Change?

Traffic

by Matt Johnson • December 10, 2008 10:38 am

On November 4, I was out in the streets cheering when CNN called the election for Obama. Change was in the air. In a matter of months, a new era would start in America—an era of growing environmental consciousness, of reinvestment in our cities, of policies for the people—instead of for corporate executives.

Change, or billions for more highways amid transit cuts?

Now, I am worried. In a speech on Saturday, the President-elect called for investment. But I did not hear a call for anything remotely like the Second System. Instead I heard a call that hearkens back to the Eisenhower Administration:

We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We'll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we'll set a simple rule — use it or lose it. If a state doesn't act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they'll lose the money.

Granted, Obama did not actually call for investment in the federal highway system. But he did use it as an example. Where are his calls for high speed rail? Where are his examples of the UMTA transit program of the 1970s that gave us BART, Metro, and MARTA? The program that gave us LRT in San Diego, in Pittsburgh, in San Francisco?

In a world where highway building has been the status-quo for over 5 decades, the lack of mention of transit does not bode well. For the last 7 years, Mr. Bush has called for Americans to reduce their dependence on foreign oil in each of his States of the Union. Not once did he ask Americans to try transit—nor did he do much to increase the supply of transit. Do we face another 4 years of the same?

Mr. Obama says that if communities don't invest in roads and bridges, they'll lose federal dollars. I fear that if they don't invest in transit, they'll lose their communities. But where are Mr. Obama's pledges of money to fund transit projects that are in design?

According to yesterday's Washington Post, Maryland and Virginia have new hopes for road projects canceled by the recent downturn. Excuse me? What about the major cuts to MARC service proposed by MTA? Shouldn't we be hoping for a stimulus that would at least keep transit service at today's levels, especially in the face of vast increases in ridership?

On Monday, the Post ran a story about transit ridership across the nation—it's up, way up. In heavy rail, LA leads the pack with a 14.1% increase over last year. Baltimore's light rail leads with an increase of 19.6%. The Railrunner in Albuquerque leads with a huge increase of 35.8%. For the Post's editorial board, the evidence is clear and convincing. They're calling for investment in transit. The Post rightly points out that any fast-acting stimulus penalizes transit because of the hoops we've created for those projects to jump through. And while Obama might be the likeliest candidate to change that situation, he has so far shown no inclination to fund a transit stimulus.

Even though VMT is dropping and transit ridership is increasing, Mr. Obama wants to give states money to widen highways, like I-66 and I-95, but doesn't see fit to give a few federal dollars to stop the elimination of already-crowded commuter trains running alongide these corridors.

Indeed, with all this talk of infrastructure spending to rival the New Deal, why haven't we heard about his pick for Secretary of Transportation? If we're really going to invest in our transportation infrastructure like Eisenhower did, why isn't Mary Peters' replacement already drawing up plans?

I'm still holding out hope for a Transportation Secretary like Jim Oberstar or Earl Blumenauer, but with Obama's talk of highway spending, I'm afraid we'll get someone more like Robert Moses.

I haven't yet given up hope for change. But I also haven't heard much since November 4 to suggest that change is really coming, at least to transportation policy. And in this time of high ridership and demand for government infrastructure investment, that would be a shame. This is the chance of a generation to change the way our cities are structured—we cannot afford to squander that opportunity just to build more highways. Not if we have any hope for redesigning cities to survive into the 21st century—a century guaranteed not to be the century of cheap oil.

Editor's note: Transportation For America has an online campaign to contact your Senators and Representatives (especially if you live outside disenfranchised DC) to push them to pass the right stimulus. Please sign it.

35 comments — Share	— tags: Barack Obama, freeways, stimulus, transit

Stimulus draft released; $30B for highways vs. $10B for transit (Jan 15, 2009)
Looking under LaHood (Dec 20, 2008)
Environmental groups identify $145B of immediate green stimulus (Dec 11, 2008)
Post endorses mass transit (Dec 9, 2008)
The federally tilted playing field on transportation (Sep 10, 2007)

Comments

This is about the millionth post like this I've read this week.

by spookiness on Dec 10, 2008 10:43 am

Matt, what you're calling for is mostly long-term. And it's a valid pursuit, but what the economy needs is a short-term jolt. And getting infrastructure projects that are "shovel-ready" underway is a means to provide that jolt.

Furthermore, unless a "widening project" (which you're railing against) is already through the environmental process, has had right-of-way purchased, and has had final design completed, the highway money in the stimulus is not going to go to widening projects. A vast majority of the road money, given the time constraint, will be going to road and bridge maintenance and repair, with probably some as-is reconstruction and bridge replacement mixed in as well.

by Froggie on Dec 10, 2008 10:48 am

Jesus, people need to step back from the edge on this.

This is a STIMULUS proposal that uses INFRASTRUCTURE. If weren't in the midst of a huge recession, the chances of Obama making such a statement at this stage in his transition would be slim and none.

Any STIMULUS must move fast. A national high speed rail system is a great investment, but it's not something that we can ramp up in time to boost our way out of this recession. Likewise, as much as operational assistance to MARC and other transit agencies may be a good idea, it is not a good STIMULUS spending plan.

It's worth noting that of the transit projects that are in a position to serve as a stimulus, they all look like Obama will aim to include them. The simple reality is that the economic package will require much, much more.

I'll assess Obama's transportation priorities when we actually hear about his plans for transportation. You know, when he chooses someone to head the DOT. When we hear of the national infrastructure bank. When the surface transportation bill comes up for re-auth in 2009.

Another thing - Obama clearly references the Interstate system due to its scale, not its mode.

I mean, we've still got a month plus before he's even in office. Yeesh.

by Alex B. on Dec 10, 2008 10:50 am

Alex: The problem is that we're spending so much on this stimulus, and on bailouts, that the government is going to be bankrupt by the time we get around to coming up with other priorities. And in the meantime, we'll have all these new highways, making transit less likely to recoup its costs, driving more housing in areas that are hard to serve by transit, and deepening the hole we've already been digging for the last 50 years.

Should we stimulate our way out of this recession by building a bunch of coal plants all around the country that will set back any environmental progress for a century? This is no different.

The State DOTs have plenty of projects that they've already designed and want to move forward. This plan would just bail out their really bad planning. It's wrong, dangerously wrong.

by David Alpert on Dec 10, 2008 10:55 am

I don't see why an investment in transit can't be a stimulus. The point of a "stimulus" is to inject money into the economy, and there's no reason that can't be via investing in rail transit. To be fair, something huge like a nationwide rail network would require all sorts of planning and surveys, etc... things that would not immediately hire tens of thousands of people. However, getting money to projects that are ready to go and simply lack funds would help just the same as funding road projects.

by Dave on Dec 10, 2008 10:57 am

>>"A vast majority of the road money, given the time constraint, will be going to road and bridge maintenance and repair, with probably some as-is reconstruction and bridge replacement mixed in as well."

How does road and bridge repair stimulate the economy more than transit? Yes I understand it can get started a little quicker. It will employ some construction workers and keep concrete companies flush with work. But maintaining something won't trigger the private investment that creating something new will stimulate.

If infrastructure investment is going to be handled this way it's mostly just a jobs programs. That's fine and good but not worthy of comparison to the way the Eisenhower era repositioned the country for prosperity.

by FourthandEye on Dec 10, 2008 10:57 am

While long-term infrastructure investment is wise, we have been neglecting our existing infrastructure of all types, including roads for far too long.

There is nothing wrong with maintaing what we've already got. While we need to tear down urban freeways that are nearing the end of their lifespan, we also need to maintain the roads that connect our cities.

Mr. Obama probably won't propose anything specific until after inauguration when he has the official powers of the Office of the President.

However, it would be a good idea to log onto change.gov and tell the President-elect's transition team just how important long-term mass transit infrastructure is to our nation's future.

by Cavan on Dec 10, 2008 11:01 am

David, Dave, and 4th&I,

Stimulus is not about investment, it is about spending. It's about pumping money into the economy. A good stimulus will both pump money in and provide a long term investment, hence the focus on infrastructure.

Any long term focus simply does not help with regard to a stimulus. To take local examples - speeding up the Silver Line would be a great kind of stimulus. We can put shovels in the ground fast. The New Blue line/M Street Subway would not be a good stimulus, because it would take far too long to get the money into the economy - even if it's still a good long term investment.

David, we're definitely going to be facing budgetary problems, but that's not going to change regardless of the type of stimulus package.

Dave, stimulus needs to be spent NOW. In short, there's little time to plan. That's why they're focusing on projects that aim to have money flowing and shovels in the ground within the next quarter.

Fourth, again, you have to separate STIMULUS from an INVESTMENT. They are two separate things.

Finally, I'd direct all of you to take a look at Daniel Hall's post, quoting Ryan Avent about the role of infrastructure in stimulus:

http://commontragedies.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/smart-stimulus/

by Alex B. on Dec 10, 2008 11:08 am

Alex: Yes, stimulus is about doing things fast. But stimulus to do bad things is worse than no stimulus at all. It's not even clear if this stimulus will work. It'd be a very dangerous mistake to spend trillions and then have some more economic activity but a substantially worse built environment for a century.

by David Alpert on Dec 10, 2008 11:11 am

David, I agree, but I also think you're a) reading way too much into 70 words and b) assuming the worst as to what 'roads and bridges' means.

Ryan Avent summed it up nicely: "And I think transit supporters out there should recognize that while it�s right to oppose these projects, it�s unreasonable, , and politically naive, to expect them to be excluded from the stimulus plan.

What I have yet to see is any evidence that Obama intends to embark on a major program of new road construction. And until we see definitive evidence of something like that, transit supporters really ought to calm down."

The simple fact is that "roads and bridges" sell better than "mass transit." And this will require a lot of selling.

Until we see some specifics, everyone needs to calm down.

by Alex B. on Dec 10, 2008 11:23 am

David: so what is supposedly so bad about preserving and maintaining infrastructure?

by Froggie on Dec 10, 2008 11:30 am

You are forgetting that Obama has started his '12 campaign. He still has to keep the suburbs and exurbs, especially those in the west, if he wants to stay till '16. Don't expect him to bend over backwards to invest in cities that voted 90% for him. Just keep in mind, that money will go where he needs votes.

by RJ on Dec 10, 2008 11:37 am

>>"Fourth, again, you have to separate STIMULUS from an INVESTMENT. They are two separate things."

Obama's statement uses the word investment several times. My actual point is that good public investment stimulates private investment and produces things that position the economy for future success. Repairing an existing road is a weak example of this and I hope that's not what we're settling for. Let's pump some of this money into the Silver Line and streetcars. (Yes, the M Street Blue Line is not a candidate for the short term)

And stop using the words 'calm down'. When you read our comments are you just imagining everyone is shouting. We're not. You are the one busting out the all caps.

Besides if you were a little less eager to say we're wrong you would understand our positions are not that different. I think repairing roads and bridges sounds more like job stimulus than investment... and you're saying this is stimulus.

Froggie, nothing is bad about maintaining infrastructure. Neglecting maintenance gets us the breaking levees and collapsed bridges. My position is that let's not sell maintaining infrastructure as Eisenhower 2.0. Maintenance does not foster the economic growth that creating something new does.

by FourthandEye on Dec 10, 2008 11:39 am

I think it is interesting that many Obama supporters believe he is renegging on his campaign promises. Change is a funny concept. With Obama you will get change but maybe not the amount or direction of change you were looking for.

Next time when someone promises you "change", ask for specifics rather than some vague "trust me" answers. At least he is not George Bush and that is really what most voters were voting for.

by Tom on Dec 10, 2008 11:48 am

Fourth, my fault on getting fired up about this, but this is but one of many criticisms I've seen of this stimulus plan. The problem is that people are expecting this apple to be an orange. They're setting themselves up to be disappointed. When Matt closes his post with doom and gloom language about Obama's transportation priorities, I think it a) is premature to conclude anything yet, b) is unaware of the political realities of stimulus and spending, and c) misrepresents what this proposal is for.

I'm not trying to say that anyone is wrong here - in the abstract, you won't find a bigger pro-transit guy than myself. But it's because our positions are not that different that the little nuances bug me. We're not even judging an actual plan here, for crying out loud, we're judging rhetoric from a speech. I say 'calm down' because this kind of judgment is being passed well before all the facts are in.

I completely agree with all the points about continuing to push for new investment in both the short and long terms, but I don't see how that follows from what Obama has put on the table so far. We've got nebulous rhetoric and soundbytes.

by Alex B. on Dec 10, 2008 11:48 am

Here's an example of some infrastructure for which an infusion of cash would help a hurt economy: In Lansing MI the city started 5 years ago on a 25 year project to update the water system. Everytime I go to visit there is different street torn up. If a place like Lansing could get some Fed money to go faster/keep going on this project then the city could keep it's local taxes down/use city/State money for other things.

I of course also want to see investment in rail/transit infrastructure. I don't understand why Detroit can't build those streetcars DC is buying from the Czech Republic. Where are metro cars made? And busses? All these transporataion vehicles could and should be built (preferrably in my home State of MI) in the US.

by Bianchi on Dec 10, 2008 11:55 am

Coreection: The project started in '92 and is projected to take 30 years. (I guess they got to my parents neighborhood in the last 5 years).

http://cityoflansingmi.com/pubserv/pubeng/cso_project.jsp

by Bianchi on Dec 10, 2008 12:02 pm

Bianchi, I totally agree with you that Detroit should build the streetcars that we are buying from the Czech Republic. Especially with all the new transit ballot initiatives, doesn't a business in the US see this as a lucrative opportunity?

Some good news, those new articulated buses are made in the US:

http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2008/07new_dc_buses_made_in_alabama.html

by Erik on Dec 10, 2008 12:20 pm

Correction on the URL:

http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2008/07/new_dc_buses_made_in_alabama.html

by Erik on Dec 10, 2008 12:21 pm

It's amazing how passionate people get when they have the chance to get other people's money spent on them. It's almost, shall I say, greedy?

by Tim on Dec 10, 2008 12:43 pm

I pay federal taxes. It's my money. It's a chance to have a say in how my money is spent. As a DC resident I have no say currently. You're familair with the notion of the colonial revolutionists who wanted representation in how their tax money was spent by England? It's my money.

by Bianchi on Dec 10, 2008 1:32 pm

Hi all,

Thanks for all the input on this post.

I want to point out that when I wrote it, I made sure to make note that Mr. Obama has not yet moved into the White House. I don't think that he's had time to create a true plan for his new New Deal. And I don't fault him for that. He's barely had time to catch his breath, I'm sure.

At the same time, I have not heard one instance of him even mentioning transit since being elected. I'm not asking for a transit stimulus to be announced immediately, but I would feel a lot better if I could just hear the word "transit" from the President-Elect.

The last President to tell us like it was on energy issues was Jimmy Carter, from my home state of Georgia. It did not make him popular, and it did not earn him a second term, but if America had listened, we might not have ended up in this energy crisis.

In this time of economic downturn, this time of environmental degredation, this time of transportation mode shift, this time of hope, we don't need a President concerned only with getting re-elected. We need a President who will make tough decisions and encourage us to ask ourselves what it is we can do for America. We need someone who will tell us what we need to hear instead of what we want to hear.

I'm not anywhere close to giving up hope, but as I said before, I've not heard anything to suggest that change is coming to transportation or energy policy. Does that mean that change isn't coming? No.

But from America's first "Metropolitan President" it concerns me to hear about Interstates and not transit. After all, Mr. Obama talks about the "single largest *new* investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s." That's new investment--not re-investment. And it's building on a scale that would do as much to define our regions as the Interstates have done since their inception in 1956.

If Mr. Obama intends for this new investment to be transit, I would think he would have mentioned it. Since he did not, and because the only example we can glean from his statement is that of the Interstate System, I think that his remarks are worrisome.

But I still believe in change. I still think it's coming to Washington. And I don't regret my vote in the least. I think that Barack Obama was the best choice from the primaries onward. But I am worried that the change I hoped most for will be 4 more years in coming.

I hope I'm wrong. And in this case, I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong.

The ball's in your court Mr. President-Elect.

by Matt' on Dec 10, 2008 1:38 pm

I'm just curious as to where we've been hearing about interstates aside from references to the scale and scope of the interstate system.

What other massive federal public works projects would make for suitable points of reference that are easily understood by the bulk of the American people?

Let's see what the plan actually says rather than worry about what the speech implies.

by Alex B. on Dec 10, 2008 1:59 pm

One wonder if the gentleman has ever planned anything in the real world, other than the (very nice, btw) pretty line diagrams on his blog. Given all the Sturm und Drang over things like the Purple Line, it's just not a matter of turning on a fire hose of federal dollars and "making the dirt fly." The worse thing we could do for the cause of heavy rail/light rail transit and high speed intercity rail is launch an ill-conceived crash course. And do you plan to ride roughshod over local communities and all the other constituent groups that populate the planning process, throw out all the environmental planning standards, and so forth? It's worth noting that even the "hated" Bush Administration green-lighted the long-anticipated Dulles rail line. It's "shovel-ready" and it's getting done...finally. You might also want to revisit the Clinton Administration's shabby handling of Amtrak. They didn't cover themselves in glory when it came to promoting intercity rail, despite lots of campaign happy talk. My advice is patience and dialing down the expectations just a hair.

by Paul on Dec 10, 2008 2:01 pm

Granted, this is a bailout and not a stimulus, but worth mentioning here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081210/congress_autos.html

"The measure also includes a bailout of some of the nation's largest transit systems. The bus and rail systems could be on the hook for billions of dollars in payments because exotic deals they entered into with investors -- which have since been declared unlawful tax shelters -- have gone sour with the collapse of American International Group Inc. and other financial institutions."

Bailouts for everyone!

by Alex B. on Dec 10, 2008 2:19 pm

Granted, it was Biden, not Obama, but it's not like no one in the incoming administration is talking about rail: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/12/biden_makes_the_case_for_rail.php

by Neil on Dec 10, 2008 2:42 pm

Alex B.,

I refer to Interstates because one of the Post articles that I cite says that Virginia will use Obama's proposed stimulus money to widen I-66 and I-95. These corridors parallel VRE which runs packed trains and is in desperate need of improvement, including expansion of the Ivy City Coach Yard, before it can expand service.

Paul,

Yes, this gentleman has actually planned things in the real world. I'm glad you appreciate the work I've put into maps over at Track Twenty-Nine.

You're correct about studying and designing transit projects. They take time, just like highway projects. And I'm not proposing that any particular projects are funded.

I also don't think that we should ride "roughshod" over anyone. Transit planning is a very important part of the process. We don't just throw down tracks and start up the trains. And we shouldn't start now.

What I am suggesting is that Mr. Obama find the time to mention high-speed rail and transit as potential components of a stimulus. He doesn't have to say where these investments will be or how much money they will get at this stage, but it would be nice to hear mention.

And if all those freeway bridges that date back to the 1960s and 70s need repair, imagine all the work that needs to be done on the Northeast Corridor. Those bridges were built a century ago. Amtrak is short on rollingstock. That's certainly not something that's going to generate much backlash, but if some of the GM or Ford plants close due to the economy, we could easily employ those workers making Amfleet II--that's a stimulus for you.

But we can't forget the unfunded needs of rail in this country. Let's not leave out projects that are ready to go (even if they don't meet FTA's cost-effectiveness criteria) or repair projects that could easily be completed. For instance, the Maple Leaf, with service from New York-Penn to Toronto, is riding on the maintenance of a bridge over the Niagara River. The Maple Leaf is the only rail service over the bridge, and if it is condemed, the service will be cut. That would leave the only connections to Canada's national rail carrier, Via, by way of the St. Albans (NYP-Montreal) and the Cascades (Seattle-Vancouver).

I'm not yet calling for a specific transit stimulus. But I would desperately like to hear Mr. Obama acknowledge that transit is a reasonable use of stimulus money.

And as for past administrations' handling of Amtrak and transit, in my opinion, the last rail-friendly President in this country was Nixon.

I am being patient. I apologize if I've come off as impatient. But as has been noted here, I'm not the first person to wonder where the transit talk is. But if there's one thing I'm not ready to do, it's dial back my expectations.

A lot of people expect a lot from Mr. Obama. That's what his campaign of hope was all about. And perhaps he won't be able to fulfill his promises. But I'm not ready to give up yet.

by Matt' on Dec 10, 2008 2:43 pm

I think people are confusing the different types of stimulus that can be implemented. The New Deal initiatives didn't take overnight to start either. Although it's tougher to get things built now, during times of crisis, governments are usually more efficient, for good or for worse. Now he's got more of a mandate. If we want short term stimulus, giving us a check to spend at Best Buy is what they'll give us, long term-wise, we'll see spending programs related to infrastructure of all types, roads and transit. I don't think Obama is going to pander only to the urbanists. He will certainly invest more into transit than before but roads will get a lot of attention as well.

If we're going to spend money that we don't have and either print it or borrow it, this is better than bailouts for GM and the financials. I'm more concerned with the incoming and outgoing administrations tendency to mis-diagnose the underlying problems of our economy and not fundamentally change the way our economy has operated. This whole consumer-driven, service economy with endless deficits isn't the way to go. When I hear of Obama talking about keeping people in homes and needing home prices to stabilize along with astronomical spending, I'm just not very confident about what may happen.

by Vik on Dec 10, 2008 3:22 pm

First, I'd say give him a chance. There's room for conventional road and mass transit development in the plan. Much will be driven by what each indivisual state wants to do with the $$$.

In the DC area, so many hurdles have to be cleared (individual opinions, local, state and federal requirements) that I fear that we may lose out to the "use it or lose it" factor Obama alluded to. States will drive the processes.

So many people expect that Obama will be a champion of their cause, many of us are bound to be disappointed.

by Tim on Dec 10, 2008 5:02 pm

The best way to stimulate the economy is to hand cash to people who will spend it all quickly. Extending unemployment benefits is probably the fastest, easiest way to do that. But since we're not talking about that, let's turn to transportation.

The Purple Line won't be ready for construction anytime spoon, but there are few transit that are ready to go in the next six months that wouldn't be funded in any case. But there are some.

+ Utility work has already begun for Phase I of the Silver Line. Utility work could probably begin for Phase II as well.

+ VRE and MARC both have delayed plans for new rolling stock and necessary efficiency and safety improvements along their routes. (And since the track is owned mostly by private railroads, the procurement process could be very fast.)

+ Maryland has delayed construction of MARC facilities in Washington (that would also help Amtrak and VRE), at Aberdeen Proving Ground, and several stations due to lack of funds.

+ All the bus operators in the area could use additional cash to advance fleet replacement (which would also help Detroit) and expansion.

+ In addition, spending money to start planning things like the M Street Blue Line, assuming planner and engineers need to be retained to do it, will be stimulus as much as any other spending.

by Stanton Park on Dec 10, 2008 5:14 pm

Another "shovel-ready" project is fast-track the schedule of the Silver Line, instead of leaving it truncated (and hobbled) at Wiehle Ave. These projects take an inordinate amount of time to plan and build, esp. since the state and airport authority already own all the right-of-way. Get moving folks. 2016 is a ridiculous date for completion of the final build-out.

One of big problems with "infrastructure" program is getting the various agencies to work faster and overcoming bureaucratic inertia. The FTA has become enamored with the baby-step approach to new lines. Another example, besides terminating the Silver Line at Wiehle Avenue, is stopping the Minneapolis "Northstar" commuter line at Big Lake, literally in a cornfield, instead of it natural terminus in St. Cloud.

by Paul on Dec 10, 2008 5:33 pm

Has the Silver Line had final design completed? If so, then yes it's a contender. If not, then it's not "shovel-ready".

Rolling stock would be a relatively quick purchase item, so that one could be in there. Track and station maintenance is another potential item.

Basically everything else would fall under "long term investment".

BTW, Matt, I'm curious as to what your specific source was for your claim that Virginia would use the money to widen I-66 and I-95.

by Froggie on Dec 10, 2008 5:57 pm

I'm glad to read that there are so many moderate realists making posts.

By finding the middle ground, Obama will be a change for the better.

All of the doe-eyed twenty-somethings who thought that he would be the miracle man and a champion of their causes just grate on my nerves.

But then again, I'm a grouchy old cynic who's seen it before.

by mike cap hill on Dec 10, 2008 6:50 pm

Mike cap hill hits it on the head for me. I also think we need to be careful about advocating a beggar-thy-neighbor stance to highway funding. The vast majority of Americans use highways for their transportation and will continue to do so for the far foreseeable future. To not address this basic fact is political suicide for a national politician, of any ideological stripe. We need to build coalitions and build on the spirit of the intermodal bills that have been passed since the early 1990s. We need strategic partnerships, not more enemies.

by Paul on Dec 10, 2008 7:29 pm

Froggie,

It's linked in the sentence where I say "According to yesterday's Washington Post, Maryland and Virginia have new hopes..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120803590.html.

It's not clear that the stimulus would fund those projects, but that's what VDOT wants to have happen. And since those projects are ready to go, they are good candidates. And because the states stand to lose the money, they're likely to spend it. States have long ago proven that they're willing to use federal money at all costs, even for projects they don't need rather than let that money go to another state.

And on another note, I'm all for multi-modal bills. I'm not completely against road-building. I am against a second Interstate Highway System, however. I also understand the political realities of the situation and the need to build partnerships. But so far, I haven't heard anything to suggest that Mr. Obama wants transit builders in his coalition.

by Matt' on Dec 11, 2008 1:06 am