Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

Conservative Mag Tells Conservatives Why They Should Care About Public Transit

Monday, August 30th, 2010

american-conservativeWe here at Infrastructurist are firm believers in standing behind smart ideas, no matter what group or party they happen to come from. In this case, they’re coming from the American Conservative. The bastion of modern conservatism has launched an online symposium, featuring prominent urban studies experts like the Brookings Institute’s Christopher Leinberger and the president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, John Norquist, to explore the many reasons why conservatives should support public transit. Next month, the nonprofit parent of AC magazine, the American Ideas Institute, will launch a new center on transportation made possible by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation.

The collection contains a multitude of interesting pieces, including by familiar names like William Lind (who as you may recall has been featured in two Q&A’s with us on this very topic). They present many ideas that we’ve explored in the past, like the economic and environmental need for our attitudes about daily transportation to change as a nation, the poor management decisions and other factors that add huge price tags to rail projects, and the power of transportation to revive a region’s economy, livability, and connectivity.

These are not necessarily new arguments, but the ideas they contain are compulsory reading for anyone who wants to have a serious discussion about the future of transportation policy, and priorities, in this country. And so we say, bravo American Conservative for facilitating a rational and fact-driven discussion among the demographic that, well, needs it most.

Tags: ,
Posted in public transit | 13 Comments »

Chuck Schumer Comes Out For the (Much Needed) Public Transportation Preservation Act

Friday, June 11th, 2010

In both the literal and figurative sense, cars aren’t getting us where we need to be. Fickle gas prices, and an even more fickle economy, are leaving many Americans struggling to pay for their automobiles. And then there’s the whole matter of the environmental dead end of oil dependence that’s lurking in the background (and swimming in the Gulf).

The longterm answer to this problem is still up for debate — it may involve alternative fuel services, or a movement into cities, or any combination of technologies and cultural shifts. But right now, in 2010, the answer for many people is public transportation. Americans took nearly 10.7 billion trips on public transit in 2008 — a 4% increase over 2007 and the highest level since 1956. Public transportation use has increased 38% since 1995, an increase that’s nearly triple the growth rate of the U.S. population.

And yet at the same time, it’s getting hammered. In urban centers all over the country, public transportation systems are being forced to lay off workers, cut services, and increase fares. For a complete map of service cuts around the country, click here.

Luckily, policymakers are stepping in to do something about it. Today, New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer gave a press conference to garner support for the Public Transportation Preservation Act of 2010. Schumer, who is co-sponsoring the bill along with seven other senators, is urging the quick passage of the act, which would create a $2 billion emergency fund to save public transit jobs, routes, current fares, and more. The money would be available to states through September 30, 2011.

The bill is already gaining praise, with the American Public Transportation Association coming out in strong favor of it and local blogs urging support. Whether or not you’re a consumer of public transportation, it’s hard to argue that this wouldn’t be money well spent.

Tags: ,
Posted in public transit | 8 Comments »

The Morning Dig: Should Obama Have the Power to Shut Down the Internet?

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

the-internet• The Senate has introduced a major bill aimed at protecting the goverment and “vital U.S. infrastructure” (we weren’t aware there was non-vital U.S. infrastructure) from attacks. But will the tech world get behind it? Not if, like a previous draft, it gives Obama the power to “shut down the Internet.” (Daily Tech)

• It’s no secret that the government’s inability to get anything done with infrastructure or anything else is leading to America’s decline. Still, while Joe Biden admits Washington is broken, he disagrees that America is losing its standing in the world. (Newsweek)

• How Tyson’s Corner, VA is a classic example of the “last mile problem” in mass transit. (GGWashington)

• South Korea is becoming a high speed rail-producing powerhouse, challenging the French for a bid to build Brazil’s HSR network. (FT)

• Jolene Molitoris, director of the Ohio Transportation Department, has gone to bat for the restoration of the state’s passenger rail service — a good thing, since the government already awarded $400 million for the project. (BusinessWeek)

• American holiday companies are mulling over plans to turn Cuba into a major tourist destination.  Still, before we all board planes to Havana, the abject state of the country’s infrastructure needs to be addressed. (Reuters)

• Is oil-less economic growth on its way?  Market forces might be able to make this a possibility (Alertnet.org)

• Here in Hollywood, we’ll have to shell out an additional $2.50 to keep the water and electricity on. The money raised will go towards subsidizing growth in renewable energy. (LA Weekly)

Tags: ,
Posted in The Morning Dig | 2 Comments »

What’s the Problem With a National Infrastructure Bank? Capitalism (And Politics)

Monday, February 8th, 2010

nib-imageThe idea of a National Infrastructure Bank has plenty going for it: It could streamline and  facilitate necessary projects, secure credit at low rates, and help leverage private funds to create the long-term investment that’s needed to see big projects through to completion.

Still, the concept isn’t without its problems. And the biggest problem, in fact, is right there in the name: Bank. If it’s a bank, then it needs to generate revenue, and therefore make investments that repay themselves. And of course, not all infrastructure projects worth funding are ones that will be rolling in profits. Ken Orski sums up the issue thusly:

[A]s [a recent]press conference and most NIB proposals have urged, the Bank would fund a broad range of public infrastructure projects, some of which, such as schools, public housing and mass transit facilities do not generate a revenue stream that could be used to repay the bank loans. Hence, the NIB would require periodic federal appropriations to cover grants for non-revenue producing projects. And indeed, in its FY 2011 budget request, the White House proposed to launch the bank with a small $4 billion appropriation. Of that amount, $2.2 billion would be for grants, which prompted one former member of the National Infrastructure Financing Commission to observe, that “institutions that give away money without requiring repayment are properly called ‘foundations’ not ‘banks.’” That could be the reason why the White House renamed the NIB in its FY 2011 budget request as the “National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund” (NIIFF) — a clumsy but more accurate designation.

So basically what we’re talking about is a federal organization that injects large amounts of capital on an as-yet-to-be-determined basis, while still trying to convince investors that their money will be reserved for projects that could turn a profit. As Pa. Gov. Ed Rendell told us in a recent interview, there could be safeguards written into the legislation creating the bank to avoid a Fannie/Freddie repeat, and care could be taken with the type of people appointed to it — I.E. make sure every appointee has substantial experience in infrastructure development, such as state secretaries or former DOT employees. Still, the plan leaves plenty in the air as to how and whether necessary but non-profitable projects will be financed.

Then there’s the small matter of political power. As Orski puts it:

What is the likelihood that Congress would be willing to turn the power of decision over large-scale capital projects to a bureaucratic organization lodged in the Executive Branch? Probably not very great. Many lawmakers, including the powerful chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), believe that Congress must not abdicate its authority to decide how public capital should be spent. As one Senate aide remarked to us, one cannot “depoliticize” the project selection process, as NIB advocates would urge, because major public infrastructure investment decisions are inherently and fundamentally political in nature.

In other words, as it does with so many potentially good ideas, can Congress kill the National Infrastructure Bank even before it’s born?

Tags: ,
Posted in U.S. Infrastructure | 5 Comments »

A Conservative Makes the Case for Mass Transit (But Not High Speed Rail)

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

lind-coverThe debate over the benefits of mass transit falls along a pretty clear “Mars and Venus” partisan line: Democrats cherish every ounce of mass transit, while Republicans love love love their cars. A few months back, we did a Q&A with Bill Lind, the conservative author of Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation, which evaluates mass transit policies from a conservative perspective. Now that the debate over rail, both high speed and passenger, has lit up following the distribution of Obama’s stimulus funds, we thought we’d check back in with Bill to see if his views had changed, or held steady.

Infrastructurist: Given all the heated partisan debate that has crippled Congress in other topics like healthcare, can infrastructure really be bipartisan?

Lind: Yes. There should be a nonpartisan non-ideological consensus in favor of adequate infrastructure. From the conservative perspective, the federal government has two and only two legitimate functions: national security and infrastructure. The first bill passed by the first Congress was an infrastructure bill. With government involvement in canals and railroads and highways, the federal government has been involved in infrastructure from the beginning. This is consistent with a free market economy, because the markets only work if there is adequate infrastructure.

More specifically to the current time, conservatives do not enjoy being stuck in traffic any more than liberals. We may be in a Mercedes or Jaguar instead of a Neon, but [traffic] still isn’t fun. So when high quality transportation is offered — meaning rail, not bus — conservatives are using it. If you look at the demographics of rail transit riders. what you see is that a lot of the people on board are conservatives. if you look at the ridership on Metra around Chicago, in some counties the average income of people on trains is higher than people driving alone to work. You are turning waste time into time when you could be productive. So the fact is that where high quality transportation is provided, conservatives use it. But there isn’t much rail transit in this country for us to use.

I: It sounds like your definition of “conservative” basically means “wealthy people.” What about conservatives who aren’t necessarily Jaguar-drivers?

L: The fact is that most conservatives own cars. They have sufficient money that they own cars. which means that if they ride transit they ride from choice, not necessity. Which means they want high quality transit, not just something to get around. So the transit that is relative to conservatives is that which is relevant to people with cars — I would rather take transit than drive to work.

I: Does your support for trains extend to high speed rail?

L: High speed rail is an entirely different question. We’re talking commuter trains, light rail, and streetcar. We are very much in favor of inner city rail. But high speed is a chimera. High speed means 250 miles an hour. All the other countries that have created true high speed rail have a dense network of passenger trains. We have nothing. We have Amtrak, which is almost useless — one train passing through, usually in the middle of the night and running late.

What we want to see is building up a network of higher-speed regular trains that becomes dense enough that you can actually use it, and then adding bus service that would connect the largest part of the county to the nearest train — so, like at one time in the U.S., you could get from any point in the country to any other point in the country without driving or getting on a plane. Seventy, eighty years ago a number of steam railroads were running at over 100 miles an hour. But after World War II the government slapped speed limits on passenger trains. We want to make trains that are time competitive with the automobile - we’re not interested in competing with air travel. Our fuel dependence is seated on cars, not planes. So we want trains running at speeds of up to 110 miles an hour — all of which we had with steam trains in the 1930s.

I: So what you’re advocating is more, and faster Amtrak.

L: More passenger trains, more Amtrak trains, on more routes, more trains on existing routes, running at speeds that make the time competitive with the automobile.

(more…)

Tags: ,
Posted in High Speed Rail, U.S. Infrastructure | 26 Comments »