Government
Sustainable Transportation Five, please step forward
Five unnamed but heroic Democratic Senators refused to support Boxer and Inhofe's amendment to add $50 billion in highway spending to the stimulus. According to Streetsblog, they insisted on these criteria:
Five DC superheroes. Photo by Custom Lego minifigs on Flickr.
Remember, Level of Service (LOS) is an outdated metric that assumes the only objective of roads is to move the maximum numbers of cars as fast as possible. When transportation departments focus on LOS, they end up with wider intersections and more lanes that reduce walkability and pedestrian safety and promote sprawl.Allocating a minimum of 30 percent of the total to clean water and public transportation/passenger rail. Of the total funds allocated to highways and bridges, 10 percent would have to be set aside for Transportation Enhancements, i.e. bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Giving the Secretary of Transportation discretion to redirect funds from states that were not adhering to certain criteria to states that were adhering to them. The criteria Dems and enviros wanted to see, for example, would not have allowed states to receive funds by showing that a project improves vehicular Level of Service.
According to Streetsblog, the Boxer/Inhofe amendment is "nearly dead", though nothing is certain yet. Update: Infrastructurist reports that Inhofe hasn't given up. The Bond amendments to cut rail programs also appear to be going nowhere.
I'd love to know who these five unnamed Senators are so that we can thank them for their enlightened approach to transportation.
In other stimulus news, The New York Times this morning reports that Japan's stimulus in the 1990s failed to revive its economy. Economists both inside and outside Japan disagree on whether "didn't go far enough... [or] was a colossal waste." According to the article, they built "increasingly wasteful roads and bridges" instead social services. The article doesn't mention transit at all, whether in the wasteful or the more useful category. Tip: Greater Greater Dad.
In a Boston Globe op-ed, Ed Glaeser argues for a separate infrastructure bill to create the transportation network we need, and for limiting the stimulus to items like repairing decaying infrastructure that we can actually begin right away.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
Can I start referring to myself as "Greater Greater Michael"? Or is that something that, like titles of knighthood, have to be bestowed?
by Michael Perkins on Feb 6, 2009 12:44 pm • link • report
by kenf on Feb 6, 2009 1:03 pm • link • report
Last night we reported that the $50 billion Boxer/Inhofe amendment was dead. We had it on good authority that that was the case. The report may have been premature, however. The amendment may have only been stunned. In the improvisational environment that’s prevailing on Capitol Hill, its revival now seems to be a possibility.
We just got off the phone with one of Inhofe’s staffers who told us: “Senator Inhofe intends to bring it up, and we think there may be a good opportunity to do so today.” He added, “We’re obviously seeing flux on the Senate floor” so anything is possible. (Sounds right…)
At around 11 a.m. Inhofe tried to introduce it, in fact, but faced an objection from Democrat Max Baucus. We’ll try to stay on top of events. At this point perhaps nobody is quite sure how things will play out. [11:15 a.m.]
by Chris on Feb 6, 2009 1:29 pm • link • report
As for the amendment/stimulus, I'm starting to lean towards Ed Glaeser's position. This current stimulus bill has gotten way too out-of-hand, and both sides have piled way too much onto it (tax cuts from the Repubs, too much "omnibus" spending from the Dems).
BTW, David, I disagree with your assertion that LOS is "outdated". It's all about what you define as an acceptable LOS (generally speaking, the Feds require LOS "D" be met). As a side note, I'd like to mention that the Highway Capacity Manual also has LOS definitions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit.
Now, if Boxer's amendment still has to go through, I'd accept a 20-25% share for transit and keep the requirement that projects need to be underway within 90-120 days (which should rule out most expansion projects but will still allow for needed repairs for both highways and transit).
by Froggie on Feb 6, 2009 1:34 pm • link • report
That Glaeser piece is right on too, I think. I liked this paragraph especially: " As the Office of Management and Budget's expectmore.gov website notes, highway infrastructure 'funding is not based on need or performance and has been heavily earmarked.'"
And when it's given out to states with no conditions attached, we all know what will happen to it.
by Steve Davis on Feb 6, 2009 1:43 pm • link • report
A) Depends on the state. And along those lines, shouldn't states distribute transportation dollars in the fashion they see fit for their state?
B) Most states that I'm familliar with have more rigid rules regarding priorities and disbursement of federal highway funding that comes via the normal channels. It's Congressional Earmarks that blow the whole process out of the water.
by Froggie on Feb 6, 2009 2:49 pm • link • report
Add a Comment