Environmental Groups Point to Transit Funding as Weak Spot in Democratic Stimulus
The sheer complexity of the $825 billion economic stimulus bill unveiled in the House yesterday means that it may take some time for stakeholders in the effort to digest the Democrats' spending choices. But the environmental community was on the ball right away, shooting out statements that were sadly little-noticed in the flood of news.
Green advocates mostly like the stimulus, particularly its investment in modernizing the nation's electricity grid and remodeling buildings to promote energy efficiency. But the transportation portion of the bill left several major environmental groups very underwhelmed -- and rightly so.
Friends of the Earth observed that the $30 billion Democrats are dedicating to the crumbling national highway system may end up being used on new construction while existing roads remain in decay.
"It is particularly disappointing to see that, unlike highway funds, public transportation and passenger rail funds have been cut below the levels suggested by the House Transportation Committee, limiting job creation in these areas," the group's president, Brent Blackwelder, said in a statement.
The National Resources Defense Council hailed the bill in general but added quickly that it "needs more to improve our country's transportation and water infrastructure." NRDC also expressed disappointment that the transit funding undercut the proposal offered by Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation committee.
"The transportation component of the stimulus package under-funds mass transit in deference to highways and bridges, which receive $30 billion compared to $10 billion for public transit and rail," NRDC legislative director Karen Wayland said in a statement.
Even the Environmental Defense Fund, considered a relatively centrist player in the phalanx of Washington green groups, had a bone to pick with the transit part of the stimulus plan. Fewer than half of the 50 states have publicly released their priority transportation projects, according to the EDF, making transparency from the nation's governors a crucial missing piece.
"States generally have flexibility to use highway funds to "fix-it-first" -- repair existing bridges and roads -- or to rush through new highway expansion that might otherwise fail to meet basic environmental needs," Michael Replogle, the EDF's transportation director, said in a statement. "It's time to shine a light on those priorities."
Will other House Democrats make a stand for more green transportation cash when the stimulus heads through the committee process next week? We'll be watching.
Late Update: Blogger Adam Terando made a good catch in the video of yesterday's organizing hearing of the House transportation panel. Looks like there's dissent a-brewin' among Chairman Oberstar's troops about the short-changing of highway and mass transit projects in the bill. Also, the Journal has more on the hubbub.
This is indeed one of the biggest disappointments of the stimulus plan! (For those who are interested in the policy implications of the (lack of) transit funding, I recommend this excellent and very detailed post at the Transport Politic).
January 16, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite disappointing really. Rail, and specifically high-speed rail really has to be a bigger part of the national infrastructure if we're going to truly go for energy independence.
January 16, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rail is nice in some places, but I question its broader utility. You can take a train from New York to Chicago now, but how many people do? Even a 200 mph train is no match for air travel except over relatively short distances. Except for the Boston-NY-Philadelphia-Washington corridor, where would a train be preferred to flying? The break point is probably somewhere around 400 miles (even assuming a 200 mph train), and outside of the corridor named above, there aren't very many major cities within that distance of one another where there's enough passenger traffic to justify it.
Also, airplanes burn most of their fuel taking off. Cruising is pretty efficient. For longer trips, I'm not so sure trains are more energy efficient.
January 16, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rail is probably the most efficient mechanical transport on earth. The reason roads are so desirable to the government is because troops can move quickly in case of insurrection.
January 16, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your tin foil hat is working nicely.
January 16, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Eisenhower was an evil genius!
January 16, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zee Germans ver die evil geniuses.
January 16, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanical," but the bicycle is widely recognized as the most efficient form of transport.
Even better than walking.
January 16, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Count me among the uncoverted. 200 mph is all the speed you could want between Berlin and Munich, but New York to L.A.? Please. That's a fourteen hour trip, assuming you don't stop anywhere in between. No one's going to do that if they have a choice. And If no one uses it, you're not saving either energy or carbon.
I really don't think it makes sense to spend a gazillion dollars on the world's greatest train system that no one ever uses. The opportunity cost is just too high. Plus, if no one uses it, it turns into one more massive but illogical government subsidy.
January 16, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. But L.A. to San Francisco or San Diego would be heavily used, because it would be preferable both to driving and flying.
I see fast rail as a way to offer an alternative to flying between two cities separated by an onerous one-day drive. Aside from its environmental and economic benefits, competition for the airlines in short-run flights would help with reducing airport congestion. Reduced volume from flights being uncompetitive with subsidized fast rail would lead to fewer delays caused by volume. Besides, nobody wants more airplanes landing at any of the major metropolitan airports, even if it were possible.
January 16, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's a whole other thing. The elimination of commuter flights to to my mind a worthy goal and may even be economically feasible. If nothing else, a little competition might convince the airlines to revise the commuter flight seating arrangements so they wouldn't violate the Geneva Conventions if used on POW's.
January 16, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
SF-LA-SD is perhaps the only place outside the Eastern corridor where rail is viable. Even NY to Chicago is probably a 6 hour trip at best. Very few people will do that instead of a
Anything more than about 400 miles and people will choose to fly. Anything less than about 150 miles and people will choose to drive. That leaves a pretty narrow window. High speed rail sounds nice, but hauling around a lot of empty cars at 200 mph is not the answer.
January 16, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
My belief is that the trains will come to have an advantage over time in being able to run on more than a liquid fuel of some kind.
Domestic electricity generation is already extremely cheap, everywhere in the U.S.. The stimulus' investment in making distribution less wasteful will probably contribute to keeping those prices low even with more taxation on dirtier forms of power, and cleaner sources of power which inherently cost more per unit at this stage. Power for trains will remain fairly constant in a way that liquid fuels for cars, trucks and airplanes will not, so long as petroleum remains the only real option for them.
If it's done intelligently, fast rail will be convenient both to a major metropolitan area's public transportation network and its beltway. Rail doesn't get volume delays, and fewer meteorological events cause problems for rail than for cars or airplanes. Shorter tracks will mean easier maintenance, snow clearing, etc. Given what the airlines have become, it also wouldn't be very hard for the train companies/quasi-governmental corporations to offer better customer service than the self-sorting-human-cargo model that makes so many people unhappy to be in airports.
January 16, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if you live in the outer rim of suburbs, an express train can currently get you downtown in less than an hour. That's w-a-y faster than driving, yet people choose to drive. The point is, I don't think speed is the issue. I'm not really sure what the issue is. Convenience? Even if you have to drive to the train station, that's still better than driving downtown.
I can't imagine why someone would sit in their car on a crowded highway for two hours when they can take a train, but people do it in large numbers. What I do know is that until we figure out why, we're apt to be throwing money at the wrong problem.
January 16, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if you live in the outer rim of suburbs, an express train can currently get you downtown in less than an hour. That's w-a-y faster than driving, yet people choose to drive.
People like the freedom of being able to come and go as they please, but not without qualification. If parking is hard to find, or makes constant use of one's car prohibitively expensive, then they may not drive. If traffic delays at peak times make driving one's car no better or worse than taking a bus (because of dedicated bus lanes, as on some streets where I live), then they may not drive. If public transportation takes you within easy walking distance of where you need to be, then they may not drive. If public transportation is reasonably safe and clean to use, then they may not drive. If any one of these or other considerations fails, then they'll work hard to maintain autonomy and drive, however little they like it.
Your point is well taken, but I think it just shows that the infrastructure isn't developed enough at some point for people to use it and trust it.
January 16, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I'd like to point out that all forms of public transportation need to work synergistically with one another, in order for the whole to be successful. It doesn't do you any good to take the fast, uncrowded train from the suburbs to the edge of the city, if there's nothing in between that will take you to and from your place of work, your home, your shopping locales, etc.
Rail isn't the end-all, and no one should consider putting it where it won't work better than the alternatives. But its fuel advantage makes it worth considering how best to help its development, at least to the point where it can provide a cushion against price spikes in the oil market for commuters, travelers and freight.
January 16, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually a good point. I live about 40 miles from downtown, yet I can catch a bus almost right in front of my house that will take me to the train station. From there I can take an express train downtown. Total time: about 1 hour. No way I could drive it in that amount of time. Yet if my office was a mile away, I'd need to jam into a crowded bus or walk (OK in good weather, but not so nice on other days). Integration of the local transit system to the train stations would probably induce a lot more people to take it.
January 16, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point is mass transit in the cities. I agree train travel from chicago to NY doesn't make sense, but the east coast is ripe for train travel, because the cities are so close. Also, we need to have an extensive subway system in the major cities, especially LA. Get people out of their cars sitting in traffic and it will improve people's lives and improve the environment.
January 16, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mass transit is a whole other question. But most cities already have commuter trains and such, and the highways are still jammed during rush hour. It's not obvious to me what we're going to do different to get people out of their cars and onto a train.
January 16, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But most cities already have commuter trains"
No, they really don't especially not to the suburbs where most of the people actually live.
January 16, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
New York does. Chicago does. Atlanta does. Boston does. I could go on and on. Some are more extensive than others (generally east coast and midwest cities are better), but with the notable exception of LA, most have rail systems.
Certainly in the cities that have poorer systems they could be upgraded, but my point was that even in cities that have them, enormous numbers of people pass them up and drive. I don't understand why, but if we don't first figure out the answer to that question, we're apt to be throwing large amounts of money at the wrong problem.
January 16, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no shortage of routes between two top 50 U.S. cities (all ~1 million+) that are less than 400 miles.
To name a few:
Seattle-Portland
SF-Sacramento
SF-San Jose
SF-LA-SDG
LA-Riverside-Las Vegas
SDG-Tucson-PHX
Las Vegas-PHX
Houston-San Antonio
San Antonio-Austin
Houston-Austin
Houston-Dallas-Oklahoma City-Tulsa
Houston-New Orleans
St. Louis-Kansas City
St. Louis-Memphis
St. Louis-Chicago
St. Louis-Indianapolis
Chicago-Indianapolis
Chicago-Milwaukee
Chicago-Detroit
Chicago-Cleveland
Milwaukee-Minneapolis
Detroit-Cleveland
Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Louisville-Nashville
Cleveland-Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh-Philadelphia
Nashville-Memphis
Nashville-Birmingham
Memphis-Birmingham
New Orleans-Birmingham
Atlanta-Birmingham
Atlanta-Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami
Tampa-Miami
Tampa-Orlando
Atlanta-Charlotte-Raleigh
Raleigh-VA Beach
Raleigh-Richmond
Richmond-VA Beach
Richmond-D.C.
January 16, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There may be lots of routes, but how many of those have enough demand to justify spending big $$ on a high-speed train? Looking over your list, I don't see more than a few.
Maybe I'm underestimating the demand for those routes, but Milwaukee-Minneapolis? St. Louis-Indianapolis? Raleigh-Richmond? Chicago-Milwaukee? Some of them are so short that it's probably easier to drive.
January 16, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. If that is the case, then most people would drive in Europe, with the many cities that lie within that range of distance. It is easier to drive in this country because the trains suck! If you are serious about fighting climate change and reducing our dependence of foreign (or domestic) oil, then intercity rail wil be a necessary part of it.
January 18, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yglesias responded to this argument in a recent post on his site. You may want to add that to this article. Here's an excerpt:
In other words, the point of the stimulus is that it needs to go into effect now, and while we do need a major overhaul of our transport infrastructure, the amount that we can responsibly move forward with now is limited.
January 16, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oberstar's initial figures would have put $12.5 billion just for shovel-ready transit projects identified by the American Public Transportation Association.
Yesterday's stimulus announcement only had $6 billion for transit capital assistance.
January 16, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The model used to build the economic structure currently collapsing around us is deficient.
That's why the structure is collapsing.
The building metaphor is apt. There was not an earthquake. The building collapsed because the blueprint was wrong; never mind that supportive additions (Glass-Steagall, anyone?) were removed.
Putting that aside: we have a car-centric economy. There are, I realize, other centers; or perhaps Venn diagrams is a better concept. But the fact remains about cars, whatever else may share the center.
We simply cannot build a sustainable economy with huge chunks of our culture attached to such an industry. It's a broken model.
You don't believe that literally huge chunks of our culture are attached to the automobile? Movies out of Hollywood commonly feature car chases; even the recent Indiana Jones movie, taking place mostly in a South American jungle, had a car chase; popular music commonly features the automobile and then there are the music videos; suburbs are *completely* centered around the automobile, and not one single television hour lacks for a car commercial. There is supposed art-house cinema in my NYC neighborhood; and I cannot go to a single movie there without seeing a commercial for an automobile before the previews.
It is a non-sustainable industry, and is best described as "This is us, crapping in our nest."
January 17, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I posted on the discrepancy between Jim Oberstar's (House Transport committee head) initial figures on transit and yesterday's proposal: http://hughbartling.com/blog/?p=302
I am wondering, Elana, if you've been able to get any comment on the transit figures from the Senate? Apparently Sen. Inouye is compiling some draft figures today.
January 16, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone who is at all interested in doing something about climate change and reducing our outrageous contribution to the destruction of our beautiful planet should contact their Senators and Representatives and DEMAND greater funding for mass transit not just to build, but to operate it. Auto emisions are far and away the #1 cause of greenhouse gases in our nation. Without excellent and extensive mass transit systems in every city, we will be unable to do much by way of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. This is imperative.
For many, many years the highway construction contractors have frozen out mass transit in order to gorge themselves at the public trough to the maximum extent. Obviously, they appear to have won the basic skirmish in the stimulus bill but it doesn't have to end up that way.
While some spending on roads makes sense, very little of the stimulus package should be used for roads as long as our mass transit infrastructure is underfunded as it has been. Democrats, including Clinton, have done an exceptionally poor job of assisting our environment, our cities and our poor people in the area of mass transit. That must be corrected if we are serious about climate change and reducing greenhouses gases not to mention energy independence.
January 16, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of complaining, work on your Senators and Congress people to push for more funding for rail systems, etc.
January 16, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am all in favor of massively improving mass transit and rail services, especially in metro areas. But our highway transportation system, like other infrastructure, has been sadly neglected and our economy, like it or not, depends largely on transport. In a practical sense, we need this investment. Certainly we also need more investment in mass transit. But it does not have to, at this point, be an either-or. We need repairs and not doing them is not going to help the environment.
January 16, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maintenance is one thing, but I'd bet a significant amount of money that much, if not most, of the planned highway money is for brand new interchanges, highway expansions and other optional things that contractors push for but are not necessary by any means and which actually take away from maintaining our existing infrastucture.
January 16, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I mentioned here, a quick look at just a couple of cities' transit needs quickly blows past the $10 billion allocated.
January 16, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should delay this bill until 2018, if that's what it takes to make it perfectly acceptable in every conceivable way to every possible constituiency.
January 16, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink