Looking under LaHood

Traffic

by David Alpert • December 20, 2008 10:08 am

Many advocates worry that Transportation Secretary nominee Ray LaHood doesn't understand the link between transportation and climate change, and that perhaps Obama doesn't either.

Photo from Jason Broehm.
"Obama still hasn't made the transportation - land use - climate connection," Petra Todorovich, director of Regional Plan Association's America 2050 program said. "It's clear he's thinking about these things in separate categories." For Todorovich and other advocates, the LaHood pick was the second shoe to drop this week. The first piece of bad news arrived on Monday when Obama trotted out his "green dream team," his appointments to key environmental, energy and climate posts, and the transportation secretary was nowhere to be found. ...
Said a former Federal Transit Administration official, "He's got a horrible environmental record, he's bad on climate change and he's Caterpillar's bag man. Can we get a worse appointment?" Many feel that former F.A.A. chief Jane Garvey would have been the better choice.

Matt Yglesias ponders that perhaps expectations for an amazing Secretary of Transportation were unreasonably high:

A lot of this comes down to the expectations game. If you put LaHood side-by-side with Frederico Pena or Rodney Slater, I see a guy who seems at least as good as the appointees we got from the last Democratic president but who also has ties to the Hill that could be useful and fills a slot as a Republican. If you put LaHood side-by-side with my ideal vision of a committed urbanist and transportation reformer like Janette Sadik-Khan, LaHood looks terrible.

And Obama mentioned both mass transit and (recreational) bicycling in his speech introducing LaHood:

Throughout his career, Ray has fought to improve mass transit and invest in our highways. But he has not only helped rebuild our landscape, he has helped beautify it by creating opportunities for bikers and runners to enjoy our great outdoors. When I began this appointment process, I said I was committed to finding the best person for the job, regardless of party. Ray's appointment reflects that bipartisan spirit—a spirit we need to reclaim in this country to make progress for the American people.

In acceepting the nomination, LaHood addeed, "As a nation, we need to continue to be the world leader in infrastructure development, Amtrak, mass transit, light rail, air travel, and our roads and bridges all play a vital role in our economy and our well-being as a nation." On the other hand, he later called the federal transportation spending bill the "Highway Bill":

A hallmark of my career has been my work with our local and state leaders as we have improved the infrastructure of Illinois. I've served on the House Transportation and infrastructure committee as we reauthorize the Federal Highway Bill. I understand first hand what good infrastructure and transportation means to communities, and understand it is the local folks who know best their transportation needs. We'll bring that same approach to the Department of Transportation.

The bill mostly has funded highways in the past, but advocates hope to push for a much more progressive bill in 2009. Calling it the "Highway Bill" is already framing the issue in completely the wrong way.

On a broader note, a lot of commentators are playing up this narrative about "Obama supporters feeling betrayed." Obama will do some good things, and some bad things. Any President would have. During the election, the task was to decide if we liked Obama or not. Now, the task is to persuade him and his staff, through advocacy, education, criticism and praise, to do the right thing. We should neither blindly accept anything Obama does, nor write him off in a fit of pique. He's a politician, and we must treat him like one, for better and worse.

26 comments — Share	— tags: Barack Obama, Ray LaHood, USDOT

LaHood asks for 18-month extension of four-year-old transportation law (Jun 17, 2009)
LaHood vows to avert federal transportation bankruptcy (Jun 4, 2009)
Obama's highways chief: Wishy-washy on emissions? (Jun 2, 2009)
Polly Trottenberg tapped for senior USDOT spot (May 29, 2009)
LaHood? (Dec 18, 2008)

Comments

Remember that the Federal Transit Administration head hasn't been selected yet. LaHood oversees DOT, not Federal Highway Admin, Federal Railroad, MARAD, SLSDC, or any of the modes.

by J on Dec 20, 2008 11:21 am

Hey, congratulations! This post was the lead story on Google news, under Elections, as of this comment.

by Tony on Dec 20, 2008 12:13 pm

I'm willing to give soon-to-be Sec. LaHood the benefit of the doubt. He's probably far more willing to favor public-private partnerships (PPPs), congestion-pricing for our highways, and state infrastructure banks to fund transportation projects than a Secretary Oberstar would have been. That said, I think either Steve Heminger or Ed Rendell would have been better picks. David Broder, who's about as reasonable a columnist as you can find, had this column praising Rep. LaHood (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080102050.html).

by Ben on Dec 20, 2008 12:22 pm

Climate change is a continual process on the earth that has continued to occur since the beginning of time. It is believed by most earth scientists to be linked to the way the earth wobbles on its axis, and it can exacerbated or slowed by the occurrence of earthquakes, tsunamies, and large meteor strikes.

The earth experiences periods of heating and cooling continually. There is recent evidence that at one time both the Sahara desert and Greenland were tropical areas instead of what they are today. And, these climate changes came before fossil fuels were discovered, much less burned. Since their is no independent empirical evidence that any man made activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, influences climate change, finding a link between transit and climate change is an exercise in futility.

by MikeMca on Dec 20, 2008 12:28 pm

MikeMca, you don't really believe this, do you? The variation of the earth's axis that occurs might explain a very small change in temperature. It fails to explain the several degree celsius change that has occurred since 1750 and the significant increase in CO2 since 1750.

by Ben on Dec 20, 2008 12:41 pm

I think Obama's suggestion that the way to help pedestrians and bicyclists is to put them on trails so they can enjoy the "great outdoors", rather than building walkable communities and bike lanes, so that these become viable alternative modes of transportation rather than merely recreational activities, is quite troubling.

by David desJardins on Dec 20, 2008 12:43 pm

Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania would be a terrible choice for Sec. of Transportation. If you think that Gov. Rendell would be a good choice, you need to take a closer look at PA's transportation issues. The Pennsylvania highway system sorely needs updating and maintenance, and Rendell allows for continuing ineptitude within the PennDOT organization (see the closings of Routes 80 and 78 a few years ago). Pennsylvania's transportation system has continually been the laughing stock of PA residents and those living in the bordering states. Yes, he did some good things for Philadelphia, but we can't have a national head of the transportation department focusing completely on Philadelphia, now can we?

This is almost as funny of a suggestion as when his name was suggested for Sec. of Education by some people. Why put someone who is the running transportation joke in the Mid-Atlantic region as the Sec. of Transportation? Rendell would certainly not be a better choice.

by Lauren on Dec 20, 2008 12:47 pm

I am so much smarter than this guy.

by Alan Soucy of Ape10 Ipswich on Dec 20, 2008 12:54 pm

I will concede that climate change is an imminent issue.

However, the existence of western society is threatened. Thieves and liars have decimated our very core.

Recovery is our first priority. The reduction of emissions is about to be exceeded, by default. All is not well.

Do not expect positive changes. Prepare for extreme times.

Keep in mind and notice,

"trickle down" works both ways.

by SpottedOwlStew on Dec 20, 2008 1:07 pm

Wow, get listed in the national news on Google News and look what happens to the comments.

by David Alpert on Dec 20, 2008 1:12 pm

What a cruddy choice.

I don't make much of calling the bill "the highway bill" -- that's what it's called. The "farm bill," for example, has food support for the poor in addition to farm supports, but it's always called "the farm bill" because that's the way it is. The highway bill will continue to be "the highway bill" until it gets a real name, like SAFETEA-LU and ISTEA.

But still a cruddy choice. He has some lousy votes in his record, like voting against making airport screeners federal employees. someone needs to go back and look at his votes on triple trailer trucks, motorcycle helmets, auto safety, aviation safety, consumer issues, trucker hours, Amtrak, and so on.

by TransTooVital4This on Dec 20, 2008 3:18 pm

Re: J on Dec 20, 2008 11:21 am

J's comment made me laugh. Yes, J, Lahood will oversee the DOT. And guess what entity oversees all those other agencies you mention? Yep, the DOT.

by Drew on Dec 20, 2008 3:21 pm

Yes Ben, 1750 is 250 years ago... 250 years ago I'm sure climate data tech was really sophisticated... that aside... 250 years is REALLY LONG in earth's BILLIONS OF YEARS age AMIRITE?

by Dave on Dec 20, 2008 3:24 pm

I hope we get as much transit policy from this guy as from LaHood. We knew that the "I will have a bipartisan cabinet" landmines had to come in somewhere.

MikeMCA: I'm sorry, but you've been lied to. The principal behind classical global warming (the radiant-heat blocking effects of CO2) is very easy to demonstrate in the lab, and the empirical measurements are very easy to take showing a smooth year-to-year trend upwards in atmospheric CO2 concentration, corresponding to estimates of our fossil fuel consumption. Literally hundreds of thousands of PHD-man-years have been invested in extrapolating from this basic premise & matching it up to what we observe, occasionally with questionable results... but the basic foundation remains sound & almost universally accepted, with the exception of a few highly-paid shills for the fossil fuel industries.

If you don't have the scientific background to accept that, there's an easier reason to challenge oil-intensive transportation choices: oil is not an unlimited resource, and it looks like we're approaching a peak extraction rate, after which it will be increasingly expensive - and I don't mean just the trivial quadrupling of price it saw recently.

by Squalish on Dec 20, 2008 3:24 pm

no one ever seems to get around to ships, shipping and ferry boats. that is one of the reasons the "bridge to nowhere" came into the political lexicon and yet it is the point that is missed in all the media coverage of the project. here in alaska we have a marine highway providing transport between our state and the lower 48 states as well as between intrastate destinations. believe it or not, this all comes back around to the battle against unions in ship yards and the jones act along with the fact that the elected delegation's coffers have been so well endowed by road and bridge building corporations. who will bring some reason to the planning of transportation?

by ccairnes on Dec 20, 2008 3:26 pm

The crazies are after your comment threads, David! Google cuts both ways, huh...

Overall, this is a pretty sensible post on LaHood. There are as many troubling indications (bicycling = great outdoors; "Highway Bill") as there are positive ones (supporting Transportation Enhancements, listing transit before road repair). Let's wait and see who comes to FHWA and FTA, and how open Obama and LaHood are to bike/ped/transit advocates.

by Stephen on Dec 20, 2008 3:26 pm

First, take the measure of the man.

Ray LaHood is an experienced, well-liked, and thoroughly decent man. They are in short supply on the Hill, especially on his side of the aisle. He worked for Tom Railsback and Bob Michel before winning the seat upon Michel's retirement. He knows what levers to push, and how to get things done. And, as an Arab-American (the name was Lahoud before the family changed it), he is keenly aware of the bigotry and xenophobia that sometimes infects our body politic.

He's pro-manufacturing...pro-Caterpillar...and pro-car. He's a midwestern guy. But he's open to new thoughts and not wedded to ideology. He may end up giving you what you want, but wrapping it in a different package (bike trails as the great outdoors, etc).

Obama said he'd name Republicans. He could have done a lot worse than Ray LaHood, who is an old school, Main Street Republican who will help Obama in many ways. Think Jerry Ford, for better or worse.

by Mike S. on Dec 20, 2008 4:42 pm

Drew,

"J's comment made me laugh. Yes, J, Lahood will oversee the DOT. And guess what entity oversees all those other agencies you mention? Yep, the DOT."

You don't work for USDOT, do you? I do. Yes, the Office of the Secretary (OST) will drive DOT policies. But the individual agencies within DOT aren't one solid block with OST. Trust me, there's a lot of dissension and cultural/ideological/political differences on a lot of transportation issues (Dulles Rail, among them) between the agencies and the head office. And they have a signficantly larger degree of freedom than you think.

Also, keep in mind that LaHood is a figurehead. He will be answering to the Obama administration, and working with all Democratic appointees in the individual moods. The idea that he's going to drive some right-wing agenda is ludicrous.

I read GGW a lot because it's a great resource on local tranist news, and I admire David A. for his devotion to transit.

But the amount of wild speculation about transportation and transit from a bunch of armchair transit enthusiasts who don't understand the industry (and the federal role in transit, even) as it actually operates is frustrating.

by J on Dec 20, 2008 9:03 pm

J, let me offer my thoughts as one of these "armchair transit enthusiasts" you refer to (and I am not afraid to admit that I may not understand the industry).

Yes, LaHood is a figurehead who will answer to Obama... but at the same time, Obama could have used his pick for OST to send a message about his intended priorities for the next four years. He has done exactly that for science, by tapping highly accomplished and respected scientists as Sec. of Energy, head of NOAA, director of OSP, and members of PCAST. The fact that he spent his entire radio address today talking about these appointments demonstrates the importance he places on science.

We haven't seen that kind of emphasis for transportation. We (meaning us armchair enthusiasts) are concerned about that, and are probably (I know I am) more than a little disappointed by it as well.

by Adam on Dec 21, 2008 12:19 am

FYI, i mean to write individual modes, not moods above.

Adam, I do completely agree with you that the choice of LaHood doesn't really speak well (so far) of the Obama administration's emphasis on transportation, but wait and see what selection Obama makes for the operating mode heads.

The only one most GGW readers will really care about is the FTA head, which is still yet to be selected.

by J on Dec 21, 2008 1:25 am

J, I dunno, I sort of expect that the FTA head will advocate for transit, just like everyone else advocates for their own turf. Good and bad transit alike. Can you give an example of someone who you think would be exceptionally good there, and why?

by David desJardins on Dec 21, 2008 1:38 am

I'm an amatuer(sp?) "standing in the crowded metro car" transit enthusiast and a "wish I could take a train four States NW next week instead of driving" transit enthusiast rather than an "armchair" enthusiast. In the armchair I'm just an enthusiast of StarTrek reruns (TNG).

by Bianchi on Dec 21, 2008 1:50 am

No clue who's going to be selected yet, so I don't want to speculate.

The current FTA head (well, recently departed back to the private sector) is actually quite good for the Bush administration - he was a NYC Republican and very much understood transit.

I didn't mean to denigrate anyone with the "armchair transit enthusiast" comment - but, to give an example - it's just that it's easy to say 'why doesn't x build light rail here and here and here', without regard to why a local jurisdiction might choose a different mode, why the project might get delayed, issues with jurisdictional turf battles, etc. Decisions made on transit are often a lot more logical than they might seem.

by J on Dec 21, 2008 2:11 am

I don't think it's "speculation" to give an example of who would be good, and why. I'm not asking you to guess who will be chosen (that's not so interesting, we can just wait and see). Oh well.

by David desJardins on Dec 21, 2008 2:14 am

Oops. Sorry, I misread your question.

Well, someone that really and truly understands the state the transit industry is in nowadays. Declining revenues from taxes and state/local support, growing ridership. The state of most transit systems in the US (desperately needing maintenence as they reach the end of their useful life), while there's no money (state, local or federal) for repairs.

Or meeting the transit ridership needs of existing and growing metro areas while there's very little money for building new systems. Building rail or BRT when they are needed, bus systems where they are appropriate.

I think Janette Sadik-Khan (of NYC DOT) would be a great pick - she understands all the above issues and has ideas on how to meet them.

by JS on Dec 21, 2008 2:31 am

Re: Gov. Ed Rendell as a good Sec. of Transportation. He would be a great one. I lived in PA for 6 years while in college and followed his work. He was able to increase funding for transit, increase funding for repairing bridges (PA has tons of bridges in dire need of help), and improve overall transportation in PA. He did this with a very hostile, rural politician dominated legislature that is more worried about building streets for cow barns than investing in the infrastructure of the cities that drive the state's economy. Believe me, I know PA has tons of transportation issues, but if there is blame to be assigned for slow change and baby steps of progress, blame it on the rural, out-of-touch with the 21st century politicians, not Gov. Rendell. Unfortunately, he could never take the position until after 2010 because if he did a Republican would become governor of PA and that would just send the state on a backwards track again.

by Allan on Dec 21, 2008 9:17 am