ray lahood Archives - Transportation For America

What the 2012 elections mean for the federal transportation picture

OK, now it’s official: Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) will replace Rep. John Mica (R-FL) as chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee. That much has been resolved after a 2012 election that still leaves a number of key questions hanging in the balance.

It is too soon to say, obviously, what sort of chairman Rep. Shuster will be. His early remarks – seeking to strike a middle ground while avoiding dogmatic statements – appear to put him more in the mold of his father, Bud Shuster, who served 28 years in Congress and chaired T&I for six years in the 1990s. In remarks honoring him in 2002, former T&I Chairman Jim Oberstar praised Bill Shuster’s dad thusly: “His perseverance, patience and willingness to find common ground made him one of the greatest committee chairmen we have seen in recent years in the House.”

However, “Things are different (now),” Bill Shuster told The Hill last week. “To move legislation, I think certainly takes some of the skill set that he had. … But also, you’ve got to make sure that you’re listening to the … committee and the (GOP) conference to move these things forward. I’ve learned a lot from him, but there’s some things that happen around here today that he didn’t have to deal with.”

In other comments, Shuster has said that he does not support rolling back the federal role in transportation or giving the entire job to the states. Rather, he said he wants to find the additional revenue and financing strategies that can help make up the gap between necessary investment levels and a federal gas tax whose earning power is in decline. In a nod to reality, he also endorsed exploring the potential of transitioning to a per-mile fee, or vehicle miles traveled tax (VMT), rather than a per-gallon gas tax.

“Longer term, VMT seems to me to be the only way to stop the decline because we’re all going to be driving cars five, ten years from now that are going 40, 50 miles [per gallon] or more, or maybe not using any gas at all,” he told The Hill. Whatever the revenue source, he and his colleagues will need to move quickly: His committee needs to be ready to adopt the next transportation in just 22 months.

Rep. Bill Shuster, second from left, tours a Corps of Engineers lock facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

But what about raising the gas tax in the meantime?

Suddenly, almost everywhere you look in transportation land, people are talking about the possibility of a gas tax increase, and Shuster himself raised the possibility this week. Some argue that a lame duck session provides the perfect opportunity. They and others also see the potential to include a gas tax increase as part of the debt deal that is expected in the so-called “fiscal cliff” negotiations.

There is some justification for that argument. A shortfall in expected gas tax revenues already has led Congress to make increasingly large transfers from the over-burdened general fund to the highway trust fund, and was a key reason that last summer’s transportation bill lasts only two years, rather than the typical six. A gas tax increase large enough to cover all the highway and transit funding now coming from general revenues would hardly cure all the budget issues, but it certainly could help, the argument goes.

But will the Obama Administration end its opposition to talk of a gas tax increase? The President had declared it a non-starter as long as the economy is sputtering. Has the U.S. economy stabilized enough – even as fears of a Europe-led global recession lurk in the wings – to allow a gas tax increase to be put on the table?

Whither Ray LaHood?

And speaking of the Administration, if Ray LaHood has the old Clash song “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” on his iPod he’s probably listening to it a lot these days.

A year ago he announced – or rather blurted out – that he planned to step down if Obama got re-elected. The possibility has fueled much speculation as to replacements, but he has been silent since the election. That didn’t stop The Atlantic Cities from running a recent piece on why a mayor should get the nod for the job. The article quotes yours truly praising LaHood as one of the best to hold that job, and given his support for innovations like the TIGER program, his emphasis on the safety of everyone who uses road and transit systems, his strong support for local communities trying to improve their livability … Well, we’ll stand by those remarks.

Smart questions submitted for Secretary LaHood to answer

Last week we asked you for questions for U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and you came through with some great questions and topics that he’ll hopefully consider for his next edition of “On The Go,” his recurring video segment where he answers questions and discusses transportation topics at a little more length than he can in his daily blog or regular tweets.

We wanted to take just a moment to thank everyone who sent in their questions, via comments, email, twitter and pack mule. Okay, okay, we didn’t get any questions by mule but they certainly came in every other possible way.

US DOT folks have told us that they’ll probably tape this next episode later this week, so we’ll have to wait at least a week or so before we discover which questions Sec. LaHood decided to answer, but below are just a few of the strong questions that were submitted for him to consider. Anyone want to take your own stab at some of these in the comments?

We’ll be sure to post the video as soon as they release it. Thanks so much to everyone who took the time to write down a question and pass it along.

—-

Secretary LaHood: Thank you for your leadership. After two decades of consistent progress on walking, bicycling and livability initiatives, what can be done now to keep the current Congress from going backwards and eliminating or reducing key programs such as Safe Routes to Schools, Transportation Enhancements and Recreational Trails? The United States need more resources for pedestrians, bicyclists and active transportation, not less.

Jeff Olson, R.A. – Principal
Alta Planning + Design

—

The High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail program was (and is, through its remaining trickle of funds) one of the most exciting and potentially transformative initiatives of the Obama administration. I know you yourself have expressed a deep commitment to this program as well. What’s your strategy for getting the program back on track, if you’ll pardon the well-used pun, and for changing the “death of high-speed rail” narrative to a “high-speed rail’s next steps” narrative?

Andrew Guthrie
Minneapolis, MN

—

In what areas could advocates do a better job making the case for federal funding for active transportation projects?

@ellyblue
Elly Blue
Portland, OR

—

The interstate highway system continues to provide the nation with remarkable interregional mobility. However, is it possible that constructing freeways through the hearts of our major cities was a mistake? Would the federal government consider enhancing its role in helping cities assess whether communities might be better off converting some of these highways into surface streets or even parks, housing, etc? Thank you, and keep up the great work.

Commenter “Clutch J”

Do you have a burning question for Secretary Ray Lahood?

I hope so, because the U.S. Secretary of Transportation wants to answer yours!

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has asked Transportation for America’s many partners and supporters to submit questions for him that he’ll answer in his next edition of “On the Go,” a monthly video segment with the Secretary where he answers a few in-depth transportation-related questions. Here’s the December edition of the show:

His office has asked us to gather a collection of questions from T4 America partners and our thousands of supporters from all across the country. So ask away! Do you want to know about the prospects of the transportation bill or what the administration is doing to get it passed? Curious about the future of the high-speed rail program after recent cuts? Whatever you’d like to know, you can ask it here and it’ll land on the Secretary’s desk — though no guarantees on which questions he chooses, of course.

You can submit your question a few different ways:

Leave it right here on this post in the comments
Ask it on Twitter by including the hashtag #q4ray at the end of your tweet
Email it directly to us at info [at] t4america.org and we’ll pass it along.

So get your questions in by next Tuesday, January 17th.

Ohio Congressman recants, decides LaHood’s complete streets policy is not so “radical” after all

In an Associated Press story on April 15, Ohio Congressman Steve LaTourette was quoted decrying the apparently “radical” idea that the safety and comfort of people on foot or bicycle deserve as much consideration as those in cars. He even jokingly asked if the new “equal footing” policy for bicyclists may have the product of drug use at the USDOT. LaTourette created a strawman – equal funding for bicycle infrastructure and roads – to attack a sensible and long overdue change.

To his credit, LaTourette has fully recanted the statement and apologized for any misunderstanding, a result due in part to significant pushback from the bicycling community in his 14th Congressional District and throughout the country. In a message aimed at the cycling community, the Congressman said his comments were intended for levity rather than insult and called biking a legitimate form of transportation that ought to be taken seriously.

I regret the online story caused so much anxiety and that it made some of you question me. Nothing has changed my ardent support of bike trails, bike lanes and the right of cyclists to share the road. This has been a lesson on the power of the Internet, and it sure has given me a new respect for the fierce advocacy from the cycling community.

LaTourette also cited his support for the Safe Routes to Schools program and other active living efforts. LaTourette’s consistent support for funding bike paths in his own district was not lost on Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who noted after the initial hearing: “He knows people in his district like them.”

Transportation, like most issues these days, is highly polarized, but LaTourette’s experience with his own constituents confirms what Transportation for America’s recent poll found: people want their streets to be safe enough for kids to ride their bikes to school. They want seniors to be able to cross the street safely and for bicycling and walking to be legitimate ways of getting around. None of this takes away from cars. If anything, giving a greater voice to bicyclists makes our streets safer and more accessible to everyone.

LaTourette did the right thing by clearing up this controversy and making amends with cyclists in Ohio’s 14th Congressional District and around the country.

Secretary LaHood on T4 America’s poll: “People want better options”

Secretary LaHood at our petition delivery last November

We got some superb media coverage last week on the release of our national poll and there’s an engaging discussion underway today on the National Journal experts blog, but we wanted to especially highlight a terrific post today from Ray LaHood, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, on his official DOT blog.

While LaHood was showered with gratitude from many for his statement at the National Bike Summit that bicyclists and pedestrians should be accommodated in our transportation network and no longer treated as second-class citizens, he also took a verbal lashing from some defenders of the transportation status quo — but not the pulse of the American people, as our poll clearly shows.

While having the concrete numbers from a bipartisan national survey is encouraging and helpful, Secretary LaHood says that most notably, our poll echoes the same drumbeat he’s heard all around the country from people in big cities, small towns and all the places in between during his first 14 months in office.

This is precisely what I’ve been talking about here in this blog with regard to livability, transit, and walking and biking. I have traveled all over this country in the past 14 months, and everywhere I go people want better options. Options that offer reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. Options that offer reduced fuel-consumption. Options that offer better health. Options that bring communities together.

Now, let me make this absolutely clear: I never said we would stop repairing, maintaining, and–yes–even expanding roadways. I said only that it’s time to stop assuming that putting more cars on more roads is the best way to move people around more effectively.

This survey demonstrates that, by and large, the American people get that. I never doubted them, but it sure is nice to see the numbers.

So, thank you, Transportation For America, for that 82%-strong vote of confidence.

The pleasure is all ours, Secretary.

Feds announce change to consider livability in funding transit projects

TriMet MAX on the Transit Mall Originally uploaded by paulkimo90

From the Transportation for America Flickr group.

Following through on a policy change hinted at for much of 2009, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced this morning that federal transit officials would begin considering expanded criteria as they select which transit projects to fund, bringing a new focus on improving livability and sustainability.

At the Transportation Research Board’s annual conference this morning, Secretary LaHood made it clear that a wider range of positive benefits would be considered in the application process for new transit lines or systems. These applications were being unfairly burdened by the previous administration’s cost-effectiveness measurement, which left out such benefits as energy efficiency, economic development and reduced emissions.

“Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it,” he said. “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.”

Of course, the one problem that this will not fix is the very high demand for a limited supply of New Starts funding. Even under the old narrow rules for winning approval, only a small percentage of the many applicants were receiving limited funding, and even then, the federal government was only matching about half of local funds, compared with at least 80 percent for road projects.

Still, this change is keeping in line with the positive reforms contained in Chairman Jim Oberstar’s draft reauthorization bill released back in the summer. In June, we quoted the bill’s section on New Starts reform, noting that the proposal to remove the cost-effectiveness requirement and include other “livability” criteria “equalizes the treatment of proposed transit projects and elevates the importance of the benefits that will occur in the community once the project is built.”

The Obama administration and all the leaders at USDOT and the Federal Transit Administration are to be praised for their leadership in changing this program for the better. The next step is securing a greater share of funds for public transportation in the upcoming reauthorization and improving federal match rates to equalize the choices state or regional leaders face between new highways and new transit lines.

Update: Chairman Oberstar responded with a statement of his own praising the change, also observing that New Starts needs greater funding to meet the overwhelming demand. “Now we need increased investment dollars to follow this reform, so that we can move forward with transit projects that relieve congestion, reduce emissions, increase our energy independence, and promote more livable communities across the country,” he said. (From Elana Schor’s post on Streetsblog Capitol Hill)

Secretary LaHood takes on Senator Coburn’s “stimulus waste”

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood didn’t pull any punches in a blog post yesterday about one senator’s “stimulus waste” list.

Senator Tom Coburn is a persistent critic of transportation “enhancements” and the author of a failed amendment earlier this year to strip bicycle and pedestrian projects from a spending bill. His latest waste list includes two bike paths. Coburn told the Washington Times, “When we run $1.4 trillion deficits, the money we spend ought to be a high priority for the American people as a whole.” To which LaHood retorts: “What he really means is that, because he doesn’t get bikes, no one else does either.”

LaHood goes on to cite an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project extending a bike trail between downtown Minneapolis and the new Minnesota Twins stadium.

“I guess a better connection to Minneapolis’s central business district doesn’t count as infrastructure to some folks,” the secretary wrote. In fact, projects aimed at improving biking, walking and livability are central to both economic recovery, livability and future prosperity.

“We don’t call that waste,” LaHood concluded. “We call it progress.”

56 million people in rural America looking for better transportation solutions

A top priority in the transportation debate is addressing the mobility needs of the 56 million residents of rural areas and small towns in America – about 20 percent of the population of the United States. Rural areas and small towns often fall through the cracks of federal transportation policy, which focuses on statewide priorities for building new highways and often overlooks local needs and preferences.

Access to jobs, schools, shopping, and critical community services is just as vital for Americans living in small cities, towns and rural communities. Transportation for America has been working closely with our coalition partners on this important issue for some time. Now, it looks like Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is also getting on board.

Listening to folks at the La Crosse Interstate Fair in Wisconsin this week, he heard many of the same things that we already know:

It’s getting harder financially to depend on a truck or car for all of a family’s transportation needs.
Rural residents need public transportation just like city-dwellers do.
Access to commercial air service is increasingly difficult for rural areas.
Shippers of grain and other products need better freight options to get rurally produced goods to markets.

Clearly, the transportation system in rural areas and small towns faces challenges and demands that are unique from those in our metropolitan areas. Small cities and towns have higher concentrations of older Americans and families in poverty who would absolutely benefit from more affordable transportation options, beyond just driving. In addition, children in rural areas are 25 percent more likely to be overweight or obese than those in urban areas and face unique barriers to being active and maintaining a healthy weight. Non-metro areas have a larger share of people over age 65 (15 percent) than the country as a whole (12 percent) particularly across the middle of the country. (According to 2004 numbers.)

These challenges are amplified by global changes in the economic marketplace, insufficient funding to maintain substandard or unpaved roads, improve public transportation services, and upgrade or replace substandard and deteriorating bridges.

Our nation’s transportation infrastructure should provide access for all Americans, regardless of their geographic location, age, income, or disability status. While there are no easy answers here, Secretary LaHood’s comments are a good starting point for reframing the debate towards policy options that benefit all Americans, regardless of geography.

Administration releases their principles for an 18-month transportation bill

When DOT Secretary LaHood was on Capitol Hill a few weeks ago discussing the Obama Administration’s plan for a transitional transportation bill, he mentioned that their plan for an 18-month extension would “enact critical reforms” while stopping short of a fundamental overhaul of the program — leaving that for the full six-year bill.

A lot of transportation advocates were left wondering what sort of reforms the administration would propose. Today we got a first look at their general proposal (via Transportation Weekly.) Update: Elana Schor @ Streetsblog has the details on the National Infrastructure Bank.

As you may remember, Chairman James Oberstar and his House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are at odds over the timing of the authorization bill. Oberstar and company want to pass a full six-year authorization bill by September, while the Administration favors an 18-month transitional bill to patch the soon-to-be insolvent Highway Trust Fund.

At the forefront of the administration proposal is a $20 billion transfer from the general fund to keep the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts in the Highway Trust Fund from going bankrupt, keeping them solvent until March 2011. They propose to return the money to the general fund over 10 years.

In a section titled “Downpayment on Reform,” the administration outlines three proposals, including $310 million to help states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) voluntarily improve their project evaluation process, helping them choose worthy projects based on data , preparing them “for improved accountability standards and merit criteria in the long-term reauthorization.”

The second proposal would provide $10 million for “USDOT to develop performance goals and establish guidelines for states and localities on project evaluation.” And in language that sounds similar to the stimulus spending, the third proposal aims to improve the transparency and accountability in transportation spending, to “lay the groundwork for further accountability reforms in the long-term reauthorization.”

Lastly is a section on livable communities and improving regional access:

Livability: developing guidelines for community plans and providing funding for approved projects with special emphasis on convenience of transportation options, reductions in travel times, smart growth, preservation of open space, and more integrated responses to land use and transportation needs.

Chairman Oberstar is still opposed to any extension and it’s worth noting that any 18-month proposal would have to pass through his committee in the House. Read the full memo to Congress below. (more…)