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”

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:

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

On the website of Transportation for America, a group advocating clean transportation and smart-growth planning, there is a ticker that has been counting up since the expiration of the last surface transportation reauthorization bill. Today, the counter hits 365 days — marking a year since states had a long-term funding plan for their transportation projects.

That timeline has not been lost on anyone, as calls for a new reauthorization bill have grown stronger and the Obama administration has begun generating its plans.

The trepidation and delays surrounding the reauthorization are nothing new — the massive, six-year bills have typically been late and slow to form. But to TFA President James Corless, it is important that Congress start moving on the bill soon.

“I think everyone still believes the next authorization bill remains one of the best opportunities we have to reimagine the nation’s transportation policy,” Corless said. “This meets a multiple set of really urgent imperatives that country has to take. … We want to put people back to work and transition into a clean energy economy and we think this is one of the best vehicles to do that.”

It’s not just groups like T4 America or industry groups pushing for a long-term bill from Congress. He also pointed out that most transportation officials at the state and local levels would prefer a comprehensive reauthorization to the quick-fixes Congress has continued to pass over the last year.

Congress is almost sure to pass a shorter extension after the elections, but states say they need a full reauthorization to provide the financial security and assurance that allow them to embark on larger projects.

President Obama brought long overdue attention to the nation’s infrastructure during his speech in Milwaukee on Labor Day, calling for a $50 billion down payment to fix roads, bridges, highways and transit systems. More recently, administration officials have signaled their intention to move on reauthorization in early 2011.

There is the potential for real bipartisanship. Ohio Senator George Voinovich, a Republican, has indicated a sense of urgency toward moving on infrastructure and a willingness to look at a number of revenue sources. Previous transportation bills that, while imperfect, made important strides toward investing in multimodal transportation were passed during a Republican Congress, and the last bill was signed by President George W. Bush.

Under the leadership of Secretary Ray LaHood, USDOT has already led the way in identifying a transformative change in direction for the nation’s transportation priorities as we climb out of the 1950′s mindset that guided the last half century of spending. Plautz writes:

LaHood has promised a “sea change” in transportation planning, including offering alternatives to driving like bike lanes and public transit. The administration has also been investing in high-speed rail.

USDOT officials have also been forward-looking in articulating the crucial link between transportation and land-use policies, especially with the transportation sector accounting for nearly 70 percent of the nation’s oil use. “We’re in the climate change business whether we like it or not, so we should probably be in that discussion,” Roy Kienitz, USDOT undersecretary for policy, said in a recent town hall.

“The administration really prioritizes more options and building in more performance measures that include environmental equity and economic indicators,” Plautz quoted T4 America Director James Corless as saying. “It’s a great opportunity to begin to move in a direction that reduces the reliance on oil.”

Help us get moving on a transformation reauthorization bill today.

Do you want the count-up clock for your site or blog? Grab it today.

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.

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.

It is fitting that The Oprah Winfrey Show chose the Martin Luther King Day of Service to air its program on distracted driving. Spreading awareness about this deadly epidemic is a huge contribution to the safety of millions of Americans. For that public service, I enthusiastically thank Oprah. And I encourage everyone who didn’t see the show to visit Oprah’s website where you can watch segments of the show, read the transcript, and SIGN THE PLEDGE! Oprah’s online pledge draws a line in the sand that says, “NO! We will not do this anymore.”

The most heart-wrenching part of the show was the “after the show” feature that had relatives of those killed in distracted driving accidents share the names of their loved ones and tell their stories. The first two families to tell their story had relatives killed while walking and biking, respectively.

Is it just me, or does it seem like this show could represent a bit of a tipping point for this issue? Then again, many of the automakers spent the recent Detroit Auto Show rolling out new (dangerous) ways to use phones and the internet while behind the wheel.

What do you think?

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)

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.”

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.

Because most railcars are almost entirely produced overseas, other countries have been enjoying the economic benefits of America’s booming transit ridership with new light rail and streetcar lines opening from coast to coast.

That began to change today in Portland, as the first American-made streetcar in almost 60 years was unveiled to the public. The streetcars are made by United Streetcar LLC and their parent company, Oregon Iron Works. The new streetcar, which cost $2.9 million and was responsible for creating 90 jobs, according to the Portland Mercury, was unveiled in a special ceremony today with transportation secretary Ray LaHood. Updated: Here’s the post summing up the visit on LaHood’s blog.

To let everyone in Oregon know how significant Transportation for America thinks this event is, we took out an ad in The Oregonian today to congratulate Portland and their congressmen for making an investment in clean, green jobs in Portland that will pay huge dividends for years to come for Portland and the state of Oregon.

The good news is that it wasn’t just one streetcar. Oregon Iron Works has an order for six more for Portland, and a $26 million order from Tuscon, Arizona. (below, Oregon Iron Works workers pose with an American-made streetcar. Photo from their site)

The Infrastructurist muses on the potential for this Oregon company to lead the way and revive an old industry for the U.S:

If our Spidey sense is right – as, well, it usually is – this company and Oregon have seized an incredibly valuable first-mover advantage in what could prove to be an important domestic industry in years to come. After American cities tore up streetcar tracks and junked their rolling stock en masse in the middle of last century, dozens of [them] are now planning or considering a new system. With oil at $70 a barrel in the depths of brutal global recession, our guess is that number will only grow in the years ahead.

So how about we bring these clean, green jobs home to the USA? Having American companies meeting the demand for new public transportation railcars equals good jobs and a useful product that can help us reduce our dependence on oil, cut emissions, and get us where we need to go quickly and efficiently. What’s not to like?