The stimulus package could be an opportunity to build transformative infrastructure that will not only create jobs in the short run but improve our cities and strengthen our economy in the long run. It could be a way to fund routine maintenance. Or it could be an opportunity for second-rate projects to see the light of day.
Support funding for public transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects
Congress is currently putting together an economic stimulus package to have ready when the new Congress returns in early January. While public details of the forthcoming stimulus bill are not available, we are hearing that there is a chance that funds for transportation and infrastructure projects in the stimulus package may go overwhelmingly to road projects—the same unbalanced strategy that has created our existing transportation problems.
We must speak up now to make sure that the economic stimulus language maintains the established transportation funding allocations including the Transportation Enhancement set aside which is the primary source for collective transportation, bicycle and pedestrian projects.
Check out a great New York City livable streets site Streetsblog.
Particularly, this article:
Why Stimulus Money Should Go to Cities, Not States
by Ben Fried on December 16, 2008
I spoke earlier today to David Burwell, a co-founder of the Surface Transportation Policy Project who is currently a strategic consultant with the Transportation for America campaign, about how the stimulus package is shaping up for transportation projects, why it might go wrong, and what can be done to set it on the right track.
"He's putting his reputation and his brand in the hands of a bunch of state DOTs who don't care very much about the Obama brand."
The main risk, he said, is that stimulus spending might get funneled entirely to the states, which have billions in highway expansion projects in the pipeline (for a taste, check out Friends of the Earth's Road to Nowhere campaign). The congressional leadership has not signaled that it will set aside -- or "sub-allocate" -- funds specifically for cities and metropolitan planning organizations. Neither has Obama's transportation transition team, which met last month with T4A leaders and other environmental advocates.
Here's what Burwell had to say, in a nutshell, about the stimulus package. Stay tuned for more from the interview.
The transportation team realizes that the infrastructure piece is a problem and wants to address it, but they see it as a long-term issue, not a short-term one. The problem is, you can't spend this amount of money without affecting the re-authorization.
The transportation stimulus could be a bunch of bridges to nowhere. Obama's environmental team is looking not at the transportation infrastructure piece, they're looking at all the rest of it. They're saying, "Well, it's green. This really is a green stimulus package." And they're probably right, but the transportation piece is not green, it's gray-to-black.
This is HR 1. This is going to be the first bill Obama signs -- high visibility -- and if it has a bunch of roads to nowhere and bridges to nowhere, those things are actually going to be under construction within two years when the midterm elections are coming up. This is a threat to the Obama brand -- the idea that this is a new administration, we're going to do things differently, we're going in a new direction, we're done with the old way of doing business. Yet he's pouring all this money into the old way of doing business in transportation.
They don't understand the fact that they can't just say, "We want green infrastructure," and get green infrastructure. There's a provision of Title 23 of the United States Code, which governs highway spending, that says no matter what the feds say, the states have a sovereign right to pick their own projects. That's section 145. It says, regardless of what the feds say, "the authorization for appropriation of Federal funds... shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of States to determine which projects shall be federally financed." So he doesn't control the selection process once that money hits the state books. The feds have very little ability to influence it. He's putting his reputation and his brand in the hands of a bunch of state DOTs who don't care very much about the Obama brand. That's a big threat.
The best defense on how these moneys are going to be spent is to sub-allocate it, because it's the cities that build the bike paths, it's the cities that build the transit systems, it's the cities that run the bus lines, it's the cities that run the rail stations. If you want this money spent on new green infrastructure, get it to the cities. It's the states that run the highway system. If you give alll the money to the states, you know exactly what they're going to spend the money on. I'd rather have Janette Sadik-Khan and Mayor Bloomberg decide how to spend this money than the division administrator of the state DOT.
The last thing America needs is to put more money into the hands of state highway departments that know only how to do one thing: build more roads, which leads to more sprawl and higher per capita energy consumption.
Let's move toward better public transit. Spend more on urban, suburban and interurban surface transportation systems by giving money directly to the cities and regional transit authorities.
Some places are catching on. Here are some honorable mentions where determined civic groups have managed to get decent urban transit systems built. Let's add to this list:
Dallas:
Sacramento:
New Orleans:
Denver:
Portland:
St.Louis:
Salt Lake City:
Houston:
Other light new light rail systems: Seattle, Phoenix, both under construction, plus new operations in San Francisco, Charlotte, New Jersey Transit, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego and Minneapolis. The western two-thirds of the US has an order of magnitude more light rail lines planned or under construction than the eastern part, which is an arresting thought. Note that a lot of these new systems are in "Red" states. The states might be republican, but the cities, particularly Dallas, Houston and Salt Lake, are liberal and pro-public transit. It may seem like a paradox, but the most aggressive expansion of public transit is in the western two-thirds of the US. Not the mid-Atlantic States, not New England, not even Canada. Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Providence, and a slew of eastern cities are doing absolutely nothing, besides the meaningless, unenforceable, token effort of "reserving" lanes for motor buses, to improve public transit with capital intensive investment. No, that's happening in places like Carrollton, Texas and Sandy, Utah. Go figure.
We all know that Europe is light-years ahead of us on high-speed intercity rail, but they are also building new light rail lines at a fever pitch. France alone has built about two dozen new light rail lines in the past 12 years. Big lines, carrying 100,000 riders a day, not cute little tourist attractions. Why can't we finally grow up and get serious about finding another way of getting around besides internal, or is it infernal, combustion?
I don't know about you, but, living in Houston, I'm sick to death of driving all the time. It is cool when you are young, but after driving a million miles, you realize it's just a scam to get you to waste money on a highly energy-inefficient way of life.
It is only a matter of time before motor fuel prices go back up. We blew it in the 1970's. This time, let's find another way to get around. The cities I mentioned above had to fight the republican-road builder-car dealership-sprawl enthusiast mafia tooth and nail to get these lines built. Tom Delay was a poster child for opposition to light rail in Houston. The MTA fought Delay by taking it to the voters in a referendum, and they won. The highway people can be beaten, and beaten badly. The same thing happened in Dallas, Dick Armey notwithstanding. These The 21st century won't be business as usual. We'll either slash our energy footprint by ¾, i.e., to 1945 levels, or we're in deep shit.
Barack is our first urban president since practically forever. Let's bypass the highways-only mindset of the state DOT's and fund transit systems.
High-mileage cars and alternative fuels are all well and good, but if you are really serious about slashing energy use to 1940's levels, then it's time to take a good hard look at what it will take to build these transit systems and break the internal combustion stranglehold on America's transportation system. This would be a good time to re-configure the automobile industry to build railcars and buses, and put hundreds of thousands of people back to work doing something that would make America more resilient to the coming energy/resource overshoot.
For those of you in the Houston area, visit the Citizens' Transportation Coalition Forum. If you like what you see there, join our group. We're trying to turn the all-highways-all-the-time mindset around in Houston, and we're having an impact on Houston business and political leadership.
Also, for a detailed analysis of Houston's Transportation problems and solutions, visit Christof Spieler's Intermodality blog.
For those of you outside southeast Texas, there's probably alternative transportation group in your community. Get involved. Kill this energy-intensive monster, before it destroys what's left of the US economy. It ain't 1965 anymore, bubba.
Stop this gas guzzler, I want off. How about you? Are you tired of spending years of your life behind the wheel in traffic gridlock waiting for some suicidal maniac to run a red light and put an end to it all for you? There's a better way. Want energy independence? Then figure out how to stop driving so damned much.