to find funding for transport. Are there any other innovative mechanisms for a national scale? The Transport Politic says we should take it from the general fund. How about if we can carve out some of the income tax for transportation. Perhaps you can see how much you're paying into it on your weekly statement, kind of like FICA. Especially since everyone uses transportation to get to work where they get income. And if they don't, they are living at home and should get a break for that.

Or one of my favorite ideas is an electric bill surcharge, perhaps one for commercial electricity and one for residential. This might accomplish two goals, one being a reduction in energy usage from higher price points and another being when more electric automobiles and other vehicles start coming, they will be paying into the transportation fund. Obviously not completely thought out, but there's something in there somewhere.

I really wish we could throw all kinds of crazy ideas on the table and see what might stick. Any other ideas out there we should know about?

Independence Day Notes

Links and ink:

I really like the idea of setting a baseline for ridership and road usage so you can use it for performance measures later. I hope that is what they are looking at. It might also be illuminating to see regions compared to each other. I hope they would take pedestrian and bike counts as well.
~~~
The draft streetcar network plan is out in Portland. Looks pretty extensive.
~~~
New Jersey is expanding the transit hub tax credit to include industrial areas that use rail access.
~~~
Smart Growth is killing cities!!! Or rather, it's more NIMBYs. Not that I can't blame them, we don't really need more high end housing in this region do we? Considering almost all of it is high end. And looking at it from a tax perspective, building four houses that are 250,000 versus a million dollar single house brings in the same taxes in property, but greater taxes in local services such as restaurants and groceries. Has anyone ever looked at those numbers?
~~~
This is cool. Making subways rainproof FTW.
~~~
This could bring transit sexy back.
~~~
Colorado Railcar reincarnated?
~~~
More NIMBY articles! This time on the peninsula HSR version. My favorite quote:

Whatever option is chosen, peninsula residents simply want a transparent process that considers their opinions, said Nadia Naik of Palo Alto, who helped form a citizens' group, Californians Advocating for Responsible Rail Design. "That would give us tremendous peace of mind," Naik said. "Nobody's done that. We get a lot of, 'Oh, you're just 50 people who complain.'"

Is it really 50?

Possible TOD Opportunity

Ah the fun begins. As we dig deeper into the bill, I'm sure we'll find tons of goodies like this:

‘‘(2) the development of corridors to support
25 new fixed guideway capital projects under sub-
1 sections (d) and (e), including protecting rights-of
2way through acquisition, construction of dedicated
3 bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes and park and
4 ride lots, and other nonvehicular capital improve
5 ments that the Secretary may determine would re
6 sult in increased public transportation usage in the
7 corridor.

Transit agencies have never really been able to buy up property for land banks other than parking spaces before. Perhaps this leaves an opening for TOD help from transit agencies? I'm also glad that it seems as if there is no language allowing new starts funding to pay for HOT lanes. That seemed to be a fetish of the last administration.

Categorical Exclusion

One of the provisions in the newly released transportation bill is a categorical exclusion on environmental impact statements for streetcar projects that operate in existing right of ways. Here is the language:

18 SEC. 3027. STREETCAR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION.
19 Not later than one year after the date of enactment
20 of this Act, the Secretary shall complete a rulemaking
21 process regarding light rail streetcars that are—
22 (1) located within an existing right-of-way with
23 in the classes of action identified in regulation by
24 the Secretary; and
1 (2) that are categorically excluded from require2
ments for environmental assessments or environ3
mental impact statements pursuant to regulations
4 promulgated by the Council on Environmental Qual5
ity under part 1500 of title 40, Code of Federal
6 Regulations (as in effect on October 1, 2003).

I hate the look and unreadability of legal documents such as this, but I guess it has to be this way. I wonder when we'll start seeing a modified definition of streetcar in existing ROW. Does this mean we'll see more rapid streetcars?

H/T E-Lo

Take Off!

That's the loud phrase I used to hear from one of my college track coaches, Bubba Thornton, during races urging me and my teammates to move faster. A similar call was made by UTA's (That's Utah Transit Authority, Not Univ of Texas at Arlington) John Inglish when he spoke before the Banking Committee Friday. This time however, it was a call to speed up the New Starts program.

Inglish and UTA however somewhat gamed the system when they got the federal government to pay 80% of the Mid Jordan Line and a piece of the Draper Line if UTA constructed three lines by themselves. This meant that the other three lines didn't have to wait a huge amount of time while costs escalated and people complained. Here's the wording of the MOU from the FTA:

In August 2007, FTA and UTA executed a Memorandum of Understanding to set forth their mutual expectations for Federal financial participation in two of five projects that comprise UTA’s “Transit 2015 Program.” UTA was seeking a combined $570 million in Section 5309 New Starts funding for the Mid-Jordan and Draper LRT extensions. In return, UTA made a commitment to build, by 2015, the West Valley City and Airport LRT extensions, as well as the South Front Runner (commuter rail) extension without Federal financial assistance. The current total capital cost estimate for the five projects in the Transit 2015 Program is $2.85 billion.

That's a pretty good deal. And UTA is having a better time than their counterparts in Denver who decided to wait to buy up existing rail lines. I'm not a huge fan of using existing rail lines unless they go exactly where you want to go, but UTA bought up 175 miles worth for $185 million dollars back in 2002. With the Fastracks plan, the railroads can pretty much get away with murder and seem to be trying.

But all of this points to the need for the FTA and DOT to start thinking strategically about regions that don't want to build systems line by line. Fixing the new starts program such as Congressman Oberstar wants to is great (PDF 42), but it still isn't a holistic look at how to provide support for regions that are going for more than one line at a time. I'm sure there are some other programs that allow regions to program funding, but I'd like to see the feds take a look at directly enabling this type of expansion. Obviously there are a lot of regions with a lot of expansion needs, and if they are going to succeed and not waste any money, they need to speed it up.

DeFazio's State Ambition

Could this be one of the reasons why the transportation bill timelines between the House and the Obama folks are at odds?

There is also speculation that the timing could affect the possibility of DeFazio running for Governor.

When "Striking a Balance" Means "Fund Less"

Peter Rogoff, the possible new FTA administrator, was on Capitol Hill getting grilled by Senators. However I have a slight problem with what he had to say on the topic of funding. It seems as if he's operating still under the 20th century mindset of autos over transit in saying that we need to balance building new projects with repairing our existing assets. This assumes that capital transit funding will continue along its same path and is not acceptable.

"Some of these deferred maintenance issues quickly become safety issues," Rogoff warned. He urged the senators to strike a balance between funding new public transit projects -- for which "it's a lot easier to garner enthusiasm" -- and repairing the already broken systems in major cities.

I agree that we need to fix what we have, but we should be expanding rapid transit at a greater clip. "Striking a balance" to me means fund less. It's already hard enough to fund new transit and there's a huge backlog to the tune of $250 billion, possibly more. What we should be doing is be striking a better ballance between highway and alternative transportation funding, such as Congressman Oberstar is advocating with modal parity.

Not Quite Dead Yet

The VMT tax isn't quite dead and probably won't die. Something that got shot down so quickly by the president has actually gotten some legs of late thanks to government reports and legislators like Mr. Oberstar. While it probably won't be a key part of the next transportation bill, I expect to see some money going into studying the idea and perhaps pushing more pilot programs.

So any chance I get, I'll play this...

Sea Change?

Is the economy leading to a change in land use? Eh. I'd like for it to happen, but the allocation of more money for highways in the stimulus bill leads us in a different direction that I'd like to think we're going. The major evidence will come in a few years after the transportation bill is finalized and money starts moving to projects other than roads. Perhaps we will see that acceleration they're talking about then.

By the way, if you want to see where Interstate bridges are going to crash in your congressional district, DOT has maps.

Meeting Hints at Greater Transit Funding from Obama Administration

I was reading through an article on Mayor Ralph Becker snagging stimulus money for Salt Lake City and noticed a passage that stood out near the bottom:

Becker on Friday also huddled with Obama's Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, whom the mayor says suggested Salt Lake City's transit plans dovetail with the White House's so-called Livable Communities Initiative. There is "no question" that will translate to a bigger Beltway bankroll in the future for streetcars and a downtown TRAX circulator, Becker said.

Salt Lake City has a massive plan for expansion that includes five new transit lines and they have started recently talking about streetcars. I've seen a number of different livable communities initiatives in the past including an old FTA version and one from when Al Gore was Vice President but hadn't heard of a current one. Has anyone else heard of this initiative? I know LaHood mentioned it in his confirmation hearings but we haven't heard many more details except on the White House Urban Policy Page it states:

Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities: Our communities will better serve all of their residents if we are able to leave our cars to walk, bicycle and access other transportation alternatives. President Obama will re-evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account.

If this is what the Obama administration is going to follow, we can see Mayor Becker's comments as a sign that they could be looking to act on it. Let's hope they do.

Maddow "Geeks Out" on HSR

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I believe this map was released in 2005. So not new, but cool its getting props on the cable.

Not Dense Enough

Even in the downturn the Charlotte light rail line beat its projections. Currently ridership is down from its highs, but it makes me think that there needs to be a working over of the transportation models at the FTA. Under the current process that requires a medium rating for cost effectiveness, Charlotte would not have made the cut with its ridership projection as it was. It had a low medium rating in 2003, yet was recommended because of its land use planning. Which brings me to a second point.

An excuse for Kansas City not going back after light rail is the usual complaint. We're not dense enough. Via the Urbanophile from the KC Star:

The city is set up for cars. As a result, most of the metropolitan area is not densely populated...Generally, an average of 6,600 to 10,000 people per square mile is needed to score federal funds. But Kansas City isn’t close to that number along the 14-mile route that voters rejected in November.

So now, since they aren't dense enough currently(even in AC's weighted density) and use that as an excuse to not move forward, there will be no change and they'll continue to drift in autodom. But the problem here is not just the lack of imagination and foresight, but also that the current FTA gives no hope of change. People will continue as long as we let them to refer to the cost-effectiveness index as god's law. It's all about the now when in reality we should be planning for the future.

The point of building a rail line today, whether it's light rail, a subway line, or a streetcar is the shape the future development of a corridor but this is something that isn't measured in the current process, at least with any meaning. This is something Congressman Oberstar is looking to fix, but we need to help.

At this point, however, the Federal Transit Administration has declared the cost effectiveness index number and not transit oriented development as the critical factor in giving a thumbs up or down to a project. It's time for the CEI not just to be amended, but eliminated, says Rep. Jim Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee says.

"As soon as there is a Federal Transit Administrator I will encourage that person to, by executive order, erase it from the books. And if they don't we'll do that in legislation."The cost effectiveness index became the deciding factor for transit projects in April, 2005. That's when the FTA received a letter from the Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget proclaiming the CEI's primacy.

So Charlotte gives us some clues as to what we can look forward to in terms of changing neighborhood dynamics and creating a demand for future density in transit corridors. It also shows that the cost effectiveness index does not determine the success of a project, no matter how much weight seem to put on a single metric based in auto engineering. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at the costs and weight it against the benefits. It just means the way we're doing it now is weighted towards killing meaningful projects. Places that need subways are forced by cost shock and the CEI to look at light rail and places that should have light rail are forced to BRT and so on down the heirarchy. I hope this changes, and that the "not dense enough" canard can't be used against a city looking to change its ways ever again.

Charlotte South Corridor:

PBS Program NOW Talks Transit

I've been watching the PBS Now program live on transit and it's great. I highly suggest it. Check your local listings for this program over the weekend or watch it below.

Not "The Highway Bill"

I know I've said this before, but it shows where the priorities are for people in the press. They still talk about the 'Highway' bill like that was the only thing the transportation bill funded.

As soon as the stimulus bill is completed, Mica said, the committee is “ready to launch a full effort” to get a highway bill done both on time and with significantly higher investments.

We have a lot of work to do. And...OMG BBQ ponies!

When Do We Get to Win?

When we win we still lose. Seems like that is the theme over in the Senate. And as an added bonus, the Senate has turned into the State of California, where the minority seems to win somehow. How come the minority didn't win all the time when the Democrats were in power? This is infuriating.

Then you have people who are supposed to be allies voting against the bill. Landrieu of all people should know better after Katrina knocked out the New Orleans Streetcar system for months on end and put an abrupt stop to expansion of the Desire Line, for which funding had almost materialized before the storm.

And when President Obama "pledged to launch the biggest public works program since the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s" we didn't think you meant a whole new highway system. People want Infrastructure and not just roads. Republican pollsters even say they do. Rails, energy facilities, water treatment etc etc.

How about investing in operating transit? It has been conspicuously left out and as Brad Plummer mentions over at the Vine, Obama's team when asked why the infrastructure funding is so paltry, responds that they don't think we can spend it fast enough. I think its more something along the lines of this...

You can go ahead and tell yourself that this is just theory - just a single example. But that's willful ignorance, as the Hindrey scalping is only one chapter in what has been one long narrative arc whereby economic progressives have been deliberately shut out of top administration jobs. Just step back and think about it for a minute: Amid a stable of eminently qualified and well-respected progressives like James Galbraith, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Larry Mishel, Obama has chosen Rubin sycophants like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to run the economy - the same Larry Summers who pushed the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, the same Geithner who masterminded the kleptocratic bank bailout, the same duo whose claim to fame is their personal connections to Rubin, a disgraced Citigroup executive at the center of the current meltdown. And the list of Rubin sycophants keeps getting longer, from Peter Orszag to Jason Furman.

You can only have a circus when the clowns are in the building. And that includes the bearded ladies that think that the census is pork. But the bigger story here is that Obama's people only believe in pushing paper around instead of dirt.

But this all got me thinking, what would get people to pay attention? What would get people to start thinking about how important transit is in the major metropolitan areas and how a stimulus would work? How about we just pull an Ottawa and shut it all down. Imagine the signal that would send. Just stop running the buses and trains for one random unannounced day and see what happens. When all those Senate aids can't get to work or when bicycles start piling up outside the capital office buildings, perhaps some will take notice. When Denver shut down its system, the region was brought 30 minute delays and hellish parking scenarios downtown. When LA did it, traffic speeds declined 20%. Those are big numbers. Imagine them everywhere. Do you think people would finally notice?

I know i'm getting a bit more militant about this, but if we don't start seeing signs that things are actually going to change this year, it might be time to start trying something different than just voting for change. It's not like we're asking a lot more than is needed in this country. That comes during reauthorization. We're gonna have to change things ourselves. Anyone else getting tired of being not the permanent minority or majority, but permanently screwed?

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.