Great story in CQ this week on bike politics.
Did you know that Obama met a few weeks ago with 160 cycling advocates and promised them his support? I didn't.
The 600-pound gorilla in transportation politics is the 2009 negotiation of a new highway bill, which according to CQ "is already being touted as embodying the greatest overhaul of federal transportation policy since President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway Act into law half a century ago."
It might behoove CQ to add, "if Obama wins." Just as McCain's "don't pick winners" energy policy amounts to picking winners (nukes and coal), his "anti-pork" spending policy amounts to spending on things he likes (highways) and not on things he doesn't (Amtrak), and he's shown no signs of liking alternative transit options. (Indeed, he shows no signs of having thought deeply about transportation policy at all, tiny rewards for new car batteries notwithstanding.)
The signs are somewhat better with Obama, though certainly not clear enough that I'd bet much money on an Eisenhower-scale shift. He's made some good noises about transit and bikes, and I had this exchange with his top energy adviser Jason Grumet:
JG: A transportation act will be authorized early in the next administration, and we believe that presents a critical opportunity to address the environmental and energy-security challenges that are essential to transportation policy but have always been seen as afterthoughts.
DR: It's a roads bill, right?
JG: That's what has to change. Transportation policy in this country is still working from the 1950s imperative: economic competitiveness and national security through building an interstate highway system. We need to rearticulate a more clear role for transportation policy, which has to attend to energy security, environmental quality, and global competitiveness, which means thinking differently about how to get the most effective response to the national investment. Addressing climate change is going to require significant investment in infrastructure in the transportation bill -- not just roads, but transportation infrastructure. Figuring out where and how we accelerate the infrastructure for plug-in hybrids, the role of the federal government in trying to promote and enable infrastructure for alternative transportation fuels.
DR: What about a rail network, getting people out of their cars?
JG: There is an idea of mode neutrality -- when we think about functionality, we don't just think about moving people, but we think about the energy and the environmental implications of the different choices. Set up a system that prioritizes federal resources in a manner that attends to all of those goals at the same time and does not foist them against each other.
We hear over and over again from local government that they are most capable when it comes to transportation planning, zoning issues, land-use issues, energy-efficiency standards -- and that the federal program has to not just allow those efforts to continue, but provide incentives, so that efforts to reduce pollution in one town achieve a real ecological benefit and don't just squeeze one side of the balloon.
Were I a gambling man, I'd bet on a huge brouhaha over transit next year that ends with large (in absolute terms) but inadequate (relative to what's needed) increases in funding for bike lanes, mass transit, and plug-in infrastructure. In the end, I think regions are basically going to have to take the reins on transit, working out innovative public-private funding structures and bringing their own residents around on tax hikes.
As gas prices continue to rise, and there are more and more concrete transit and bike success stories, this stuff will spread.
U.S.-Russia climate and energy efficiency cooperation: A neglected challenge
Obama announces new efficiency initiatives as part of big clean-energy push
Comments View as Flat
justlou Posted 2:43 am
03 Jul 2008
A Real Conundrum
How to keep the wheels on an energy hungry and crumbling infrastructure while integrating it with and transforming it into an energy lean and sustainable network. There will be powerful forces that insist on continuing to build the unsustainable part of it while other forces fight on the definition and design of what is truly sustainable. Attempting to piggy back on to a design nightmare based on the cheap fossil fuels may be our biggest obstacle to reaching the dream of sustainability.
Permalink
sindark Posted 2:56 am
03 Jul 2008
Subsidy
It cannot be accepted that any form of modern transportation competes in an environment of 'neutrality.' That simply isn't possible when the infrastructure demands are so great. At least until we have universal by-the-kilometre billing for road-using vehicles, we need to acknowledge that the question is one of relative subsidies, rather than subsidized transport on one side and 'free market' private vehicles on the other.
A good book that touches on some of this is Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City by Peter D. Norton.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:02 am
03 Jul 2008
Dave, thanks for asking the question,
about rail, even if he was doing his best not to answer it. I assume that until the election, there will be zilch talk about shifting from highways to rail, as it would probably be considered politically radioactive -- after all, Obama's tacking to the "center" now -- although he's really always been there, people seem to forget -- he has to talk like he's 100% behind the car drivers, and since they'll probably take the cities for granted (thanks, founding fathers, for that electoral college!), they won't make a peep -- well, maybe a few peeps -- about transit or rail.
That being said, I suppose it will be imperative to push them when (hopefully) Obama wins the election.
Permalink
Charles Komanoff Posted 3:22 am
03 Jul 2008
Don't confuse energy policy with transport policy
Dave, maybe Obama doesn't yet have a transportation advisor, but from the looks of his remarks above, energy advisor Grumet does a poor imitation of one.
Transportation policy isn't about infrastructure for plug-in hybrids and alt fuels. It's about providing and facilitating a variety of modes (rail, bus, bike, walk, car-share), land-use incentives to enable communities to take advantage of them, and road-pricing policies to fund them while desubsidizing car use.
Judging from Obama's statements to the cycling advocates in Chicago last month (captured in Streetsblog, with a photo of the candidate riding a bike), on transportation policy he's way ahead of his energy advisor.
Charles www.komanoff.net
Permalink
Jay Alt Posted 3:30 am
03 Jul 2008
The Chicago bike plan -
has a central roll in the city's Olympic bid and push toward green.
The eventual goal is to have bike routes within 1/2 mile or less of residences and businesses.
http://www.bike2015plan.org/intro.html
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:00 am
03 Jul 2008
Arrgggh
You just have to read Grumet's mush responses to know that the road gang will wind up with 99% of everything, again. We MUST indeed "foist them against each other" -- we must aggressively support the modes with a future (electrified rail, primarily) against carhead thinkers like Grumet, who will be the death of us.
The 5% Project
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 4:54 am
03 Jul 2008
More than the presidency
As Maria Zimmerman has pointed out, there are more reasons than just a new president that the highway bill reauthorization is the biggest opportunity for change in decades.
- There is a fiscal crisis in the transportation sector. The highway trust fund is almost broke; the gasoline consumption that funds it is on the decline. Mass transit use is on the upswing at the same time transit agencies are running short of operating funds.
- The makeup of Congress is different from previous Congresses that authorized transportation bills, and it is projected to change even more in November.
- Many factors previously not included in transportation decisions are putting pressure on all politicians: peak oil, global warming, ethanol and food prices, the housing bubble and affordability, crumbling infrastructure from deferred maintenance and environmental stress, recession, inflation, etc.
- Population growth and cultural/demographic changes are shifting the market preference for urban living. Some studies say the U.S. now has enough surburban McMansions to meet demand for 30 years, while there is a large and growing demand for walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods that is not being met.
- Many state and local measures supporting transit are getting on ballots around the country and are being approved by voters.
- There is widespread agreement that the existing system is broken.
To capitalize on all these trends and set a new course for transportation policy in America, a coalition of smart growth groups has formed called Transportation for America (T4America). They'll be releasing a draft platform this summer in preparation for the reauthorization battle next year.I urge everyone who is concerned with transportation, and the transportation and land use connection, to get involved in this initiative.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:50 am
03 Jul 2008
Trend Is Both Directions At Once
Lawrence is correct that many people have recognized the harmful effects of private motor vehicles and wish to move away from them. But a new Pew Research Center poll, reported by Grist, just showed that 60% of Americans prefer increasing energy supplies over protecting the environment, and that a slight majority favors extracting more oil over energy conservation.
While I unequivocally oppose further destruction of the Earth for artificial human transportation, it is easy to see why so many Americans prioritize that over the environment. The average person doesn't really think about big issues. After un- or semi-consciously choosing a lifestyle that requires a significant amount of driving, (s)he is freaked out at the rising price of gasoline. Instead of thinking the problem through in order to get at its root, which is far too much driving, (s)he then advocates for whatever will reduce the price of gas, or at least keep it from rising further.
Add to that the power of the oil, auto, and infrastructure industries and that their lackeys are already in Congress, and I therefore think it's overly optimistic to believe that it will be easy to capitalize on the trends identified by Lawrence. Not to say that it can't be done, and I certainly plan to lobby my representatives in that direction, but it will take a Herculean effort.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 6:01 pm
03 Jul 2008
Bike Roadways
"Promised them support"
Great...what does that mean?
Bikes are a real answer to many of our woes.
But making bike travel safe and developing independent bike routes, safe from cars?
Where's the dialog?
Permalink